SO get this: Advocates of Faith and Freedom, an ultra-theocratic advocacy law firm, is representing a student of an Orange Country School District who claims his first amendment rights were violated by Dr. James Corbett, an AP European History Teacher by “convey[ing] a governmental message that students holding religious beliefs are outsiders and not full members of the community. This hostility towards religion is a violation of the establishment clause.”

Dr. Corbett apparently “spends an extended period of time at the beginning of each class discussing topics that are not only irrelevant to history but also inflammatory and often altogether inappropriate for high school students.”

This student, Chad Farnan, brought in a tape recorder and recorded some of the teacher’s rants, including this:

What part of the country has the highest murder rate? The South. What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South. What part of the country has the highest … church attendance? The South. Oh, wait a minute. You mean there is not a correlation between these things … You know, you go down to Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, all these states that are as red as they could possibly be, as right-wing Republican as you could possibly be. When you first present these people with the economic policies of the Democratic party, they are all Democrats. Virtually all the social programs, they like. They lead the Democratic party on social issues. That’s it. Social issues, can you imagine what they’re saying on Rush Limbaugh now? About, ‘Middle school people in New England giving people birth control pills. My God. What next?’ I love Rush Limbaugh. A fat, pain in the a—liar. And, boy, is he a liar. Unbelievable.”

Sheer comic genius. Give this man the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Seriously. I wish I had one teacher like Dr. Corbett in High School.

No. Let me explain this a little better. This lawsuit has been done before, and this language is the language of the previous attempt, the secularists. This is not original. This is merely more proof of the copycat approach to morality and the legal system by the religious dominionists. It isn’t enough that the school system is still a breeding ground for religious indoctrination, and non-believers and other people who would rather teach their kids at home about religion have been ostracized and having failed previous attempts to bring these lawsuits to the courts, this Fascist Law Firm decides to copy the work of organizations like the ACLU. In these previous cases we, the secular taxpayers, have been found to not have standing. Our only victory was erasing mandatory prayer from school and the occasional Lemon Test success, but Christian proselytizing from the podium is not a phantom. If this brings about the demise of teacher’s personal freedoms of ranting about religion from either way… it is a victory for us. Dr. Corbett’s glorious and hilarious rant is what they ask for when theists demand that we allow “mandatory” prayer back in the school system. They ask for the competition of ideas on religion, and they are going to get the opinions of the occasional intelligent man like James Corbett chiming in…

I hope Chad was offended. I hope many people were offended. Not because I’m a cold-hearted anti-theist spewing my hatred into the nethervoids, not at all; it is because it’s an opportunity to learn, to know what it is like to be unlike an authority, and to question authority. My classes were filled with very anti-secular, anti-atheist rhetoric that would make Jonathan Edwards grimace (whose infamous sermon was also taught in my school with reckless literal abandonment). I’ve heard every horror in history, including the Inquisition, unexpectedly blamed on non-believers. My school hosted Heaven’s Gates and Hell’s Flames! No, if anything, this will give our friend Chad that opportunity to faithfully disagree with his professor in a healthy way… it’s an AP course for goodness sake! I am who I am today because I disagreed with my professors, and for every professor who has proven his worth to me, in being unequivocally wrong and out of order, I applaud you.

Alas, I don’t think it is right. My stance is neutrality, although I definately think there is room to discuss the failings of Christianity in a history class. If they win this lawsuit, which they probably will, consider the fallout in our favor. Where we have failed, they will succeed, and close themselves further out of the public tax supported spectrum. For this, Dr. James Corbett, is an American hero.

And for good measure, (I could listen to this guy all day) let’s see what other bits of wisdom our friend has:

The Boy Scouts can’t have it both ways. If they want to be an exclusive, Christian organization or an exclusive, God-fearing organization, then they can’t receive any more support from the state, and shouldn’t.” In the industrialized world the people least likely to go to church are the Swedes. The people in the industrialized world most likely to go to church are the Americans. America has the highest crime rate of all industrialized nations, and Sweden has the lowest. The next time somebody tells you religion is connected with morality, you might want to ask them about that.

Well, we know abstinence doesn’t work. And we know one other thing, and that is, once people become sexually active, they often don’t stop for, like, 40 or 50 years. I mean, generally, when you start you don’t, like, have a conversion and try to become re-virginized, you know. It’s not going to happen.

Sound.

An appeals court has overturned Eric Volz’s conviction. Maybe the system does work in the end. Although not yet free, I am happy for him and his family, and I hope he doesn’t forget the many people who have pulling for him and writing their senators. I don’t know the whole story, but I imagine our State Department put pressure on the Nicaraguan courts.

The pledge of allegiance asks for a personal affirmation of faith from each child every morning in the public school system. If this were not such a big deal, than the removal of Under God would not be a big deal. The reason the constitutionality is questionable is most noticeable in an example a priori.

Christians: Each morning your child is mandated to attend a public school system, in which your money contributes. Each morning your child must state a personal affirmation to the republic, the flag, and a lack of faith.Each morning the child affirms:

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation without God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

Do you have a problem with this? Using the excuse of De Minimis, we have only changed one word. It is just a minor affirmation of non-faith. The courts, using the argument that the affirmation is “too short” to worry about, is a fallacy. Everyone in this country would worry about that change. Rightfully so. Why?
Because you know the government should not be dictating affirmations of faith. Read that again. YOU know the government should not be dictating affirmations of faith. Your children should not be pledging to a Nation Under God just as much as other parent’s children should not be pledging to a Nation Without God. This is an argument for neutrality.

Notice that by including one God, not gods, not no gods, you have effectively chosen and singled out an affirmation to one god. You have favored one specific form of religion, monotheism, over two other choices, atheism, and polytheism.

As a good rule to follow, imagine that the government was neutral to the three main forms of belief. Neutrality towards Atheism, Monotheism, and Polytheism. Why would anyone complain about this? Is it unfair to one group specifically? Is their a religious argument that can be made to not support this? How many people are affected.
15% of the population to be more exact, or 7.2 million children who fall under a non-monotheism umbrella. It is insurmountably clear that the intention of the founding fathers was to never exclude citizens from this country based on religious or non-religious affiliation.

The arguments for the pledge of allegiance to remain intact has come in a variety of forms. The most notable and most prevalent as discussed opinions and friend of court briefs. The government brief read as:

“What it really means is, I pledge allegiance to one nation, founded by individuals whose belief in God gave rise to the governmental institutions and political order they adopted, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Is this even a legitimate court decision? If the country thought that is what it said, we wouldn’t have the responses. I also doubt that the people most appalled by the “attack” on the pledge believe that to be the case. The problem also comes from the abuse of the “Under God” portion of the pledge. It has been used against non-believers and polytheist already.

* Christians disrupt Hindu Prayer to open Congress. Many were quoted as saying “This is one nation Under God, not one nation of many gods.”

* When asked “Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?”, future president George H. Bush famously replied “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

* Chuck Norris in a column for WorldNetDaily noted that if he were president he would Tattoo an American flag with the words, “In God we trust,” on the forehead of every atheist.

From a Christian perspective, is not the taking of the Lord’s name in vain a sin? How much in vain in the claim to be one Nation Under God? If the court is correct in it’s interpretation, there is no argument to be had that this isn’t simply uttered in vain, since the meaning is apparently not what it clearly says…

Secularists are not trying to destroy religion. We are trying to maintain a neutral battlefield of ideas. Mixing a pledge of allegiance with affirmation of faith is saying that a person who doubts the existence of god, or believes in more than one god is not loyal to this nation. If the pledge is an act of patriotism, what does it mean to include an affirmation of faith? If the affirmation of faith is meant as something else entirely, does that not reduce the value of the statement to faiths like Judaism and Christianity, who hold that they will not take the Lord’s name in vain?
The attempt to clarify the meaning of Under God or dismiss it under the De Minimis approach is the purest form of judicial activism. Mixing patriotism with an affirmation of true faith in one God in unconstitutional and ultimately oppressive. The correct ruling will ultimately dismiss the phrase Under God permanently from the pledge of allegiance, and the rational and common sense sides of America should embrace that decision.