recent tracks:

Of "Liberal" Media

The overtly and disgustingly liberal New York Times headline screams, "Judge Backs Case Seeking End of School Pledge".

David Stout begins the article: "A federal judge in California declared today, in a ruling that virtually guarantees another long and emotional battle in the courts, that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional."

Not once does Stout correctly state the holding in the case, as bloomberg.com does: "Judge Lawrence Karlton in Sacramento, California, today said that a school district's policy requiring the pledge with the phrase 'under God' is unconstitutional."

There is a sharp distinction between the meanings of the phrases "the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional" and "a school district's policy requiring the pledge ... is unconstitutional." (emphasis added)

The "liberal" media distort this issue the way they almost always do in church-state issues, presenting the ruling of the courts (which is completely accurate and in line with the Constitution) as some activist conspiracy to banish religion from the public square. The actual ruling merely prevents the state from indoctrinating children into any sort of theist religion, thereby prejudicing them against atheism.

Remember, any willing child is free to recite the pledge as he or she pleases. The school simply can't force an unwilling child to proclaim his or her belief in a divine steward who guides our nation.

Most people could probably see the logic of this ruling, but many would nevertheless oppose it because American culture generally rejects not just atheism but atheists.

Examples:

1) In February 1964, when the landmark Civil Rights Act was being debated in Congress, the House of Representatives passed a measure by a vote of 137 to 98 that explicitly excluded atheists from protection under the new law that would otherwise abolish employment discrimination. (Eddie Tabasch, Free Inquiry Magazine 2004)

2) Americans are relatively positive about people of other faiths, but they tend to look more negatively at those without faith. Atheists, in particular, are viewed unfavorably by a 54% majority, with people in the South and Midwest taking an especially negative view. (The Pew Research Center 2002, p. 11)

3) At the same time, significant numbers of Americans say they would be reluctant to vote for a presidential candidate ­ even if generally well-qualified ­ if the candidate was a member of a specific faith. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) say they would not vote for a well-qualified Muslim for president, and 15% express concern about voting for a well-qualified evangelical Christian. Far fewer say they would not vote for a Jewish (10%) or Catholic (8%) candidate. But fully half say they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist. (The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life 2003)

4) We didn't ask that question specifically this year, but one question in the poll speaks to it: 72% of our respondents agree that a president should have strong religious beliefs. That would suggest a reluctance to vote for someone who does not. Indeed, in our poll last summer found -- as polls for the past 40-50 years have shown -- that a significant number of people (50%) say that they would not vote for an atheist for president... more than say this about a Muslim or any other religious group. (Luis Lugo and Scott Keeter, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life 2004)

5) People once cited "studies" about low intelligence and criminal propensity to justify bigotry towards blacks. Today, people find "scientific" reasons to be prejudiced towards atheists. (Austin Cline, about.com 2005)

Enough on that for now.

***

Incidentally, some more liberal media. Actually, just look here--this says it all.