FOX News’ Dana Perino: If Atheists Don’t Like the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘They Don’t Have to Live Here’

Following the oral arguments in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding the Pledge of Allegiance case, FOX News’ “The Five” reacted to the arguments made by atheist lawyer David Niose.

Notably, Dana Perino (former White House Press Secretary for George W. Bush) argued that this was already a settled issue because the Senate and the House had already passed resolutions to keep “Under God” in the Pledge. In other words, a bunch of Christians had already agreed that we should pay homage to God… so how dare these atheists argue against it?!

(Of course, the atheist argument here wasn’t that “Under God” was government promotion of Christianity, but rather, that saying the Pledge made atheist students look like second-class citizens, unpatriotic and not properly deferential to God. But, you know, facts… who needs them?)

Then, Perino made an even more ignorant statement:

… I think that our representatives have spoken over and over again [in support of the Pledge], and that, if these people really don’t like it, they don’t have to live here.

Which I guess is a fine argument to make… until someone uses it against Republicans who are against gay marriage, in which case Perino would probably flip out.

And that wasn’t the end of the idiotic statements.

Panelist Eric Bolling then brought up the idea that atheists would then want to take “In God We Trust” off our money — something Niose specifically responded to during his oral argument, remarking that it was a separate issue and one that could be argued was purely ceremonial, unlike the Pledge.

Panelist Greg Gutfeld then argued that atheists should want to say the Pledge because it was a way to thank our country for “giving us the freedom to be an atheist.” Right… we can thank God for letting us be atheists… that makes sense.

Next up: Panelist Kimberly Guilfoyle. I’ll toss it to NewsHounds since their reaction is so perfect:

She shouted that she found it “offensive that a few people, these children are pawns for their parents [like kids who accompany their parents who scream in front of abortion clinics?] political statements and beliefs to try and force it on everybody else [like the religious right trying to bring back school prayer?] and inflict their beliefs [like abortion restrictions and denial of gay rights] systems.” She described these atheists as “incredibly selfish, small minded, and I don’t think the court should cater to them because there is no good reason to do so.” [so atheists don't have a right to file suit in an American court?]

So this is what you get from FOX News: A group of people who have no idea what this case is even about, arguing that atheists are crazy for even arguing about this issue when the majority is perfectly fine with it. Because that’s how the law works.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • JWH

    I find Fox News panels inspirational and balanced. Fox News ensures that the views of the right, the far right, and the extreme right are always represented.

    • Michael David Barber Moghul

      If by “balance” you are referring to the utter abdication of fact, reason, logic, and common sense, then yes.

      • DeviousSoybeans

        Whoosh…

      • JWH

        Michael, if you don’t understand that Fox News is completely balanced, well, you’re clearly just not very good at thinking for yourself.

        Why, just the other day, a Fox panel included all of the relevant viewpoints after airing a story about how (again) our president had messed up:

        One panelist said that President Obama is a failure because he is out of touch with the ordinary American.
        A second panelist said President Obama is a failure because he is completely incompetent.
        A third panelist opined that President Obama is a failure because he is liberal.
        A fourth panelist pointed out that President Obama is a failure because he hates America.

        See! All points of view, equally represented. What more do you want???

        • islandbrewer

          Wait, no one said he was a failure because he’s not legally an American and therefore not actually our president?

          FOX and its stupid brainwashed liberal bias!

          • JWH

            My goodness, you’re right! How could I have been so blind!!??

      • Spuddie

        Poe’s Law, Mikey.

    • katiehippie

      Quote of the day!

  • C Peterson

    If you don’t believe in the First Amendment, you don’t have to live here…

    • the moother

      C P is back!!!

      What she meant to say is that she prefers to have indoctrinated kids than kids with brains that think for themselves… That’s what they need for a future generation of Fuax Snooze viewers…

    • Michael David Barber Moghul

      The First Amendment doesn’t give one carte blanche to say enything one wants, to whit, the Patriot Act. You are as smart as the buffoons on Fox.

      • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

        He wasn’t talking about the Free Speech part of the First Amendment. He was talking about the Religion part of it. Why did you need that spelled out for you?

        • Michael David Barber Moghul

          The same principle applies to any part of the Constitution. Why do you need that spelled out for you?

          • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

            Yes, it does. It does NOT give Christians the right to use the government to promote their religion, nor does it give them the right to make atheists feel like second-class citizens due to a divisive phrase like “under God” in a Pledge that all children are pressured (though not strictly forced) into reciting.

            Again, what are you not understanding?

            • Michael David Barber Moghul

              Perhaps we are at cross points here. My point is that the freedoms guaranteed under the US Constitution are limited as interpreted by the SCOTUS. No part of the Constitution is absolute.

              • the moother

                You don’t understand the constitution. It does not guarantee your rights but rather defines the limits of government.

                • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

                  Exactly. In fact, the main objection to the Bill of Rights is that it might be construed as limiting the number of rights citizens had. That’s why the Ninth Amendment was included. We never hear that one mentioned because it clearly states that you have rights up to the point at which you are limited by some Constitutional provision or the rights of other citizens.

                • the moother

                  It’s not like you need to be a genius to understand this of course… Maybe if these idiots actually read the constitution they will see that it says the government may not and not everyone may.

              • Jeff

                I will have to agree with you there. Rendition might be one example. Right to Assembly and Association is strictly controlled. So, yes, I agree that no right in the Constitution is “absolute”. However, you might have taken a moment to clarify the point you were trying to make.

                • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

                  Only because your rights do not entitle you to trample on the rights of others. Yelling fire in a crowded theater poses a very real threat to the other people in the theater. As a panic is the likely result, that act is illegal. The logic for the exceptions to these rights are simple and obvious.

      • ShoeUnited

        Actually, it does. Further amendments, laws, and Supreme Court cases clarify little things like shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Maybe you should choose your words and thoughts more carefully.

      • Fentwin

        “enything”

        hehehe

        • UWIR

          And “to whit”.

      • kaydenpat

        ??? What are Americans prohibited from saying based on the First Amendment?

        • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

          Libel. Slander. Verbal threats.

    • H

      I’m not a US citizen, but from what i know, The first amendment says:No religion should be given a special privilege by the law, or the right to mock those who don’t follow that religion.

      • C Peterson

        The First Amendment doesn’t have anything to say about mocking religion in the parts that actually discuss religion, although it protects the right to mock in the section about free speech.

        • Jeff

          You may need to remember that other countries do ban “mocking” religion, so I can see where the question is coming from. Aren’t they trying to change the law in Ireland right now for that very reason?

        • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

          I can think of no religion that does not in some way or another mock the beliefs of others. The liberal Christians are more sly about it but they mock no less than the fundamentalists do. I have heard it from Jews and Christians in services since I was old enough to understand what was being said.

          • C Peterson

            I think there may be some exceptions, especially among sects of eastern religions. But as a rule, you are certainly correct. If your belief system has built into it the idea that the Universe, or some god, has defined it as not just right, but exclusively so (and this describes most religions), extreme disrespect for other beliefs is bound to follow.

      • ShoeUnited

        Since you’re not native, I’ll help you a bit. In my view, anybody who isn’t native to a language or land gets a mulligan on opinions until enlightened.

        The Establishment Clause of which we’re talking about here is that Congress (and later clarified by case law, SCOTUS decisions, and letters from Jefferson to mean all government) cannot pass any laws or show preferential treatment for any one or groups of religions, or against any one or groups of religions. Creating a (as Jefferson put it) “Wall of Separation between Church and State”. What this breaks down to is that the government (in order to provide equal respect to any and all parties of any variation or lack of religious conviction) may not endorse or decry any single religion.

        But, that doesn’t stop any individual from doing so. I can donate to Catholic charities tomorrow if I wish. I can call Baptists a bunch of floppy shoe wearing logocites if the mood struck me (and if that actually made any sense). I’m not passing laws, giving money, volunteering, making fun of any religion or non-religion as a government entity. I’m an individual. As such, I have the freedom to express as I see fit. And thus the Establishment Clause doesn’t apply to my actions, UNLESS I am working within a government body in order to treat any (non)religion(s) with any preference.

        • Fred Bloggs

          So, what H said, then?

      • Randay

        To add to ShoeUnited’s explanation, there is also prohibition of what is known as “prior restraint”. That means that the government cannot decide to prohibit speech or writing before they are done, in other words prior censorship is not allowed.

        Christopher Hitchens made about the best defense of free speech in a debate in Canada. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olefVguutfo

  • Tainda

    I don’t want to live here but that’s just me.

    My dad and I had an interesting argument the other day about Faux news. They were doing a piece regarding that Twitter study that Christians are happier than atheists. 10 minutes or so on how happy Christians are and then at the end they said something like “atheists say the study does not take into account that different people judge happiness differently” My dad said “See, they showed both sides” I just rolled my eyes.

    • gander

      You should be able to just smack him on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and say, “Bad dad!”

      • Tainda

        Haha that would go over like a load of bricks. I don’t know how I was born into that family

    • Michael David Barber Moghul

      Our family, years ago, made a pact never to speak of religion, politics, or gossip when we got together. This makes for some very pleasant get togethers.

      • Tainda

        We have never said it out loud but we try to do that because my family is very conservative politically. I’m just glad they aren’t TOO religious. My brother and I get into pretty loud arguments about once a year regarding politics though

      • guest

        so years ago your family finally found common sense? Congratulations. Now all you need to do is learn how to not be so snarky with your comments.

      • ShoeUnited

        I can’t imagine how that’d be too terribly interesting. And not just a sterile “Stepford Wives” scenario. Anything going on in the world that isn’t strictly facts will be filled with any combination of religion, politics, and (especially!) gossip.

        “How’s the weather? 68 degrees.”

        “This turkey dinner is cooked. Thank you.”

        —–90 minutes of silence—-

        “So it’s 63 degrees now. Is that shirt purple?”
        “No, it’s mauve.”
        “I see.”

        • Conuly

          You can discuss books, movies, TV shows, fashion, funny anecdotes that happened and that aren’t gossip, funny anecdotes that haven’t happened but don’t name any names, your plans for the future, the children, family history, the latest natural disaster, the card or board game you are currently playing, the most recent scientific discovery you can think of, the mating habits of garden slugs, hilarious spelling and punctuation mistakes of the world, your most recent craft project, home repair, the best train to take to get to JFK from the Bronx (or whether you should suck it up and take car service)… there are lots of interesting things to discuss! Limiting yourself to subjects which cause fights shows a severe paucity of imagination.

      • kaydenpat

        Not discussing gossip is going a little too far. It’s so juicy.

  • Art_Vandelay

    I can’t with these people. I just can’t.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Well, this is clearly the atheists fault. They claim that ‘under God’ violates there first amendment rights, but they have not read the constitution fully. Here is the 1st amendment in its entirety:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances*.

    * Limited time offer, some exclusions apply, not valid in 50 states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, not applicable to minorities, or minority viewpoints.

    Atheist always miss the fine print.

    • DKeane123

      I almost never read the footnotes, I really need to be more thorough.

    • Michael David Barber Moghul

      More to the point is the total lack of comprehending SCOTUS rulings post-enactment of the Constitution.

      • Nox

        While there have been rulings that one could argue did establish religion to a degree, there has never been any SCOTUS ruling that overturned the establishment clause.

        What are you trying to say here?

    • GoingBig

      “not valid in 50 states”
      With the 14th amendment(1865), the 1st amendment and the BIll of Rights were appled to all states

  • iamfantastikate

    Wow, it’s almost like the people on Fox News are idiots. Who would have guessed?

    • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

      There are people on Fox News?!! That’s news to me. Last time I checked they had a cast of several bobble-heads, a crying doll named Glenn Beck, and a soulless former-governor-of-Alaska Reptilian who had clearly suffered from some sort of brain damage.

      • busterggi

        You can’t damage a brain that isn’t there.

      • iamfantastikate

        >a crying doll named Glenn Beck

        I love you.

  • Bitter Lizard

    Anyone who makes the “you don’t have to live here” argument is an imbecile because you could just as easily say the same thing to anyone who takes issue with literally anything in this country. Don’t like our president? Guess what? You don’t have to live here. Don’t like immigrants? Guess what? Don’t like Arby’s?

    In the video, they accuse atheists of trying to force their beliefs on them simply because atheists don’t want theistic beliefs legislated by the state. Christians believe they are being persecuted when their ability to muscle in on others is challenged, which is a sort of totalitarian mental disorder that, face it, is typical of most of them.

    We know that they feel persecuted by the existence of atheists, regardless of anything atheists might say or do, as is demonstrated by their objection to even the most innocuous affirmations of nonbelief. Based on what we see on the candid anonymity of the Internet, it’s a pretty safe bet that there are probably more Christians who like the idea of killing atheists than there are atheists in this country. The level of derangement required for Christians to see their hegemonic privilege as the state of a put-upon people should give pause to anyone who tries to assert that these are perfectly harmless and reasonable people who just happen to have a different point of view.

    In the video, they say they’re “sick of us”. I’m sick of them. They’re just sick.

    • Tainda

      Totally with you. I am SO sick of them.

      • Bitter Lizard

        An oppressive majority with delusions of persecution from a despised minority. What could go wrong?

        • Luke Bailey

          lol Oh, not much… >_>

        • viaten

          Or maybe an oppressive majority with realizations they might be on their way to becoming a minority.

          • closetatheist

            we can only hope….

        • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

          it’s common for people who know they are standing on shaky ground to attack their critics. it’s why so many theists are so threatened by atheists. They know full well that they can’t defend their own beliefs so their only option is to silence the questions for which they have no answers.

          • Christopher Howard

            Beckel didn’t even know that “under God” was tacked onto the pledge in the 50s? Good thing we have informed people being paid big bucks to debate these issues.

      • viaten

        I’m sick of it too, but a part of me wants to see or at least hear about them doing it more and more. It seems it might be a sign their on the ropes and their “talk” is all they got left and they keep doing it until it doesn’t sell anymore and they all have to “evolve” their points of view, at least that’s what I’m hoping.

    • Jeff Simons

      Wait, Arbys? pretty sure there’s some of those in other countries too. :P

    • busterggi

      Three cheers for Arby-cue sauce!

    • Jenna Ali

      GIVE ME CURLY FRIES OR GIVE ME DEATH.

      • iamfantastikate

        Or “super size” it to get both!

    • ShoeUnited

      I’ve always said if they don’t think people like me should live here, just give me the money for me to move elsewhere. My bags are always packed, but nobody wants to get rid of me.

      • Tom

        Hey, if you can’t earn enough money here to move by yourself, you don’t have to … oh, wait.

    • Guest

      Outrageous! Who doesn’t like Arby’s?!?

      • Matt

        I’m so hungry, I could eat at Arby’s!

        *mumbles and gasps of concern*

    • Randay

      I have my own revision of the pledge, though I don’t understand why there has to be a pledge in the first place. “I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to the Republic, one nation under law, indivisible, with liberty, justice, equality, and fraternity for all.” Francis Bellamy wanted to include “equality and fraternity” but was dissuaded by school superintendents who opposed equality for women and Afro-Americans.

      As to dollars, for truth in advertizing the slogan should be “In Gold We Trust”.

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      If Dana Perrino doesn’t like living in a country where people are free to practice or not practice any religion of their choice, she is welcome to go live in one where no such rights exist. Fixed. (It’s a ridiculous proposition of course, and I only say that to point out the absurdity of her argument.)

  • Pluto Animus

    Republicans are stupid fascists.
    Any questions?

    • brianmacker

      You forgot the word “some”. These people piss me off but so do plenty of stupid atheists. In fact, people like you.

      • proy8

        Stupid atheists? What have these so called stupid atheists done?

        • brianmacker

          One example are stupid atheists called Marxists. Perhaps you should read up on their history and all the violent revolutions they fomented, and all the purges they did afterward.

          • proy8

            First off, not all atheists are Marxists. Don’t assume such. BTW, get the stick out of your ass.

            • brianmacker

              No shit Sherlock. I’m an atheist.

  • Michael David Barber Moghul

    Talking heads with no brains. Perfect American genre. Not one of them has a law degree much less practice in Constitutional Law. I’m so glad that Mr. Murdoch hires the best and brightest.

    • Croquet_Player

      Kimberly Guilfoyle has a law degree. Not that she’s putting it to any use…

      • Spuddie

        They give them out like candy these days. Its a boon for the student loan industry.

  • David McNerney

    Don’t like paying taxes to a King 3,500 miles away in London?

    Then move – you “Don’t Have to Live Here.”

  • gander

    I keep having to repeat myself. “One nation, under God” is an oxymoron. The phrase itself divides.
    http://realitybyalex.blogspot.com/2013/09/one-nation-under-god.html

  • https://agoldstardad.wordpress.com/ Fozzy

    And more proof that the Fox talking head shows are just the latest version of the PTL club.

  • Makoto

    My father says the same – one reason I have not revealed my atheism to him.

  • R. Smith

    Did you see how quickly they dismissed the question when asked, “when was the under god part put in the pledge?

    • Michael David Barber Moghul

      Yeah, that whole McCarthy thing really puts a damper on their fascism.

      • Brian Westley

        It would just make it too obvious.

    • Bitter Lizard

      I noticed that, too. The guy started to say it but quickly interrupted himself with “it doesn’t matter”. It was like the producer was screaming in his ear to change the subject. God forbid they let their viewers know the historical origin of what they’re talking about.

      • PSG

        And what’s amazing is that so many adamant online supporters of the Pledge in current form don’t even know the history of it…I’ve read too many times, that it has “always been this way!”..but at least that affords me the opportunity to pull up that ever-so-helpful site breaking down the changes and dates thereof.

        I understand that 20 years ago, someone could argue, well, never knew that. It’s not something I was taught in school, either (much more than 20 years ago.) But now? Arguing about it on the Internet?

      • guest

        Their viewers don’t care about facts or they wouldn’t be watching this drivvle. As long as the opinions coming out of the magic talking box match their own they will be satisfied.

    • busdriver

      Another was surprised that it hadn’t been there the whole time.

  • Croquet_Player

    Wow, that Kimberly Guilfoyle is a vulgar piece of work, isn’t she? She doesn’t think (atheists) should be “catered to”? Don’t worry Ms. Guilfoyle, there’s no danger of that. We just don’t want to live in your theocratic fantasy world.

  • Chris LeDoux

    I swear I am just going to start throwing other God’s names in during the Pledge of Allegiance. One Nation Under Osiris, Thor, Zeus, Athena, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Loki, Odin, Mars, Jupiter, etc (If you think that I have not forgotten about using Allah name you are crazy)… I think you get my point and I am going to be loud about it when it gets to that point in the pledge.

    • AxeGrrl

      Love this idea :) The possibilities are endless………’one nation under Elvis’……..’one nation under Queen Latifah’……

      • Chris LeDoux

        My favorite as an atheist. One Nation under NOTHING!

      • http://boldquestions.wordpress.com/ Ubi Dubium

        I’ve always preferred “…one nation under Canada…”

  • Par4dcourse

    ‘Murica’

  • JA

    If the people of Fox News don’t like Obamacare, they don’t have to live here. They can go to some other country that–oh wait, every other country on Earth has universal healthcare.

    • Jim Jones

      There’s Afghanistan. It’s a lovely country now the US has spent $billions fixing it.

    • kaydenpat

      I’d love to see someone actually say that to Ms. Perino and see her response.

    • Nancy Shrew

      I guess they could go to Somalia.

  • Jane Williams

    Treaty of Tripoli

    Under President John Adams, the U.S. Senate ratified it unanimously on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, took effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,

    Those 2 words do not belong in the pledge.

    • WoodwindsRock

      Oh, but it’s a general God in “Under God”, not the Christian God! Of course, except for when it’s convenient for them that it means the Christian God, which would be every time outside of this argument. (For example: “This is ONE NATION UNDER GOD, if you aren’t a Christian leave this country!”)

  • VCP

    Native Americans to everyone else: “You don’t have to live here.”

    • M.S.

      Unfortunately I think they were on the receiving end of that message….

      • keddaw

        They also never got the “here” part.

  • ksskidude

    I am so sick and tired that they never have an atheist or two atheists on the panel when discussing this or these issues. The people at Fox are a bunch of cowards and they know it!

    • SeekerLancer

      Because their “panels” are echo chambers. They’re not meant for debate, they’re meant to enforce their opinions without challenge.

    • Tainda

      What would the point be? They would just talk (scream) over the atheists. They make my head explode

    • brianmacker

      Don’t watch them so I have nothing to be sick about. Same shit goes on in church. This is an echo chamber and guess what most irrational ideologies have them. This is not something restricted to theists or people on the right, nor do all theists and all people on the right act like this. i’m sick of this behavior on the left and with atheists too. At least this is better behavior than the moron who show up at other peoples meetings and disrupt by throwing blood, pies, glitter, etc., and shouting down the speakers.

  • jambolyajones

    The Fox gang also don’t seem to understand the meaning of the Pledge. It is a public commitment of allegiance to the United States. Since there IS freedom to not believe in gods in America, there should not be a commitment to a god in the national pledge. Most atheists just want to be able to publically express their patriotism along with their fellow citizens without having to make a statement of belief in a supernatural deity.

  • ksskidude

    This is what I sent to Dana,

    Really Dana? Are you really that dense? I would think that someone of your starure would have to be somewhat intelligent to hold your position. Oh wait, you work for FOX. Scratch that! So let’s put on your big girl thinking hat for one minute and ponder why we are against this. It was NOT origianlly in the Pledge, it was added in 1954 after the Communistic scare. When you say “Under God” you alleinate those of us who do not believe that, and it tells others that we are not as Patriotic as them, when in fact we are more so. We do things for the right reasons, not because we want to garner favor in the so called afterlife.
    Our founding fathers would be rolling ober in the graves if they knew that “Under God” is part of our national pledge. Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli clearly states that America was not founded under the chrsitian religion. They did not want god or religion in the public domain in any capacity. it is menat to stay in your church and in your home. Why is this hard for you to understand? We are not taking away your right to believe or to pray. We are asking you not to force your beleiefs down our throats. Imagine if a Muslim President, and no its not Obama, but if a Muslim wanted to change the words to “One nation Under Allah,” It still means god. But you christains would go crazy and freak out, lose your minds. It would be comical as to what lengths you would go to prevent it or have it removed. So why can’t you get it? Oh wait, its because you’re and idot and you work for FAUX NEWS!

    • UWIR

      I doubt Dana cares at all what you or anyone who disagrees with her. But running your writing through a spell checker wouldn’t hurt.

    • kaydenpat

      Did she respond?

  • JasmynMoon

    If they don’t like a pluralistic country, they can leave.

  • PSG

    In Glob we trust.

  • htomc42

    So she’s outraged at atheists wanting to force not having the pledge be a prayer, but its perfectly ok to force religious language and ideas on nonbelievers. This is on par with those who say that anything that isn’t explicitly religious is somehow broadcasting anti-religion. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing.

    • UWIR

      It’s really disgusting how atheists keep forcing their religion on other people by insisting that they be allowed to not participate in prayer. It’s almost as bad as how women keep forcing their sexuality on me by insisting that I not have sex with them. If a woman doesn’t want to have sex with me, why should I have to cater to her selfishness? What makes her so special? Why does she get to inflict her small-mindedness on others? I find it offensive. It’s like there are people out there who think the universe shouldn’t revolve around me. I just don’t get it.

  • Marisa Totten

    I’m so tired of the “don’t like it leave” argument. This isn’t your house, folks, it’s OUR country.

    • islandbrewer

      .. and if Dana Perino doesn’t like it, she can leave!

  • ORAXX

    It’s easy to see why Dubya hired Perino. Too many Christians expect to occupy a preferred place in American society and have their ideas deferred to.

  • http://danieltuttle.com/ Daniel

    Not enough time has passed from having to listen to her as Bush’s press secretary.

  • http://nomadwarriormonk.blogspot.com/ Cyrus Palmer

    I’m out. Going to Canada. Fuck this place.

  • closetatheist

    Remember in elementary school when you and your one friend would have the dodge ball during recess and a large group of other kids would demand it from you? You would say, “no, Its our turn right now!” But the asshole kids would laugh, push you over, and yell “MAJORITY RULES!” while they scampered away with your dodge ball….I’m pretty sure Christians think that’s how democracy and our government works.

    • Nancy Shrew

      They were those kids.

      • Leigha7

        I think it’s more likely they were the kids who got pushed, and now they’re getting “their turn.”

        • Nancy Shrew

          Oh, there are definitely some of those, too.

  • Edmond

    AAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!! These people!
    Our argument: Including God in the pledge makes atheists into stigmatized outsiders who are perceived as unpatriotic.
    Their reply: Well then just move out of our wonderful country that you hate so much!
    WHAT DID I JUST SAY??? Morons.

  • Felicia Crabb

    I just stick w/ the argument that it was not only not part of the original pledge, but Francis Bellamy the author intentionally left out any such wording from the pledge. These types are always about things being traditional so why not say the pledge that existed from 1892-1954 instead of the anti-commie “new” version.
    I was in 5th grade in 1986 when I decided I did not want to do the pledge. The only way this was influenced by my parents was the encouragement of being an independent thinker. I was raised by a pentecostal mom who encouraged us to seek out and learn about all the ideas out there and make our own minds up.
    My 5th grade teacher compromised w/ me, I had to stand w/ hand on heart but did not have to recite.
    No matter the words used though Im against ritualistic reciting of the pledge or any other ritualistic cult like behavior. Teach the pledge and make it part of your at home routine is you’d like. I want my tax dollars to go toward teaching kids how to think not what to think.

    • brianmacker

      Not sure why they are so enamored by an oath written by a socialist in the first place. Funny thing is that many modern socialists are completely ignorant of just how nationalistic socialists have been, even to the point of stupidly arguing that Hitler and Mussolini were not a true socialists because of his nationalism.

      As a young child I used to get really upset at the irrationality of the religious. Now that I’m older my disappointment is even wider. The universities are full of irrationalists also. Heck, even in the sciences this is rampant. People in general are piss poor thinkers even trained scientists and philosophers.

      There are different levels of irrationality working and these Fox talking heads are particualrly moronic, but of about the same importance as the moronic feminists on “The View”.

  • Emmy

    There are no words, just a bunch of hateful comments from ppl that come across thinking they are superior. I’m just in shock after watching this.

  • Cat lover

    Honestly, I never argue with religious people, they are crazy. You can’t get them to speak sense at all.

  • smrnda

    I started refusing to say the pledge on my own when I was young, both because of the god bit and because the idea of a room full of kids, many of whom don’t know the meaning of the word ‘allegiance’ stating their allegiance to a country when they haven’t even been taught the basics of how the government even works just seemed like a bad idea, a total disregard for what ‘pledge’ is supposed to be; a free statement from a fully informed person to agree to something.

  • smrnda

    Another issue is that ‘under god’ is false. We are a nation under a constitution which defines 3 branches of federal government subject to checks and balances and which specifies a bill of rights. God is not part of the government.

  • Tobias2772

    I think “if you don’t like the way we are doing things, you don’t have to live here”, is exactly what King George said to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, et al right before the Revolutionary War. Bunch of incredibly selfish, small minded little punks !

  • Mick

    “Land of the free and the home of the brave.”

    Just sing it – You don’t have to mean it.

  • Carpinions

    It would seem to me that if DP doesn’t like atheists asserting Constitutional precedent legally and rightly, then perhaps she is the one that should move.

  • Larry Dillon

    Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:

    “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

    “…Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”-John Adams

    From Jefferson’s biography:

    “…an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ…the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”

    From Thomas Jefferson’s Bible:

    “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

    • Leigha7

      “and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe”

      I didn’t realize the idea of manifest destiny was that old. In school, it was taught as beginning around the mid-1800s, after the Industrial Revolution.

  • Luke Bailey

    Wow. What utter crock.

  • Halou

    Oh, by all means, send the unwanted millions to places like Europe. But charge all of the costs of it to Dana Perino’s bank account.

  • Without Malice

    Ah, the old “if those damn godless heathens don’t like living under the iron boot of Christian fundamentalism they can just go somewhere else” argument. The woman’s almost as smart as her old boss.

  • Lori F

    I always wondered why anyone younger than 13 should recite the pledge. Not to mention why pledge allegiance to a flag of a country instead of a country itself seems a bit off to me.
    If I were to rewrite the pledge it would read – ‘I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible; with liberty and justice for all.
    Now wasn’t that easy?

    • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

      It is, and that’s just three words away from the original, minus “the flag of” which I agree makes little sense.

      • Conuly

        Actually, the original ran “I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic….”

        Hysterical hatemongers pushed through a change on the grounds that foreign children might secretly be pledging to some other flag instead….

        • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Ah, my bad. That makes sense-Francis Bellamy, writer of the Pledge, wasn’t too keen on foreign immigrants himself, too.

    • Itarion

      “I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, the Republic which stands one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Because it is the flag that is the “it” in “for which it stands”. But I do like it more than the original, and the current, which is not the same as the original.

    • Leigha7

      It’s not the age that bothers me, but the complete lack of context. I was taught the pledge in kindergarten, and no matter how smart a five year old is, they’re unlikely to understand what the pledge means without being taught.

      When was I taught what the pledge actually meant? Uh…well…never. It was just words I memorized at 5 and said every weekday during the school year until I was almost 18 (sure, I understood it better by then, but that’s not the point).

      And yes, pledging to a flag is pretty weird.

  • Ryan

    Faux news lives off of outrage. They report on things that rile people up and when they do they do it well. They get people like you and I outraged at what they said and their base outraged at those dirty atheists. The best thing to do it not talk about faux news, let them fade to oblivion. There isn’t anyone talking about the crazy person shouting that “it’s the end of the world” in the park because he/she’s irrelevant, let us do the same for faux news.

  • LinkReincarnate

    I dont want to live here think they will pay for me to expatriate to finland?

  • Itarion

    “Well, it was added, but that really doesn’t matter.”

    BuhWHAT?!

    Also, this little nugget. “I’m telling you that I find it offensive that a few people, these children, are pawns for their parents political statements and beliefs to try and enforce it on everyone else and inflict their belief system. It’s incredibly selfish, it’s small minded, and I don’t think the courts should cater to them. There is no good reason to do so.” Three true words in that. Three. “…I don’t think…” Can she REALLY not hear the irony?

    Edit: thanks to UWIR for a minor correction.

    • UWIR

      It’s “pawns”, not “pawned”. In yet another display of breath-taking hypocrisy, conservatives are imposing their beliefs on children, making the children pawns in their culture war… and then accusing us of imposing our beliefs and making children pawns when we object.

  • http://tklist.net/ TKList

    The Pledge of Allegiance is nationalistic propaganda with a twist of religious indoctrination.

  • Kent Mason

    I truly hate those people.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    You have to admit that Fox knows exactly how to pander to their audience. Rupert Murdoch is a genius. An evil genius perhaps, but a genius nonetheless. He puts on some of the sleaziest programming on broadcast television and then his employees in the news division denounce those programs giving them free publicity. It’s a win-win. Genius.

  • Donovan W Baker

    They are either quote-mined the footage of the story when they get it, naive beyond understanding, narrow minded to the point where they have no open mind, or just dishonest. In any case, FOX News can be watched like a parody skit on Comedy Central.

  • Kellen Rootah

    And if the courts decide that “under god” SHOULD be stricken from the pledge, then DANA PERRINO will have the option of NOT LIVING HERE, and instead moving to a fascist religiously benighted country where she’ll be”allowed” to say “under Allah” in a pledge of allegiance to THAT country. And she’ll have herself to thank.

  • Rocky Carr

    In a country that puts such an emphasis on freedom and individual liberty, why have a “pledge of allegiance” at all? It makes no sense.

  • gmgauthier

    Libertarians have been the brunt of this empty-headed bromide for decades. Unfortunate to see yet another minority opinion is receiving the same treatment now.

  • Dave The Sandman

    I can understand the problem with the god reference in the pledge entirely – its a stupid add on put there as a pathetic bird flip to the scary reds under the bed.

    However

    Its the line that follows it that I have bigger issues with. “With liberty and justice for all.”

    Are you f@cking having a laugh?

    Im standing, or sitting down, next to Will Phillips on that line.

  • Alan

    Thank God I don’t live in the USA. My head of state is also head of the Church, but 35% of the population here are enlightened by the knowledge that there is no God. Alan from England.

  • labman57

    Furthermore, if Native Americans don’t want to be continually immersed in Christian dogma and mores, then they should go back where they came from.

  • Justin

    That’s the mainstream media for you. It doesn’t matter whether they are ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. Their all idiots.

    • proy8

      Your argument would hold up alot better if you could probably insult those idiots. It’s “they’re all idiots.”

  • Blargette

    Frankly, I am sick of both sides and all people who tell others they have no right to voice their opinion or that their “side” lost so that means one must shut up. People think Christians are rude with the preaching? Try to live as a Christian and hold Christian oriented opinions in a decidedly non Christian – Christian hating town, world… internet.

    If Athiests don’t want to say the pledge, don’t. Obama the Christian dumped “Under God” from his inauguration pledge. Why not you?

  • MarkTemporis

    I ended the pledge this way long before the Simpsons became a TV show.

    http://bartsblackboard.com/the-pledge-of-allegiance-does-not-end-with-hail-satan/season-5/287/


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X