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.