Non-Believer Nation

By DeusExMacintosh

Fox host says US athiests "don't have to live here"

Freedom of belief doesn’t appear to be important to Fox News host Dana Perino, who suggested that if atheists don’t like having “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, well, “they don’t have to live here.”

Massachusetts’ highest court is currently hearing a case against the Pledge brought by atheist parents, who feel that due to its religious wording, atheist children “are denied meaningful participation in this patriotic exercise.” The case specifically involves the phrase, “under God,” which was not actually a part of the original phrasing of the Pledge.

Regarding atheists, Perino said during a live segment, “I’m tired of them.” She continued, “I remember working at the Justice Department years ago when I first started right after 9/11 and a lawsuit like this came through, and before the day had finished, the United States Senate and the House of Representatives had both passed resolutions saying that they were for keeping ‘under God’ in the pledge.”

“If these people really don’t like it, they don’t have to live here,” she concluded.

Co-host Bob Beckel agreed, “Yeah, that’s a good point.”

Huffington Post

H/T: The Skeptical Libertarian on Facebook…


  1. stuart
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 4:57 am | Permalink

    The thing is, forgetting how dumb the statement is, people are not free to leave. Where would they go on mass? What country would except them? The world doesn’t have freedom of immigration. so telling people if they don’t like leave is ridiculous.

  2. dave bath
    Posted September 8, 2013 at 5:51 am | Permalink

    correct me please if wrong, but I heard that the “under god” bit came in after ww2, maybe around the time of mccarthy mania. any truth to that?

    but the founding fathers (not just jefferson and adams, but washington too albeit less strongly) made unequivocal statements on the harm religion does a polity.

  3. Posted September 8, 2013 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    Atheists are a growing mass of people who believe in common sense, not fairy stories with negative substance.
    Including God in an equation does not make the sum of 2 plus 2 add up to 5.

  4. Posted September 8, 2013 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Since 1954, see here.

  5. JKUU
    Posted September 9, 2013 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    God or no god, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 70 years ago that compulsory recitation of the the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is unconstitutional (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)).

    “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,” ruled the Court, “it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

    Compulsory patriotism transgresses the First Amendment.

  6. Posted September 14, 2013 at 8:56 am | Permalink


    I think the point now is that the atheist parents are saying it is not sufficient to say “the patriotism under god is not compulsory” (which is the result of the ruling you refer to). Rather, their children should have the opportunity to express their patriotism without the having “under god” shoved in front of them as a condition of its expression. I suppose that means they don’t think it is satisfactory for the children to just stay silent for those three syllables.

    It’s an interesting example of rights vs freedom, and freedom from vs freedom to.

    Incidentally, maybe I’ve missed something, but what has happened to the “two lawyers” of the title of this blog?

  7. JKUU
    Posted September 16, 2013 at 4:04 am | Permalink


    Thanks for the discussion. My view is that because the Supreme Court decision protects the non-religious against compelled religious observance, we in the U.S. should be content with that. The plaintiffs’ children in the Massachusetts case already have the right to decline to say the words “under god” in the pledge, sing “god bless America”, or quote the U.S. motto “in god we trust”. We have the right to remain silent. So why institute legal proceedings to protect rights that are already secured?

    I’m not a lawyer (yes, where are they?), but I’m a little surprised that the Massachusetts court granted the plaintiffs legal standing to bring the action unless the school in question egregiously flouted the Supreme Court decision. I have not read anything about the case aside from what DeusexMac wrote in the post. If the atheist parents are affronted by the post-1954 religious wording in the Pledge denying their children “meaningful participation in this patriotic exercise”, then I have a problem. All of us are offended by various things just about every day. Yet do we immediately resort to litigation to relieve our outrage over abridged “rights”? I’m concerned because I’m a strong proponent of an entrenched Bill of Rights in Australia’s constitution. I worry, however, that a Bill of Rights would open a floodgate of litigation by similarly offended people.

  8. ionateus
    Posted October 2, 2013 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    Marcellous is correct. We (atheists) don’t want you forcing your superstitious bullshit on our children under any guise. The U.S. government is violating its own constitution putting these religious endorsements in the Pledge and on our money. By doing so, they are affirming the existence of a god, and one god at that. This sponsorship of monotheism violates the rights, not only of atheists, but also of polytheists, pantheists, and everyone else who doesn’t believe in a god or gods…

  9. Christopher Radulich
    Posted October 2, 2013 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    Do you think that FAUX news believe that if you don’t like Obamacare (the law of the land) then you should leave

  10. Vincent
    Posted October 2, 2013 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    The problem is, school is an inherently coercive environment and children are a particularly vulnerable group. Sure, they have the right to stand out as different from their peers and draw attention to themselves and ignore what their teachers are telling them, but they are under enormous pressure to conform, and they shouldn’t even have to make that choice in order to accommodate a state-supported expression of a belief that the majority holds, when the state shouldn’t be supporting belief of any kind.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *