In addition to providing a platform for persecuted Christians, Fox & Friends promotes a platform for any perceived affronts to the American flag which, for those who watch Fox, is an object of cultic worship because it represents Jesus' favorite country. So it's not surprising that Fox & Friends, the show for persecuted Christians would also be the venue for the persecuted flag and, by extension, the pledge to the flag. Back in September of 2013, Roger Ailes' consigliore and Catholic Maltese Knight Peter Johnson Jr. attacked the patriotism of those who brought suit against the "under God" wording in the Pledge of Allegiance in a case now before the MA Supreme Court. Now that a NJ school district is being sued for the same thing, Elisabeth Hasselbeck isn't directly attacking the atheists; but, rather, is expressing her confusion over why those silly atheists types want to attack - wait for it - the student's "freedom of religion."
This morning, Elisabeth Hasselbeck reported on the backstory of how the plaintiffs in the NJ case want to OMG "remove the name God" in the Pledge of Allegiance because they feel it is discriminatory towards atheists - a group reviled on Fox News. The chyron utilized the patented battle imagery used in any Fox & Friends discussion of affronts to Christianity: "Faith Under Fire, NJ School District Sued Over 'God' In Pledge." Poor Elisabeth doesn't understand what is happening. So, "as a mom," she asked her guest, from the humanist group bringing suit, "what is unconstitutional about a school that gives the freedom and choice to kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance or not." Roy Speckhardt, from the American Humanist Association, explained his belief that it's discriminatory, towards non-Christians, to have public school teachers lead students in the Pledge.
Poor Elisabeth still didn't understand and said she, as a mom, finds it "hard to find a [she whined] a violation of the Constitution while giving kids the choice to say the Pledge or not..." Speckhardt responded that it's "not much of a choice" because kids who opt out could be ostracized or bullied. Poor Elisabeth was trying to be "as practical as possible... because instead of litigation, we should he having conversation instead of having funding for schools having to defend themselves..." She asked if this is really about bullying and if so, "the school should get that under control." Speckhardt responded that it's the government which is bullying.
Hasselbeck continued her line of questioning around how the Pledge is voluntary. Hasselbeck, not an attorney, proclaimed "my freedom of religion doesn't mean that I have a right to erase somebody else's, [like what Hobby Lobby is trying to do?] so why are you choosing removal of freedom, taking the freedom away from these kids as a solution here when it could be handled by having great discussion in the schools, the schools need to get a grip on the bullying, and instead of this litigation, why can't there be a common sense solution." Speckhardt said that his group doesn't have a problem with kids praying, but rather, with government leading what seems like a prayer. Hasselbeck asserted that it doesn't appear to be a constitutional violation and that taking out "under God" is taking away "our rights."
Wonder if Elisabeth knows that the Pledge was written by a socialist! But let's imagine if Allen West's worst nightmare comes true and the Muslims take over the government. How do you think Elisabeth would react to "one nation under Allah." Just saying....