(POL) Reciting Pledge of Allegiance in school unconstitutional

[SirFozzie]

(I decided to post this myself because well.. it's a legitimate story, and I wanted to try to at least get ONE thread into the discussion before it devolved into a war/flamefest)

From CNN.COM

AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.

1. Any one surprised it was in San Fran (even if it was a federal judge?)

2. Are they saying that the Pledge itself is wrong to say in class, or just the "Under God" part.. Cuz if it's the whole thing, then declaring it's illegal to pledge allegiance to the USA is just stupid.

3. If it's The Under God thing.. Strike another one up for the folks who think that the USA should be a completely secular nation, which I disagree with.. The Constitution may mandate seperation of church and state, but that doesn't mean that if you are part of the nation, you may not have religion (which I think is the ultimate goal of some of the folks, which is as bad as the other side of the issue).

4. I bet this one gets fast-tracked to the SCOTUS once the vacancies are filled. Time for the Religious Right to flex some newly gained muscle I think.

[Crapshoot]

Its the correct decision, but will probably be struck down by SCOTUS. Actually, its begging for Congress to go grandstanding again. Heck, this is their role - I expect some legislation on the issue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

1. Any one surprised it was in San Fran (even if it was a federal judge?)

Not a bit.

4. I bet this one gets fast-tracked to the SCOTUS once the vacancies are filled.

Seems like a pretty safe bet to me.

[jeff061]

Shouldn't be unconsitutional to say it, should be to ask or force someone to say it.

[Subby]

Yay!

I can't stand the pledge and it has nothing to do with the religous pieces. I think pledges in general are pretty empty and meaningless. Being asked to pledge allegiance to something reeks of big brother...

Actions are what count, not words.

Anyway, my personal feelings aside, I can't imagine this ruling standing for any length of time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled

http://207.41.18.73/caed/staticOther/page_516.htm

Born 1935 in Brooklyn, NY
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on June 5, 1979, to a seat vacated by Thomas J. MacBride; Confirmed by the Senate on July 23, 1979, and received commission on July 24, 1979. Served as chief judge, 1983-1990. Assumed senior status on May 28, 2000.

Education:

Columbia Law School, J.D., 1958

[gi]

Generally the 'under God' part is where the sticky point develops. 1953 (I believe, give or take a year) was when the 'under God' part was added to the pledge. This was done in part because there was a fear from 'godless communism' that the USSR represented. The Knights of Columbus organization was the main driving force behind this addition to the pledge.

If a kid doesn't believe in the Christian God (many americans don't) they shouldn't be force to stand out by not saying a mandatory pledge. They will be made to feel different, inferior. I do not want this country to stand for this. Religion and State should be seperate. We already have countless examples of what can go wrong if they are mixed. Gotta keep it short, work is calling.

[albionmoonlight]

Couple Quick Points to Clarify:

1.) No one has to say the Pledge. That has been the case for a long time.

2.) SCOTUS has managed to dodge the issue for a long time. I think that the Justices know that adding Under God to the Pledge in the 50's is/was a violation of the Establishment Clause. But they have been reluctant to been seen as godless themselves. As isolated and ivory tower as they are, there is still at least an awareness of the practical in them.

3.) My 2c? The Court has hinted enough times in dicta (parts of cases that are not legally binding) that Under God is O.K. I think that those hints will be enough to cobble something together to save Under God, but the opinion will be written in such a way as to make the holding very narrow and limited to that one issue.

[Solecismic]

From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.

This is what our president said when signing the legislation that added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.

This is exactly the kind of indoctrination our founding fathers feared when they conceived the wall of separation.

[yabanci]

As I read the little blurb from the AP, this is neither big news nor unexpected. The Ninth Circuit originally ruled that the "under god" portion of the pledge violated the US constitution. That ruling was reversed by the US Supreme Court on the standing issue (i.e., the plaintiff was not the appropriate person to bring the case). The high court dodged the constitutional issue, leaving it for another day with plaintiffs who have proper standing.

This case now has proper plaintiffs and the case is in district court. Since the constitutional ruling originally made by the Ninth Circuit was not reversed by the Supreme Court, the district court judge is bound by precedent to follow the rulings of the appellate court of his circuit.

This is just the first step in having the constitutional issue finally decided. Everybody knew it was coming.

edit: this is the AP story on CNN:

Judge declares Pledge unconstitutional

Wednesday, September 14, 2005; Posted: 2:21 p.m. EDT (18:21 GMT)

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... bound by precedent to follow the rulings of the appellate court of his circuit.

Which raises a decent controversial point for a whole different thread: the proper role of precedent in the legal system: creates consistency or allows one error to be multiplied many times over?

[BrianD]

Any reason we can't just drop the "under God" part and make everybody happy?

[Klinglerware]

Any reason we can't just drop the "under God" part and make everybody happy?

Because that won't make everybody happy.

[BrianD]

Because that won't make everybody happy.

Do you object to the pledge itself, the mention of God, or the proposed non-mention of God?

[Klinglerware]

Do you object to the pledge itself, the mention of God, or the proposed non-mention of God?

My point was that if you remove the reference to God, the Christian Right will be angered. They have enough clout to ensure that this issue will not go away quietly.

[BrianD]

My point was that if you remove the reference to God, the Christian Right will be angered. They have enough clout to ensure that this issue will not go away quietly.

You can always make that phrase optional. Change it to "under $deity" or allow people to take it out completely. Wouldn't you think that they would be satisfied if they were still allowed to say "God" even if others didn't have to?

[Klinglerware]

You can always make that phrase optional. Change it to "under $deity" or allow people to take it out completely. Wouldn't you think that they would be satisfied if they were still allowed to say "God" even if others didn't have to?

I do think you have a reasonable idea. I cannot speak for what Christian conservatives will think, but based on their history, I have my doubts with whether they would accept such a compromise...

[kcchief19]

4. I bet this one gets fast-tracked to the SCOTUS once the vacancies are filled. Time for the Religious Right to flex some newly gained muscle I think. I'll take the under. The Court has had the opportunity in the past to take this case head-on and has not done so. I don't think that the majority of justices will want anything do with this.

The thing about "fast tracking" cases to the Supreme Court is that it still takes years to get to that point, if the court agrees to hear it all. There may be politicians who want the court to get involved, but that doesn't mean the court wants to. The court has historically avoided cases like this if at all possible, and when it does tackle them you get middle of the road decisions like the 10 Commandments case from last spring.

That could certainly change based on the makeup of the court. Even if a strong conservative lands in O'Connor's seat, I doubt that this is the kind of case that Roberts will want to make to lead off his legacy pending his confirmation.

[QuikSand]

1.) No one has to say the Pledge. That has been the case for a long time.

Technically true. But difficult.

The slippery issue is what happens when a public school has an employee (or someone else formally appointed for the role bearing at least the school's imprimateur) "leading" the pledge for all the students? While this may be a nominally optional activity and any given student is technically free to leave the room or opt not to take the pledge -- I think most any reasonable consideration of such a circumstance makes it clear that:

-this certainly has the ring of "officially approved by the school (government)" to it; and

-while participation is optional, the few who might opt not to participate will do so at some potentially meaningful cost; plus

-placing the burden to "opt out" onto young children may itself be an unfair burden for decision-making at the individual level.


Is there any circumstance where government employees, in their official duties, ought to be talking (to children no less) about our relationship with God? That is essentially what is at issue here.

[albionmoonlight]

Technically true. But difficult.

The slippery issue is what happens when a public school has an employee (or someone else formally appointed for the role bearing at least the school's imprimateur) "leading" the pledge for all the students? While this may be a nominally optional activity and any given student is technically free to leave the room or opt not to take the pledge -- I think most any reasonable consideration of such a circumstance makes it clear that:

-this certainly has the ring of "officially approved by the school (government)" to it; and

-while participation is optional, the few who might opt not to participate will do so at some potentially meaningful cost; plus

-placing the burden to "opt out" onto young children may itself be an unfair burden for decision-making at the individual level.


Is there any circumstance where government employees, in their official duties, ought to be talking (to children no less) about our relationship with God? That is essentially what is at issue here.
I agree with you. I was simply trying to cut off a potentially wrong line of thought before it got started. Some people think that this issue is about whether the government can make you say "Under God" in the pledge. It is not. In fact, the government cannot make you say the pledge at all. The State forcing you against your will to pledge your allegiance to anything runs contrary to the core of the First Amendment. I would hope that most people agree that no one should be forced to say the Pledge. (And to the extent that some people do beleive that, I am glad that we are not living in their America).

Instead, this question goes to (as you point out) whether "Under God" in the Pledge is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government--regardless of who does and does not have to say it.

[albionmoonlight]

dola-

While I am clarifying things that people may not need clarified: One of the things that confuses people is that the First Amendment contains two, somewhat opposite, statements about Religion. The government cannot Establish a religion. The government also cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. It really is a spectrum. On the one end, you could have a state mandated religion and criminal penalties for not being a part of that religion (or if you are of the science fiction bent, a government that uses drugs and psychotherapy to brainwash you into believing the state religion). That world goes too far toward Establishing a religion. On the other end of the spectrum, you could have a world in which the government refused to provide any services (utilities, police protection ,etc.) to religious institutions. That world goes too far toward prohibiting the free exercise of religion. We live somewhere in the middle.

It is important to note that the consitutional provision that I use to argue that my government employer cannot make me take off my religiously inspired headgear (the free exercise clause) is totally different from the constitutional provision that I use to argue that the government cannot start city council meetings with a Christian prayer (the Establishment Clause). People tend to conflate the two because they both involve religion and the First Amendment.

In this case, the Establishment Clause is at issue. No one is saying that you cannot say Under God. No one is saying that you can't pray. People are instead saying that the government should not be in the business of establishing a religion by making Under God part of the official Pledge.

FWIW, I agree that Under God should not be in the Pledge--but I also think that the Court will end up writing a wishy-washy opinion in which Under God is upheld, but no real new guidance is created.

[MrBigglesworth]

The State forcing you against your will to pledge your allegiance to anything runs contrary to the core of the First Amendment.
Why have it at all then? The whole idea of blind loyalty to country is nationalistic at best.

"Under God" should definitely not be in there. If it were, "One nation, that denies the the existence of God..." it would never be tolerated.

[Solecismic]

That's the core of the issue. If my son is ever confronted with it himself, I would have a difficult decision.

On the one hand, saying it doesn't harm him. So my initial reaction would be to tell him not to worry about the words, just join in. After all, I'm not militant about atheism, the way I am about smoking.

But does that send the wrong message to him? If I tell him to go with the crowd, am I setting him up to follow his peers instead of his own independence later on in life? Will he show less respect for my leadership in his life as a result?

So I could encourage him to sit down or remain silent while his classmates take their proverbial soma. Now, he risks ostracism. He could risk the disfavor of a teacher who is particularly religious.

And why? It's not really his battle. It's mine. And it's not fair for me to instruct him to incur those risks without fully understanding the underlying issues. An elementary school child doesn't have that capacity.

So, I'm left with a Catch-22. Either I undermine my own authority as a parent, or I subject my child to potential harm.

I have to be honest with him. If I ignore the issue, he recites the pledge with his classmates, eventually he's going to wonder what "under God" means. And I'm going to have to tell him in my own words. I don't want that to happen at age 6.

I want him to make his own choices about religion some day, and I don't want the schools forcing that on him at an early age. Any more than I want them forcing sex education on him before he's old enough to understand romantic relationships.

[Flasch186]

Which raises a decent controversial point for a whole different thread: the proper role of precedent in the legal system: creates consistency or allows one error to be multiplied many times over?


jeez I wonder which decisions you think are errors and which one's arent <----sarcasm

[Glengoyne]

You can always make that phrase optional. Change it to "under $deity" or allow people to take it out completely....
Favorite post so far!

Gotta love variables. That pledge is context specific.

[Tekneek]

Because that won't make everybody happy.

How many of those unhappy people actually know it has only been in there for about 50 years?

[st.cronin]

The Pledge is archaic. I don't have any idea if it actually served a purpose during the Cold War, but there's really no point to it now.

[Klinglerware]

How many of those unhappy people actually know it has only been in there for about 50 years?

[Klinglerware attempts to restrain himself from making divisive, off-topic, and unproductive, comment about the recency of Confederate symbolism on southern state flags]

[Tekneek]

[Klinglerware attempts to restrain himself from making divisive, off-topic, and unproductive, comment about the recency of Confederate symbolism on southern state flags]

Mississippi is really the only holdout, right?

[JonInMiddleGA]

jeez I wonder which decisions you think are errors and which one's arent <----sarcasm

Bzzt ... I was absolutely talking strictly generically here, not about this case or any other case. This time, methinks you read too much into what I was saying.

Further, I think a case can be made for placing relatively high value on precedent and for placing relatively low value on it too. Right now I'm not sold on either position solidly on this (one of the relatively few times I suspect you'll hear that from me on a political topic).

In lieu of a firm belief about which is the proper role for precedent to take overall, in the interim I'll just substitute whichever position best serves a specific aim at a given moment.

Like I said, it's a subject all its own, probably not one worth sidetracking this thread over.

[Klinglerware]

Mississippi is really the only holdout, right?

At this point, yeah. I do remember that the Georgia case where a lot of people forgot that the incorporation of the battle flag was a recent phenomenon.

[ISiddiqui]

Further, I think a case can be made for placing relatively high value on precedent and for placing relatively low value on it too. Right now I'm not sold on either position solidly on this (one of the relatively few times I suspect you'll hear that from me on a political topic).
It depends on your view of the legislature. If you hold them in high regard, then you'd be more akin to place a low value on precedent and just have the judge read the code book and apply law. If you hold the legislature in low regard (as we did early in the republic), then you place a higher value on precedent (you trust the tradition of judgeship throughout the years over the code-making of the legislature).

[sterlingice]

You can always make that phrase optional. Change it to "under $deity" or allow people to take it out completely. Wouldn't you think that they would be satisfied if they were still allowed to say "God" even if others didn't have to? Haha- I love the "under $diety" with deity being a variable of type-string :)

EDIT: D'oh. Missed Glengoyne's post about this

SI

[kcchief19]

So, I'm left with a Catch-22. Either I undermine my own authority as a parent, or I subject my child to potential harm. It's a catch-22 for the kid too. I was raised predominantly with Catholic teachings, although I never went to church. My mother felt very strongly about Catholic values, but she hated the way the church was run. So even though I never went to services, I was raised with a strong Catholic background and my mother stressed tolerance for (most) other religions and for the non-religious. She never wanted me to push my religious views on others and conversely she did not want anyone to push their religious views on me.

The pledge was never much of an issue. I was a smart kid, so I caught on early on that the words "under god" really didn't belong in school because there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. But Springfield, Mo., is in the buckle of the Bible Belt and religion and god in school didn't end at the pledge. It went a lot further, so far that while employees rarely took part in displays of faith, it wasn't uncommon for the school to sanction them by allowing and promoting bible meetings after school and allow students to lead prayers during school assemblies and other events.

By and large, I think the debate over the pledge only really matters to about 10 percent of the population or less; 5 percent who think this country started going downhill when they took god out of the schools and 5 percent who think that all public forms of religious expressions are patently offensive. I have seen two discussions of the pledge on FOFC: one initiated by the Nedow case and this one. Unless someone brings it up, most people don't care.

I only think it's "important" in the sense that the pledge is the tip of the iceberg in a large sense of religion in schools. If you go to school with kids who are just like you, it doesn't mean that much. Religion only becomes an issue when you are in the minority. In my high school of 1,500 kids, there were probably 10 Catholics. The overwhelming majority (90 percent +) were protestant, primarily Assembly of God. They largely saw nothing wrong with these school prayer activities, because it was their prayer and activities. They only ones who felt uncomfortable were the Catholic, a couple of Lutherans and the atheists (that was about the extent of our diversity). I felt terribly uncomfortable being the only one in the room not taking part in the prayer.

There wasn't a lot of understanding on the issue from both sides. I didn't understand why it was important for them to pray at a school assembly when they could pray quietly to themsevles or at anytime during the 17 1/2 hours a day when they were not at school, and the didn't understand what my problem was with them praying. What did make the issue contentious was that when we proposed an alternate solution by allowing anyone of a different religion to lead a prayer in rotation or develop a non-denominationsl prayer, the Assembly of God group were dead set against it.

I've never felt good about the whole situation. It's events like that they cause people 20 years later to dislike the pledge and any other forms of religious expression in schools. I don't like that we put kids in situations like that where they are made to feel different. I was made fun of by other kids for not taking part in the prayer. Fortunately I had enough self-esteem and conviction to realize that they were the ones with the problem, not me, but not all kids do.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It depends on your view of the legislature. If you hold them in high regard, then you'd be more akin to place a low value on precedent and just have the judge read the code book and apply law. If you hold the legislature in low regard (as we did early in the republic), then you place a higher value on precedent (you trust the tradition of judgeship throughout the years over the code-making of the legislature).

WARNING: Rhetorical question dead ahead

Hmm ... what if I ain't real happy with one & even less thrilled with the other?

[Dutch]

Well, I've accepted that men and women who partake in homosexual acts should get a tax break...I guess I can accept this too.

[Raiders Army]

My toenails grow.

[kenparker23]

QUOTE]This is what our president said when signing the legislation that added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. This is exactly the kind of indoctrination our founding fathers feared when they conceived the wall of separation.[/QUOTE]

Jim, I have to disagree.

I think our founding fathers would be horrified to see what is going on right now.

When they talked about separation of church and state, they didn't mean state should supress church, and they did not mean that people should supress their religion.

We have forgotten that they meant religion should not control govenment.

[Dutch]

This is what our president said when signing the legislation that added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. This is exactly the kind of indoctrination our founding fathers feared when they conceived the wall of separation.

Jim, I have to disagree.

I think our founding fathers would be horrified to see what is going on right now.

When they talked about separation of church and state, they didn't mean state should supress church, and they did not mean that people should supress their religion.

We have forgotten that they meant religion should not control govenment.

I don't see "Under God" as either harmful or helpful. I call it a wash and a big waste of everybody's time and money. Fighting for the sake of fighting.

[Abe Sargent]

If you want to know what our founding fathers meant with reagards to religion, you have no further to look than the first acts of Congress. Take a look and see what the first Congresses did. You'll see laws that appoint chaplins, purchase Bibles for natives, and so forth. These sort of religious laws were very common in the early state, and if you think the founding fathers would be UNhappy with the Under God phrase in a pledge, then you'd be sorely mistaken.

Note, I am not judging whether these laws or the Under God phrase are right and wrong, just that it would be in total concert with early acts by our government.


-Anxiety

[Flasch186]

Bzzt ... I was absolutely talking strictly generically here, not about this case or any other case. This time, methinks you read too much into what I was saying.

Further, I think a case can be made for placing relatively high value on precedent and for placing relatively low value on it too. Right now I'm not sold on either position solidly on this (one of the relatively few times I suspect you'll hear that from me on a political topic).

In lieu of a firm belief about which is the proper role for precedent to take overall, in the interim I'll just substitute whichever position best serves a specific aim at a given moment.

Like I said, it's a subject all its own, probably not one worth sidetracking this thread over.


if youre talking broadly I see your point....but it certainly would end up being partisan when it becomes narrower.

[Solecismic]

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

- Letter to the Virginia Baptists, 1808.

[MrBigglesworth]

When they talked about separation of church and state, they didn't mean state should supress church, and they did not mean that people should supress their religion.
When has the state suppressed your ability to conduct your religion on your own time?

[Dutch]

When has the state suppressed your ability to conduct your religion on your own time?

That's a fair question. I think the answer is never.

Another one, I think--When did the state force you to believe in God?

Also, the answer is never.

[Crapshoot]

That's a fair question. I think the answer is never.

Another one, I think--When did the state force you to believe in God?

Also, the answer is never.

When its asking you to pledge allegiance to a state under god, what is that exactly ?

[Dutch]

When its asking you to pledge allegiance to a state under god, what is that exactly ?

Are you answering my question with a question? :)

[ISiddiqui]

... and if the response is just the state is merely pressuring you to believe in God, then when has the state pressure you to become an atheist?

[Crapshoot]

Well, I've accepted that men and women who partake in homosexual acts should get a tax break...I guess I can accept this too.

Cool. I've accepted that homophobes have their rights to free speech, including lines like "homosexual acts ... tax breaK" as if they are giving up flesh and blood. :D

[Dutch]

Cool. I've accepted that homophobes have their rights to free speech, including idiotic lines like "homosexual acts ... tax breaK" as if they are giving up flesh and blood. :D

Your running from my question, arent' you? ;) That would make you a question-aphobe. Yet, you take it out on the questoner, not the act of questioning. I'm so confused! :confused:

:D

[Crapshoot]

Are you answering my question with a question? :)

rather, pointing out the absurdity of a statement. When you are pledging allegiance to something, and being told your country requires you to pledge to their god - well, that might be a bit of an endorsement.

[Dutch]

rather, pointing out the absurdity of a statement. When you are pledging allegiance to something, and being told your country requires you to pledge to their god - well, that might be a bit of an endorsement.

Who's God? The Pledge of Allegiance does not suggest anything about anyone's religion. If an Atheist's god is him/herself, let it mean that. If an atheist determine's that God is synonomous with Nothing, let it mean that. It's a non-denominational phrase which meaning is simply irrelevant.

It's certainly not a governments endorsement of any religion.

[kenparker23]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth When has the state suppressed your ability to conduct your religion on your own time?

Good question. I was speaking on state supression of religion in general. This is everywhere, just like in this case. Christian symbols are being removed from state shields, 10 commandments, and many other establishments. There are many elements trying to erase any god connection. They want us to be completely neutral in everything.

But to be completely neutral in everything means you don't stand for anything. And if you don't stand for anything what do you mean? You mean nothing!!

I am coming at this from a christian angle of course and I realize there are many other angles represented on this board.

Jim, I am a father, and certainly respect your comments on your son. There are struggles that I have in my life with issues taught at school (i.e. creationism versus evolution). The state will not be responsible for my children's beliefs. It will be me as a father, raising my children and exposing them to mine and my wifes belief system. It will then be up to my children to make their choices and I hope I can be a positive influence.

I do not feel the state has ever pressured me to believe in god, nor has it pressured me to be an atheist. You have to make that decision based on information you seek to acquire, and the experiences that shape your life.

[ISiddiqui]

It's certainly not a governments endorsement of any religion
I'm amazed you can say that with a straight face. Now if you were to argue that it's de minimis (if you can opt out), then I can get behind that.

[Dutch]

I'm amazed you can say that with a straight face. Now if you were to argue that it's de minimis (if you can opt out), then I can get behind that.

Forgive me for having to 'google' de minimis...but if I understand that right, I think that's about it. The usage of "under god" is irrelevant. Like I've stated in this thread, I don't care if it's in the Pledge or not.

What I am questioning is the opposition to "under God's" assertion that it is forcing them to be Christian or that it's hurting them to say it. I don't believe that.

As stated earlier....I think it's fighting for fighting's sake. The term "under God" in my opinion, is harmless in a pledge that isn't even mandatory to say.

Now, if it is mandatory (I don't believe it is) I would not like that. But if it is, it should be made optional immediately.

[ISiddiqui]

Now, if it is mandatory (I don't believe it is) I would not like that. But if it is, it should be made optional immediately.
I think the problem is that for many young kids it almost de facto ends up being mandatory. When I was kid, I don't remember any teacher saying we could opt out if we didn't like the message. Most likely we'd get barked at for not standing when the Principal came on the loud speaker (this was in New Jersey, btw... not some uber-conservative area).

I think people would be less upset over the whole thing, if kids were told by the teachers that they don't have to do it if they disagree.

[Dutch]

I think the problem is that for many young kids it almost de facto ends up being mandatory. When I was kid, I don't remember any teacher saying we could opt out if we didn't like the message. Most likely we'd get barked at for not standing when the Principal came on the loud speaker (this was in New Jersey, btw... not some uber-conservative area).

I think people would be less upset over the whole thing, if kids were told by the teachers that they don't have to do it if they disagree.

By mandatory do you mean kids would get in trouble for not saying it? That would not be cool at all.

(EDIT: I want to say that way back when I was in 5th or 6th grade our teachers told us we did not have to say it. I was in a Catholic School in Mississippi then....and we're talking early 1980's).

[MrBigglesworth]

Good question. I was speaking on state supression of religion in general. This is everywhere, just like in this case. Christian symbols are being removed from state shields, 10 commandments, and many other establishments. There are many elements trying to erase any god connection. They want us to be completely neutral in everything.
You are mixing up terminology. State suppression of religion is telling you that you can not practice your religion. In this country, you can walk down any street in America with a "WWJD?" or "I'm a Jew!" or "I can't, I'm Mormon" t-shirt on and not legally get bothered by any law enforcement official because of it. This is one of if not the most religiously free countries in the world.

What we DON'T allow is the federal government endorsing any religion over another. And "under God" may not seem like that big of a deal, but just imagine if every public school in the country said, "under Allah", or "One nation, with no connection to God", and tell me that the religious right wouldn't be absolutely foaming at the mouth?

[st.cronin]

This is the dumbest argument of all time.

Here's a (slightly) better one, perhaps deserving of it's own thread:

http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=21657&cat=HOME

[ThunderingHERD]

Didn't read the thread, but the entire idea of the pledge of allegiance is disgusting to me--with our without a God reference.

[larrymcg421]

Which raises a decent controversial point for a whole different thread: the proper role of precedent in the legal system: creates consistency or allows one error to be multiplied many times over?

The only precedent that is binding is precedent from a higher court. And that's the way it should be. If the lower courts simply ignored the interpretations from the higher courts, then there would be no point to the higher courts at all.

There is no precedent binding on the SCOTUS. They can (and often do) reverse previous decisions. In fact, some cases the main question involved is "Should this court reconsider it's holding in _____ v _____".

It's up to the higher courts to set aside bad precedent. If lower courts ignored precedent, it would be chaos.

[SackAttack]

rather, pointing out the absurdity of a statement. When you are pledging allegiance to something, and being told your country requires you to pledge to their god - well, that might be a bit of an endorsement.

Without getting into the constitutionality of the Pledge, I just want to point out that "one Nation, under God" has always struck me as a description, not a pledge of faith.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America" <--- easy enough to understand.

"and to the Republic for which it stands" <---translated: 'and to the Republic, of which the flag is a representative symbol,"

"one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." <---here's where you can get hung up on semantics. I think it's pretty clear that you aren't pledging allegiance to God here. but how does "under God" modify "one Nation"? Is it a nation devoted to God's worship? Is God a sovereign entity, under whose dominion the nations of the world rest? Is God just kind of this benign being floating up there somewhere who's sort of an ethereal Tommy Chong, going "whatever, dude, you do your thing"?

Or, and I know this is a really wild thought, maybe "under God" isn't meant to specify any particular deity, be He or She Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or Jedi, but rather to distinguish between a nation that celebrates freedom of religion and of religious choice, as opposed to the Communist nation on the other side of the Iron Curtain that wasn't exactly as generous with such liberties at the time that the Pledge was signed into law.

All of that is kind of a long-winded way of saying that, no, I don't think the Pledge "requires you to pledge to their god" at all. I think that's reading entirely too much into the wording and the intent.

Whether the Pledge as it stands is Constitutional or not is a matter for the courts, and I won't argue that.

I'm simply irritated at the legion of morons (generalization, you may or may not necessarily be included) who declare that anything that references God amounts to cramming religious belief down their throats and must be unconstitutional. I mean, sure, "In God We Trust" on the nation's currency - I can see pursuing that as a legitimate separation of C&S issue, even if the intent when that was created wasn't to specifically endorse the Judeo-Christian God.

But jeez louise, getting hot and bothered over the pledge is about on the same level as suing the insurance companies for referring to extremely unusual disasters as an "act of God." I mean, some states require certain types of insurance, right? Therefore, requiring that you do business with an entity that promotes the notion of a Deity has to be unconstitutional, doesn't it?

[SackAttack]

Dola,

I agree that the idea of a pledge is a little too McCarthyist for me.

I just don't take as much issue with the specific wording of it as others do.

[Solecismic]

Without getting into the constitutionality...


Wow. Quite a straw man you just constructed and burned to the ground there, Josh. I'm surprised. Didn't expect it from you.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... then there would be no point to the higher courts at all.

And that, quite possibly, is where the argument ultimately ends up leading.

[SackAttack]

Wow. Quite a straw man you just constructed and burned to the ground there, Josh. I'm surprised. Didn't expect it from you.

Maybe so. I've been sick all day, so it's certainly possible I'm not thinking as clearly as I'd like to, but that's how the whole thing strikes me.

I'm not a pledge apologist; half the time growing up I couldn't even say the whole thing start to finish, and the other half I usually FUBARed a phrase or two, but then and now, I really don't think there's overt promotion of religion in there, either.

Just two cents from a sick man.

[Tekneek]

These sort of religious laws were very common in the early state, and if you think the founding fathers would be UNhappy with the Under God phrase in a pledge, then you'd be sorely mistaken.

It's a good thing that Eisenhower came along in 1954 and put that in there for them.

[Klinglerware]

Or, and I know this is a really wild thought, maybe "under God" isn't meant to specify any particular deity, be He or She Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or Jedi, but rather to distinguish between a nation that celebrates freedom of religion and of religious choice, as opposed to the Communist nation on the other side of the Iron Curtain that wasn't exactly as generous with such liberties at the time that the Pledge was signed into law.



I understand and accept your point about the addition of "under God" as an attempt to differentiate the American pledge from that of communist countries at the height of the cold war. However, without getting into a post-modernist semiotic debate, one must also consider the intent of those people who campaigned for its inclusion. I find it difficult to believe that patriotism was the primary motivation of the K of C and other religious leaders for pushing the change. But I don't know, at the time religion and patriotism were intertwined--especially since the chief adversary's state religion was atheism. It was easy for many people to equate atheism with communism, and people who did not profess the majority faith were treated with suspicion.

I understand your point about religious tolerance and the indeterminacy of the wording of "under God"--but in practice, there would be tremendous social pressure to conform to the majority understanding of the phrase...

[BrianD]

I still stand by my $diety comment, but I have two questions.

1. If the Constitution says "Congress shall establish no law with regards to the establishment of religion", does that really restrict state and local governments?

2. Is the real constitutional issue the establishment of a religion, or the endorsement of a religion? I don't know that I have a problem with an endorsed religion, I just don't want to be forced to it.

[Dutch]

What we DON'T allow is the federal government endorsing any religion over another. And "under God" may not seem like that big of a deal, but just imagine if every public school in the country said, "under Allah", or "One nation, with no connection to God"

But "under Allah" in English is "under God". "under God" is non-denominational. It's not one religion over another. If you chose to pray to your pet rock, that's who "God" is. If it's your own inner-self...that's "under God". It's your choice. That's the part that makes this a non-issue. It's harmless.

, and tell me that the religious right wouldn't be absolutely foaming at the mouth?

I think your point is not to say anyone would be angry if we changed the language the pledge was written in--but to chose a specific religion. I think we all agree that would not be proper.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think your point is not to say anyone would be angry if we changed the language the pledge was written in--but to chose a specific religion. I think we all agree that would not be proper.
C'mon, it's obvious that it's Judaeo-Christianity. I've never in my recollection heard a Muslim refer to 'him' as God, only Allah. And even allowing for that, what about Buddha? Or polytheists? Or atheists? To an atheist, just mentioning God is an endorsement of a particular religion.

I'd never make a big stink about it or bring it before a court, but since it's already there by principle I have to agree with the latest court ruling. Christians can pray all they want in the 17 hours that they aren't at school.

[Klinglerware]

C'mon, it's obvious that it's Judaeo-Christianity. I've never in my recollection heard a Muslim refer to 'him' as God, only Allah. And even allowing for that, what about Buddha? Or polytheists? Or atheists? To an atheist, just mentioning God is an endorsement of a particular religion.

I'd never make a big stink about it or bring it before a court, but since it's already there by principle I have to agree with the latest court ruling. Christians can pray all they want in the 17 hours that they aren't at school.

Technically, Dutch is correct--"Allah" is just the word for God (notice that the root is similar to the ancient Hebrew word for God, "El"). And of course, the Islamic God and and the Judeo-Christian God are one and the same.

But yes, MrBigglesworth, you are correct--for practical purposes, the majority will assume that "God" is a reference to the Judeo-Christian god.

[Klinglerware]

Dola --

I wouldn't mind it if the pledge became a free-for-all kind of thing. When the "One nation, under God, indivisible" part comes, people could choose to say that phrase, or they can name their god, or say something like "One secular nation, indivisible", or remove the "under god" part altogether...

[-Mojo Jojo-]

1. If the Constitution says "Congress shall establish no law with regards to the establishment of religion", does that really restrict state and local governments?


Through the magic of incorporation, yes it does restrict state and local government. The Supreme Court has interpreted the bit of the 14th Amendment that says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

to mean that most of the Bill of Rights applies to States.

2. Is the real constitutional issue the establishment of a religion, or the endorsement of a religion? I don't know that I have a problem with an endorsed religion, I just don't want to be forced to it.

The trick, I think, is in defining establishment. It pretty obviously has to mean something more than a full-on declaration that, say, Catholicism is the official religion of the United States. Otherwise the government could have an official religion in all but name (tax cuts for Catholics, revocation of tax-free status for other churches, etc.). The government without actually prohibiting any free exercise of religion could coercively promote a particular religion. Generally it's held to mean that the government cannot display preference for one religion over another. More controversially it could be read to mean that it should not preference or support religion at all as that is a preference of religion (generally) over non-religion (atheism or personal (non-organized) belief).

[QuikSand]

But "under Allah" in English is "under God". "under God" is non-denominational. It's not one religion over another. If you chose to pray to your pet rock, that's who "God" is. If it's your own inner-self...that's "under God". It's your choice. That's the part that makes this a non-issue. It's harmless.

Some Americans choose to reject the idea of praying to or worshiping any god, including a pet rock. Some Americans choose to worship or acknowledge a range of deities, as part of a bona fide polytheistic faith. Neither one fits with the supposedly harmless "under God." It's picking sides, plain and simple.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I'd never make a big stink about it or bring it before a court, but since it's already there by principle I have to agree with the latest court ruling. Christians can pray all they want in the 17 hours that they aren't at school.

Moreover they can pray all they want even when they're at school, provided that it's:

a) not a public school, or
b) not led or endorsed in an official capacity by the school and not disruptive of class or normal school activities.

[st.cronin]

Islam worships the same God that Jews and Christians do. Mohammed acknowledged both Moses and Jesus as authentic prophets. The phrase 'under God' would not exclude Muslims, or even Hindus, really; it would exclude atheists and perhaps Buddhists (Buddhists are sort of all over the map theologically).

Just fyi.

[BrianD]

Through the magic of incorporation, yes it does restrict state and local government. The Supreme Court has interpreted the bit of the 14th Amendment that says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

to mean that most of the Bill of Rights applies to States.

Personally, I don't see where this applies to states and religion


The trick, I think, is in defining establishment. It pretty obviously has to mean something more than a full-on declaration that, say, Catholicism is the official religion of the United States. Otherwise the government could have an official religion in all but name (tax cuts for Catholics, revocation of tax-free status for other churches, etc.). The government without actually prohibiting any free exercise of religion could coercively promote a particular religion. Generally it's held to mean that the government cannot display preference for one religion over another. More controversially it could be read to mean that it should not preference or support religion at all as that is a preference of religion (generally) over non-religion (atheism or personal (non-organized) belief).

I agree that it is generally held to mean what you say. My question is whether or not is should mean that. Clearly giving tax cuts for Catholics is an establishment of religion. On the other hand, the vast majority of Americans follow some kind of christian religion. I don't see why it is so bad for the government to acknowledge this as long as they respect and welcome religious differences.

I'm not at all religious, but I recognize that almost everyone else is. I guess I'm just secure enough in my beliefs (or non-beliefs) that I don't feel threatened by the fact that others believe differently.

[BrianD]

Moreover they can pray all they want even when they're at school, provided that it's:

a) not a public school, or

I would fight this one. I believe in freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion. If kids want to pray in a public school, they should be able to.

b) not led or endorsed in an official capacity by the school and not disruptive of class or normal school activities.

This one I am ok with. Kids should be allowed to pray, but they shouldn't be forced to.

[Dutch]

Some Americans choose to reject the idea of praying to or worshiping any god, including a pet rock. Some Americans choose to worship or acknowledge a range of deities, as part of a bona fide polytheistic faith. Neither one fits with the supposedly harmless "under God." It's picking sides, plain and simple.

I call it picking fights. But whatever, it's all melodrama for the hopes of winning a political battle. Like I said, I'll let the paid professionals sort it out. I just don't want anybody to be under the impression that one side of this fight smells like roses.