Supreme Court to Decide Pledge Case

[jimnyc]

** Thoughts? **


WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.

The case sets up an emotional showdown over God in the public schools and in public life. It will settle whether the phrase "one nation under God" will remain a part of the patriotic oath as it is recited in most classrooms.

The court will hear the case sometime next year.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal involving a California atheist whose 9-year-old daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.

A national uproar followed a federal appeals court ruling last year that the reference to God made the pledge unconstitutional in public schools. That ruling, if allowed to stand, would strip the reference from the version of the pledge recited by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.

 

[janeeng]

As a kid, the words One nation under God stood, today, we have all these other religions that have come here and feel it shouldn't be anymore, well this is the way it was, this is the way it should stay, and if you don't like it - GET OUT!!!

I have a real hard time with this, I think it's wrong, but I also loved Iselin too until it became ISLAM!

 

[5stringJeff]

In no way does the phrase "under God" eastablish a national religion.

In no way does the phrase "under God" keep one from practicing his/her own religion.

This should be a clear-cut overturning of the 9th Circuit's ruling.

 

[Jackass]

Originally posted by jimnyc
**
The justices agreed to hear an appeal involving a California atheist whose 9-year-old daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.

Since he doesnt want to see anything with God in it, I will take all of his money since In God we Trust is printed and stamped on his money. I am only trying to help here folks!!

 

[Bry]

Thanks for posting this, jim. It's an interesting question. I'm sure I won't surprise anyone when I say I don't think God should be mentioned in anything governmental or public. I even remember thinking about this a bit when I was in elementary school: the pledge of alliegance seems in contradiction to the separation of church and state. I think "one nation under God" does show a preferece for the Judeo-Christian belief system (which would include Islam as well, of course.) I don't recall any provisions of the Freedom of Religion that we are free to practice any religion as long as we practice SOME religion, or as long as it be a religion with only one god. And, yes, I think it should be taken off our money too (but just because it has the word God on it doesn't mean I don't need every cent of it that I have.)

-Bry

 

[eric]

But if we do this Bry, then should we not re-write all of our laws, for they are also based on the Judeo-Christian belief system. Take an extreme example, murder is by most religions considered wrong, but not by all religions. Now you say well it is common sense not to kill people, but in reality your common sense comes from the society in which you were raised. Not all people share the same belief systems and it is impossible to prove who is right and wrong with any kind of empirical evidence. I know I'm going a little off topic right now, just bear with me. Lets go a step further, from a purely logical point of view, is murder wrong? Keep in mind compassion has no place in logic, to prove this all we have to do is to turn to nature itself. Natural selection has no compassion and it is indisputable that it works well, it has brought us to where we are today. My point is Bry, that as much as some of us would like to ignore the fact, religion excerts a treamendous influence over our thinking. To try and sterilize it from government, so as to be fair to ALL religious groups, would be impossible.

Also it is not so clear cut that the SEPARATION of church and state is what our founding fathers intended. They did not want people forced to practice a particular government sponsored religion, and I do not see how have "In god we trust" on our money and in our pledge is forcing anyone to believe anything. More on this latter.

Eric

 

[Bry]

Thanks for the response, Eric. I've posted on a few similar themes, especially recently. I have said that in looking at my own belief system, it certainly has a lot in common with Christianity. I will even acknowledge that it was probably influenced to a significant extent by Christian values. But I have forced myself to justify my beliefs on their own terms without resorting to any religious argument. I don't like religion, and I don't think people should have to say each day the phrase "one nation under God", nor do I think they should be in a situation where they are forced to hear 30 odd other children saying it in unison. It can be an alienating experience, and that alienation is not (for me) in any way justifiable. This is not an all Christian club.

And by the way, I do not say that it is common sense not to kill people. Killing is not wrong just because. I just don't think that permitting the killing of people is in anyone's best interest. I do not refrain from killing people because of compassion. I refrain from killing people because I don't want someone to learn from my example and turn around and kill me. I think the basis of law justifies itself: it is in the interest of all people to accept certain restrictions on their behavior that they may be more free. No more, no less.

And, as far as I am concerned, it was precisely the separation of church and state that many of the founding fathers had in mind. It was in search of religious freedom that the pilgrims came to America, as religious freedom was the primary reason many of them left England in the first place. If I recall my history correctly, there was considerable debate on the issue, and the document we are left with is the weakly worded compromise that could be agreed on by all. That the Constitution was not the product of a single mind goes without saying. Thereby, they left many things open to interpretation, and they did so consciously, in the spirit of compromise. Now, the country we live in is much bigger, we live side by side with people of many cultures. The US is much more plural than it was at its inception, and I think it is clear that for the most part, the founding fathers wanted to accomodate that plurality, and protect as much of their freedoms as possible, without jeopardizing the delicate balance where your rights end and mine begin. I think that no one looses anything by not saying the name of God in school or government, but by subjecting some who would not otherwise participate in that little tid bit, we are alienating our plurality.

 

[jimnyc]

My take on this is much more generic:

Leave well enough alone!

It was fine for how many years now? I know that doesn't make it right, but there's no need to change it in my opinion.

What will be next? Where will it end? Will the Bill of Rights and US Constitution be considered null and void eventually?

If you don't like it, ignore it.

There are so many things that have made this a great nation over time, and slowly we are being expected to change them to appease immigrants and those with opposing views.

Pretty soon our children will be expected to learn 3 different versions of the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish!

 

[janeeng]

hahah, funny you should say that about Spanish - Jared had to have spanish like I said, starting at 1st grade, as well as resite the pledge in Spanish too! - I don't know about this year, but they did last year.

Don't forget about the flags either, if you remember after 9/11 we all hung our flags proud, yet in one area of CA, they were told to remove them - all because some would be offended by it! you gotta be kidding, this is OUR FLAG!!! but your right Jim, with all coming into this country, things have surely changed!

 

[Bry]

"He launched the case in federal district court in 2000. He argued that the Constitution prohibits both the wording of the pledge -- which was altered in 1954 to include the words "under God" by an act of Congress -- and a California law, similar to those in other states, that requires public elementary school students to start their day with a teacher-led recitation of the pledge."

This piece of the article from the Washington Post says the Pledge was changed in 1954 to include the phrase "under God". Obviously, this has nothing to do with the founding fathers, nor what may or may not make this country "great". I seem to remember learning something of the sort in high school history, but this article reminded me. I would suggest that none of the truly historical documents would be in any way threatened by a decision to change back the pledge.

As for certain neighborhoods being required to take down their flags because some found them offensive, I suppose that qualifies as ridiculous too, though the massive displaying of flags on cars etc. also struck me as ridiculous. We hypothetically live in a country that protects the rights of individuals to be as ridiculous as they please. If people like seeing mud splattered flags on every fender of their SUVs, well, that's their choice. On the other hand, I think burning the flag should also be legal, and that people should not be forced by public institutions to recite silly, nationalistic pledges. (I was wondering for years: who the hell is Richard?... "for Richard stands, one nation...") That, to my mind, is not what makes our country great.

PS Go Steelers!!!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
[BPS Go Steelers!!! [/B]

Are you a Steelers fan?

This piece of the article from the Washington Post says the Pledge was changed in 1954 to include the phrase "under God". Obviously, this has nothing to do with the founding fathers, nor what may or may not make this country "great". I seem to remember learning something of the sort in high school history, but this article reminded me. I would suggest that none of the truly historical documents would be in any way threatened by a decision to change back the pledge.

While I agree it has nothing to do with the founding fathers, where does it stop? Every change made will bring previous decisions into question. Once a precedent is set it tends to have an effect on other decisions. Maybe it won't in this case, but I'm not one willing to take that chance. Ever hear the old saying "give them an inch and they'll take a mile"?

As for certain neighborhoods being required to take down their flags because some found them offensive, I suppose that qualifies as ridiculous too, though the massive displaying of flags on cars etc. also struck me as ridiculous. We hypothetically live in a country that protects the rights of individuals to be as ridiculous as they please. If people like seeing mud splattered flags on every fender of their SUVs, well, that's their choice. On the other hand, I think burning the flag should also be legal, and that people should not be forced by public institutions to recite silly, nationalistic pledges. (I was wondering for years: who the hell is Richard?... "for Richard stands, one nation...") That, to my mind, is not what makes our country great.

I think burning the flag IS currently legal:
"Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). Its the United Supreme Court case that held an individual cannot be held criminally liable for burning a flag. The court found burning a flag is a form of expression of political speech which is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

Maybe something has changed in the last year as there have been many arguments about this, but I think this decision still stands today.

P.S - I think burning the flag should be illegal

 

[Bry]

No, I can't really claim to be a true Steelers fan, but a good friend of mine was a HUGE fan, and I guess his enthusiasm was a bit infectious. I always wish them well when i run into a fan. I have to claim the Redskins, much to my shame. I see they're doing all right this year, but I haven't felt good about the program since Mr. Snyder bought the team and brought in Dione Sanders, among other has beens. The whole attitutude of the team changed dramaitcally at that point, I think, and I haven't really paid much attention since.

Anyway, back on topic.

While I agree it has nothing to do with the founding fathers, where does it stop? Every change made will bring previous decisions into question. Once a precedent is set it tends to have an effect on other decisions. Maybe it won't in this case, but I'm not one willing to take that chance. Ever hear the old saying "give them an inch and they'll take a mile"?

I see what you mean, but i don't think it would go that far. Maybe I'm wrong. People say the same about making late term abortion illegal, but I don't really buy that either. I'm very much pro-choice, and late term abortions don't really bother me, but I dont think giving an inch leads to giving a mile. It turns out most of America is against late term abortions, and I accept that. However, I have also read that a significant majority of Americans continue being in favor of leaglized abortions, so I'm not worried. With the pledge, it is not an identical situation, but similar enough. For myself, I don't see this as an attack on the very identity of the US.

 

[Aquarian]

I always thought of the pledge as indoctrination anyway, and by always I mean since 2nd grade. A pledge forced is a worthless pledge. As to the inclusion of the under god phrase I'd have to say I'd rather see it go, especially as it was added during a questionable period of governmental ethics in our nation's history. I reflect back on the puritans among the original settlers who fled religious persecution in England simply to turn around and persecute just as severely those whose beliefs did not align with theirs. I personally tho see no harm whether the phrase stays or goes, both religion and patriotism reside in the heart not in words spoken by rote on command. I also think the government has too many rules and too much fine print within those rules, but that's another topic...:cof:

 

[Moi]

Amendment I

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.

I just wonder how many of the posters on this board actually know what the Constitution says. Not because I think ya'll aren't intelligent, but because, as an avid Constitutional scholar, I haven't a clue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where the heck does the above Amendment state that there shall be a separation of church and state? Where does it state that there shall be no references in government information of any religion or religious icons? All it says is that the congress can't make a law establishing a religion nor can they prohibit anyone from exercising a religion. Sounds kind of open ended to me...I certainly don't see how the pledge of allegience, with or without the under God phrase, contravenes this Amendment. Of course, what do I know? I always thought that the second Amendment meant I could own my own damn gun!

 

[Aquarian]

you're right about the phrase separation of church and state, the only two references I recollect (historically anyway, the phrase abounds nowadays) are the communist manifesto by marx and a document by thomas jefferson (Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802)). Of course, while I give the authors of the constitution and the bill of rights great credit for their wide sweeping vision, one cannot deny that certain changes were necessary such as establishing women's and blacks right to vote. This indicates we should constantly be evaluating all the articles of the constitution, all the federal laws, all the state laws etc to ensure they are there to protect our freedoms rather than unjustly restricting them. As much as I'd like to say 99 percent of them are unnecessary the current state of individual responsibility and respect for each other's freedoms does not allow me to do so. Perhaps someday...

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

ATTRIBUTION: It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.—John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790. (Speeches. Dublin, 1808.)

There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust.—Demosthenes: Philippic 2, sect. 24.

 

[Bry]

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.

As an avid constitutional scholar, Moi, I shouldn't think it would be so difficult to find in this passage the famous separation of church and state, which is a phrase which predates the writing of the Constitution: it is the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution itself. As I said in an early post, the precise wording of the Constitution was debated over ad infinitum, and the product is one of compromise, but there is certainly no question that for many of the founding fathers, it was precisely the separation of church and state which they had in mind, and they accepted the wording because they found their desires adequately presented in this phrasing. Of course, debate continues, because the wording agreed upon was necessarily ambiguous. Regardless, my interpretation is certainly valid (though I do not make any claim to "truth"), and not nearly as unfounded as your ludicrous post would lead us to believe.

Is not having to recite the phrase "one nation under God" a promotion of a particular group of religions, namely monotheism? Is it not an infringement on the "free" exercise thereof? Could the abridging of freedom of speech" not only be considered in terms of what you cannot say but also what you are forced (or governmentally encouraged) to say?

Because you asked, I wrote my previous posts on this thread referring directly to a copy of the Constitution. I cannot recite the Bill of Rights by memory, but I can open a book!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
Regardless, my interpretation is certainly valid (though I do not make any claim to "truth"), and not nearly as unfounded as your ludicrous post would lead us to believe.

And you wonder what people are saying when they state your posts are demeaning in nature. Was it neccesary to claim Moi's post was "ludicrous" and "unfounded" while you state in the same sentence that your OPINION is a result of your interpretation?

You can interpret what it says, but what it DOESN'T say is a matter of fact.

Excuse me if I side with the facts yet again.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bry
As an avid constitutional scholar, Moi, I shouldn't think it would be so difficult to find in this passage the famous separation of church and state, which is a phrase which predates the writing of the Constitution: it is the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution itself. As I said in an early post, the precise wording of the Constitution was debated over ad infinitum, and the product is one of compromise, but there is certainly no question that for many of the founding fathers, it was precisely the separation of church and state which they had in mind, and they accepted the wording because they found their desires adequately presented in this phrasing.

First, the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" comes from an 1802 letter from President Jefferson to a Baptist church. The Constitution predates this letter by some fifteen years - unless someone else used it earlier, which I am not aware of.
Second, if the Founding Fathers had wanted a separation of church and state, why didn't they put that in there? As it is, they put two fairly narrow restrictions in writing: there will be no Church of America that is taxpayer supported, and there will be no state infringement on what religion you want to practice. Very straightforward.

 

[jimnyc]

Allow me to add on to that, Jeff, and show that you are in fact correct. The statement "separation of church and state" DOES NOT pre-date the Constitution as Bry would have us believe.

"Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers."

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

 

[Bry]

It's good to be back.

I called ludicrous his assertion that the implied separation of church and state (which seems to me a reasonable summation of part of the first amendment, regardless of its atecedents) was a startling and unfounded interpretation. The interpretation IS valid, as should be clear to a constitution scholar, even if in the end he decides it is not correct. But in some way, the word "ludicrous" is out of place, and I'll take it back, with an apology to Moi, if I may. Also, I see that my post was generally unclear. I did not mean to insinuate that the words "separation of church and state" appear in the first ammendment, but rather that it is an adequate summation of what does appear (in my opinion).

As for the phrase "separation of church and state" the phrase, and the philosophical notion which underlies it, have many historical antecedents, though you may be correct that it first found this published form after the drafting of the constitution. In any case, the idea is a good bit older than the constitution, and in line with the philosophical leanings of the founding fathers.

Apart from that though, why would you want it to be otherwise? It is a document open to interpretation, that much we can agree on. But why should anyone want to defend a relationship between church and state? Monarchy, of course, was the original form of the union of church and state. Shouldn't we, living in a democracy, want to maintain the state as far apart from religious concerns as possible? Wasn't it precisely in rebellion against the ancient regime that we created this country in the first place? Are we "one nation under God"? I can't see where God has anything to do with it. In God we trust? Who is "we"? I always figured it was we the people, but if so, why should I be excluded because of my religious beliefs or lack thereof? Put simply, these phrases are exclusionary, and I don't think that is appropriate in a Democracy.