Supreme Court to Decide Pledge Case

[Joan]

I have never heard of anyone being arrested for not reciting the pledge of allegiance. If the words offend you - just stand respectfully and keep your mouth shut! I am so fed up with this politically correct nonsense! Christmas decordations not allowed, but yet we have the Menorah's - and this lights for Dawali (or however you spell it). Personally, I find some of our laws offensive, like not being able to go 60mph in a 25mph zone when I am in a hurry, or not being able to just help myself to something I like in a store when I don't have enough money as the guy next door. Where will this end? There are also 2 different versions of the Lord's Prayer (one is said by the Catholics, and the other by the Protestants). Now if I am in a mixed crowd and some continue with "Thine is the Kingdom" and others do not - who the hell am I to say this is wrong?

 

[Bry]

Point taken, Joan. You're right that "political correctness" has led to many double standards, and so what should be permitted or not should be handled judiciously. Of course, I could go to the other extreme as you have and say: where will it stop? First we have to say "one nation under God" every morning, then we have to use money that says "in God we trust", what's next? Are they going to shove communion wafers down our throats too? Take field trips down to the river for a mass baptizing? Public exorcisms of demons? Obviously, the extremes become ridiculous in either direction. Of course, with the Lords prayer, you are not to say anyone is wrong, which is my point exactly. We should be allowed to practice religion as we see fit, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. On the other hand, if they had the children in public schools reciting the Lords Prayer in any version, then we would truly have something to worry about. As it is, I don't like having to choose between saying "one nation under God" or distinguishing myself in front of my peers by not saying it. It serves no functional purpose, it is not an important aspect of our education, and I think it should go (though i respect your opinion to the contrary.)

As for Hannukah and Kwanza, well, either we should mark the important celebrations of all the religions, or we should mark none, and each in as equal proportion as possible.

 

[Joan]

Thanks for your respectful reply Bry. I can sort of see your point, but I don't think if you truly believe in something that you would be ashamed to have your peers know it. Through all my years in public school, we not only recited the Pledge, but we also had to take turns reading a passage from the Bible each morning. There were children who were not Christian, and did not have to partake in these customs. There were also kids who would magically disappear when Birthdays or Christmas celebrations rolled around - these were the Jewish or Jehovah's Witness children. We also learned to play the Dreidel during Chaunnaka (sp). I have been on both sides of the Catholic and Protestant fences, and I will still recite the last sentence (I am not ashamed for anyone to know who or what I am). This junk all started with Madeline Murray O'Hare - and I really don't think she found American money distasteful. With all the diversity in this country, if we celebrated every ethnic holiday - we would never have to work! Do you really think Christmas is a legal holiday in all countries? Do you ever see any non-believers insisting on working on Christmas - I think not - it's a paid day off! Should we make every ethnic holiday a legal holiday - NO. Yes, if different people want to put out their traditional decorations for their holiday, but all means - but you are in America - adapt to it!

 

[Moi]

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. 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!

What a shame that you seem to have missed the point of the Constitution altogether. The letters and all other communications from and between the founding fathers were, obviously, indications of their beliefs. However, NONE OF THEM IS LAW. The only laws of this country are those enacted by congress. Not anecdotal evidence based upon who thought what and when. The laws of this country are supposed to be black letter law. That means that the Constitution is suppposed to be relied upon for what it specifically says or doesn't say.

My post, while perhaps ludicrous to one who doesn't understand the basics of our government, is factually correct. There is no separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution and any interpretation which claims there is or was meant to be, is clearly that- interpretation. Which, by the way, means "conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance". So everyone's interpretation of things can and most likely will be different. The debate continues about what the founding fathers may have meant, my comment was what they wrote.

 

[shylock]

I can tell most of the commenters here are younger.

"Under God" was added to the pledge when I was in either first or second grade and it was certainly clear at the time that it was a reference to the christian God.

And I can still see my then best friend, the son of a rabbi, standing in the corner for refusing to say those words with the pledge. If that wasn't religious discrimination, then what is?

 

[lilcountriegal]

And I can still see my then best friend, the son of a rabbi, standing in the corner for refusing to say those words with the pledge. If that wasn't religious discrimination, then what is?

Actually Shy, this is where the time factor comes in. I am currently 31... I remember saying the Pledge every day of the school year. Every person recited that Pledge every day in homeroom. Whereas I am not doubting your best friend was punished for not reciting the Pledge, times have definitely changed.

The topic at hand now is NOT making children recite the Pledge. In current times, children are instructed (and often encouraged) that, if the Pledge offends them, to not recite it. However, the current debate among Athiests and such is not for forcing their children to RECITE, but forcing their children to LISTEN (to the other children recite). Yours is simply a difference of time. What happened when you were in school does not reflect what is currently happening throughout schools today.

Its like comparing apples to oranges... while they are both round, they are two completely different things.

 

[shylock]

"There is no separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution . . ."

That strikes me as an overly simplistic interpretation.

If you truly understand our government, then you know that it is a government of limited powers derived from the people and the Constitution. The government can only do what it is authorized to do and can only act in areas where it is authorized to act. The fount of federal authority is the Constitution.

The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is a complete barrier to government action vis-a-vis religion. And, as such, establishes a clear separation between the state and religion.

It's the difference between reading and comprehending.

 

[shylock]

Originally posted by lilcountriegal
Actually Shy, this is where the time factor comes in. I am currently 31... I remember saying the Pledge every day of the school year. Every person recited that Pledge every day in homeroom. Whereas I am not doubting your best friend was punished for not reciting the Pledge, times have definitely changed.

The topic at hand now is NOT making children recite the Pledge. In current times, children are instructed (and often encouraged) that, if the Pledge offends them, to not recite it. However, the current debate among Athiests and such is not for forcing their children to RECITE, but forcing their children to LISTEN (to the other children recite). Yours is simply a difference of time. What happened when you were in school does not reflect what is currently happening throughout schools today.

Its like comparing apples to oranges... while they are both round, they are two completely different things.

No. Actually they are the same thing--but in different ways. Having a teacher lead students (even if some don't participate) in the pledge is governmental action--and ending the pledge with "under God" is promoting one particular brand of religion. Whether students participate or not is irrelevant, since they are forced to listen to it--and by "it" I mean a governmental action promoting religion. That's the point--and that is the basis for the argument about the constitutionality of "under God." Whether you agree or not, surely you can understand the argument. Whether a student is banished to the corner, listens silently, or recites the pledge makes no difference. It is still governmental action promoting a particular brand of religion.

 

[lilcountriegal]

To me, the Pledge of Allegiance is not at all about religion.

"I Pledge Allegiance, to the Flag, of the United States of America. And to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all".

As defined by the dictionary:

Main Entry: pledge of allegiance
Function: noun
Definition: a vow of loyalty and support for the country, esp. the US

I disagree that it promotes religion... it promotes loyalty, to your Nation, not your God.

While I'm going spastic with the dictionary, let me add this:

god ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gd)
n.
God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

God doesnt necessarily mean "Jesus Christ".. (okay, I'm grasping here). My God can be different from your God. I have many different opinions regarding religion, I am not an extremely religious person... I go to church on Holidays and maybe once a month.

It all boils back to my original opinion: The Pledge is about loyalty to one's country, not to one's God.

 

[shylock]

Well, yes and no. Certainly, "God" in the abstract--and in a vacuum--doesn't favor any particular deity. When Congress acted to include the phrase "under God" in the pledge, it was neither abstract nor in a vacuum. It was in the early years of the cold war, when school children had to crouch under their desks or in the hall when the sirens sounded. (as if it would have done any good) It was a test of patriotism to oppose the Godless communists -- and "under God" sharpened the contrast between the godless stalinists and our Christian nation.

But setting that aside--the very use of the phrase "under God" connotes religion. You have to admit that "God" has no meaning outside of religion. To demand we proclaim fealty to "one nation, under God" is to bathe the subject of our loyalty in religion. And it doesn't make any difference whether it's your God, my God, someone else's God, or even some cheap, imitation generic God that your HMO could approve, it is still religion. And government can't require you to swear your loyalty to it , cram it down your throat, or force you to listen to it even if it doesn't work; the 2d amendment forbids it.

 

[Bry]

right. if it's all about loyalty to our country, surely you won't mind if we scratch out those two words that weren't even part of the pledge in the first place.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
right. if it's all about loyalty to our country, surely you won't mind if we scratch out those two words that weren't even part of the pledge in the first place.

Was it not this country that supported the change in the pledge so many years ago? Why wasn't it shot down back then?

"thou shall not kill"

Seeing this derived from religious belief, should we do away with prosecuting murderers?

The very foundation of our law was founded on a lot of these beliefs, and in my opinion they should be recognized, not removed.

 

[Aquarian]

iirc, the under god was added during the mcarthy era to help rub out godless communism. Any protest would have ended a person on the receiving end of mcarthy's witch hunts.

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by jimnyc
"thou shall not kill"

Seeing this derived from religious belief, should we do away with prosecuting murderers?

The very foundation of our law was founded on a lot of these beliefs, and in my opinion they should be recognized, not removed.

jejeje. That's a bit extreme, don't you think jim? Take the "God" out of the pledge of alleigance, and we have to eliminate laws? Do you really think the only way to arrive at the idea that killing is a bad idea is to take it from the bible? Certainly, there is some overlap between our laws and the bible. That doesn't mean the laws aren't justifiable without reference to the bible (to the contrary, it means that they are NECESSARILY justifiable without reference to the bible.)

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
jejeje. That's a bit extreme, don't you think jim? Take the "God" out of the pledge of alleigance, and we have to eliminate laws? Do you really think the only way to arrive at the idea that killing is a bad idea is to take it from the bible? Certainly, there is some overlap between our laws and the bible. That doesn't mean the laws aren't justifiable without reference to the bible (to the contrary, it means that they are NECESSARILY justifiable without reference to the bible.)

The fact is like you said, there IS some overlap between our laws and the bible, and I don't think recognizing that fact should be so hard for those with differerent religions to swallow.

Not a single person has been harmed by the reference in the pledge. The only reason some want it removed is because of their opposing beliefs, which should not be enough to override the fact of where the premise of a lot of our laws derived from.

 

[Bry]

Yeah, I know we aren't going to agree on this. Just to leave it clear, when I say there is overlap, I mean that the overlap is IMHO more coincidental than anything else. It seems clear to me that our laws are not taken from the bible in any direct sense. Whatever overlap there is has nothing to do with God, but rather with the fact that they make sense as good laws for a country to have, not to mention necessary. What sort of country would permit murder? But the concept of murder as found in our laws is not the same as the "Thou shalt not kill" of the bible.

Which is also why I think it should not be against the law for gay couples to marry or adopt children. It seems to me that that is a law which was accepted uncritically from the bible, and which cannot be justified without reference to the bible, that gays are an "abomination".

 

[Aquarian]

Not a single person has been harmed by the reference in the pledge.

That depends on your definition of harm. According to the person bringing the suit, the harm in this case comes from what he considers to be indoctrination of his daughter to lend credibility to what he considers a harmful myth. Not saying right or wrong, true or false, just offering an angle of observation for discussion.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
That depends on your definition of harm. According to the person bringing the suit, the harm in this case comes from what he considers to be indoctrination of his daughter to lend credibility to what he considers a harmful myth. Not saying right or wrong, true or false, just offering an angle of observation for discussion.

Harm would mean physical or pyschological injury.

I don't see either having ever happened, nor do I consider it to be a myth.

If someone has pyschological problems as a result of hearing the pledge of allegiance they've apparently had issues to begin with.

 

[Aquarian]

I know you don't consider it a myth, point is that some people do. Possible harms include engendering feelings of alienation for the atheist's children because the figures of authority indicate there is a god, feeling that one has to believe in god to be a good citizen, or leading the child down a path towards belief in religion which the parent feels would be detrimental. The possible effect is more troubling to the parties who seek this injunction since we're talking about children who are much more impressionable and subject to peer pressure than adults (for most of us anyhoo...).

Again, I'd rather do away with the whole daily pledge to begin with and have it made once on the 18th birthday to confirm citizenship or somesuch. A pledge made with full understanding of the implications is much more valuable than one said by rote as a child.

 

[lilcountriegal]

Well... if we're going to ban "under God" from the Pledge because it "pushes" Christianity onto people, then why stop there...

I am highly offended by the kippot (I think that is what the hat is called?) worn by the Jewish. I think by seeing them walking around with that on their head, they are trying to cram Judaism down my throat. It should be forbidden and banned from being allowed in public. Even though its much easier for me to look away, I still find it highly offensive, and should be outlawed.

See..? Where would it end?