Justify the Pledge...

[vyse5090]

Dear Sirs,
I am a college student in Seattle and I am running into a dilemma. I am a part of an American Government class at my school and we have been divided into groups to argue different sides of mock Supreme Court Cases. The case I have been assigned to is worded as follows: " Is it a violation of the Establishment clause to require elementary school teachers as a matter of policy, to lead their classes in a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase, "Under God.""
My group is arguing that it is not a violation, but we are not having much luck finding any support for our side of the argument. If you have any suggestions as to angles that we could take or resources we can utilize it would be greatly appreciated.

Robert

 

[random3434]

Hello Robert!

I am an elementary public school teacher.

Our school (over 700 students) has some students say the pledge every day over our loud speakers. The students then stand up, and say the pledge, or don't. We don't make them say it, and there is nothing said to them if they don't, it's their choice.

So we in fact aren't MAKING them say the pledge, it's an option for them.


(by the way, I do stand with my hand over my heart and say the pledge, but I know there are other teachers that don't. Again, it's their CHOICE! )

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask more questions. I think there is a thread on here somewhere about this.

 

[frazzledgear]

Dear Sirs,
I am a college student in Seattle and I am running into a dilemma. I am a part of an American Government class at my school and we have been divided into groups to argue different sides of mock Supreme Court Cases. The case I have been assigned to is worded as follows: " Is it a violation of the Establishment clause to require elementary school teachers as a matter of policy, to lead their classes in a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase, "Under God.""
My group is arguing that it is not a violation, but we are not having much luck finding any support for our side of the argument. If you have any suggestions as to angles that we could take or resources we can utilize it would be greatly appreciated.

Robert

I would argue it is in no way a violation of the Establishment clause on several grounds.

1. First of all the clause forbids federal government from establishing a national religion or favoring one religion over another. (Many people are unaware that the Constitutional restrictions were actually intended only on federal government, not state governments which had all the powers of an independent nation except for the few powers they agreed to turn over to federal government in exchange for the benefits of joining the Union like national defense, international treaties etc.) It does NOT forbid federal government from encouraging or acknowledging the religious faith of its citizens. It sure doesn't say that all employees of government forfeit their own rights by getting hired either. In fact, the Federalist Papers -written to explain why certain parts of the Constitution were written as they were and the importance of them to the founders -shows the founders believed a citizenry with religious beliefs was the very backbone of a moral society and that government had an obligation to acknowledge, respect and ENCOURAGE religious beliefs. Just without CHOOSING or forcing a particular religion on its citizens.

The Establishment clause does not mean government must remain neutral between ALL religions on one side and atheism on the other. It is ordered to remain neutral only between RELIGIONS. Atheism isn't a religion at all. Which should mean that if government must choose to between all religious beliefs and atheism -it favors religious beliefs. The Establishment clause is not a demand that government itself be atheistic -only that it be a SECULAR one. "Secular" only means "not ruling by the authority of any particular religious doctrine". It does not mean "atheist". It in NO way forbids government from acknowledging a Supreme Being. Not unless someone on the other side of the debate wants to argue that the Declaration of Independence is "unconstitutional" for referring to "the Creator". Just as many religions believe in a Creator as believe in God -so is that a declaration that somehow "establishes" an official, government chosen religion it is "inflicting" on all citizens too? How can anyone rationally argue that if government acknowledges a Supreme Being or Creator it becomes an official "religion" where others are somehow being FORCED to join a federally chosen church or FORCED to worship that Creator? By merely hearing a TEACHER mention it? It somehow becomes federal government officially CHOOSING a religion or forcing citizens to participate in religious activity? There is no "right" to not hear someone else mention God -even if it is a teacher who mentions the word. Even if it is an entire branch of government which does. Which is why the Senate opens its new session with PRAYERS, why the Supreme Court opens arguments with a prayer that calls for "God save the United States and this honorable Court". As several Supreme Court justices noted, the mere mention of "God" does not turn something into a PRAYER. Our coins have "In God We Trust" -yet it is not a prayer or considered to be in violation of the Establishment clause either. Merely not liking the mention of God does not turn anything into a prayer and the "establishment" of a government endorsed religion.

2. The Pledge -with or without the phrase "under God" -is a CIVIC exercise, not a religious one. And at all times entirely voluntary. The inclusion of the word "God" does not somehow pressure students to involuntarily participate any more than not including the word.

The Constitution demands that government remain neutral only between the religions. In fact, it could be argued that a government that never acknowledges God has officially chosen atheism as a religion and is no longer neutral at all. Which is FORBIDDEN by the Constitution. It elevates the lack of ANY religious belief ABOVE any and ALL religious beliefs. But government is ordered to remain neutral BETWEEN the religions and not required to even acknowledge the lack of religious belief at all beyond not forcing atheists to join a religion or participate in religious activity. So if government officially chooses ATHEISM as its official "religion" - then it is no longer neutral BETWEEN the religions at all, huh? Not if "atheism" is government's choice of what reigns supreme in the nation. In fact, if government is atheist, it makes ALL religions subservient -which means it can only squash ALL religions and religious beliefs instead of protecting it -as it is specifically ordered to do in the First Amendment!

3. Government is in violation of the Establishment clause when it becomes OFFICIAL government policy that a particular religion is preferred over all others or government favors only one over all others financially or with regard to the tax code, grants etc. But a teacher cannot and does not create official government policy. A civic exericise does not establish an government endorsed religion either. So that teacher cannot be giving an official government endorsement to any religion by leading students in a civic exercise that happens to mention the word "God".

A teacher works for a public school which is financed primarly by taxpayers of that school district with the next greatest monies coming from state government and then federal government. But a teacher cannot establish government policy either on the state or federal level. Which means if a teacher engages in ANY activity that parents of the kids in his/her class object to, whether a religious one, political indoctrination issue or some kind of immoral activity -it isn't a Supreme Court issue at all. Even if some parent objected to this civic exericise -whether this civic exercise should continue in that school remains first a local and then state issue. And if it goes that far, the decision at the state level should decide this issue -not the Supreme Court.

4. I've heard the silly argument that by using the word "God" that somehow infringes on the "right" of those who believe in multiple gods or Wiccans etc. Not true. It merely acknowledges the beliefs of the overwhelming vast majority. We live in a democratic republic -and it IS rule by the majority with protections to prevent TYRANNY by the majority over the minority. Not to prevent the rule of the majority. "Tyrrany" is an abuse of power and oppression of others -preventing the minority from exercising the identical rights the majority have. It is NOT every possible acknowledgement that someone happens not to be in the majority with regard to every single possible issue. Acknowledging the beliefs of the overwhelming majority in a civic exercise is not tyrrany at all since there is no "right" to not hear the vast majority who hold that belief acknowledge God during a civic exericise -and no one is being oppressed or abused by government. It doesn't prevent the Wiccan from practicing their rites or believing whatever they want just because a teacher led the Pledge that included the word "God" and the Wiccan's kid actually HEARD that word! There is NO "right" to not hear stuff you may not agree with in this country whether it involves religious beliefs or political beliefs. It isn't "tyranny" any more than if a Wiccan hears the Supreme Court open with a declaration of "God save the United States and this honorable court". Wouldn't that means the fact Presidential Inaugurations always includes prayers is some kind of constitutional violation? But it ISN'T. But demanding that we have a government that says the majority must sacrifice each and every time in all things, including this -is actually a demand for a government that not only allows the tyranny by the minority but ENCOURAGES it - and sets a far more dangerous precedent.

 

[editec]

What if the pledge included the words "under Allah"?

Would you insist that children had to recite it then?

I rather doubt it.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I remember when I first moved to the US as a wee 5th grader and couldn't understand the whole pledge thing at first, since all we'd do in Costa Rica was sing the anthem during civic events. Didn't really want to say it, but I don't remember what the policy was. I don't remember if everyone HAD to say it, but I didn't. Even at 11, I wasn't going to pledge allegiance to a foreign power.

EDIT: Oh yeah, the actual question. Well, some of the obvious that come to mind are to create uniformity and cohesion, as the entire process of nation-building, to inculcate from early on the allegiance that is key to State power. Without national symbols and pledges to rally around the total subordination to state power would be much harder. You know, all that sort of thing.

 

[frazzledgear]

What if the pledge included the words "under Allah"?

Would you insist that children had to recite it then?

I rather doubt it.

If the US had been founded by a pack of people who worshipped Allah and those of all other religions were the minority, and those people had made the very same specific protections for those who did not belong to the religion of the majority -I would feel the same way, sorry. When in Rome......

1. We have a democratic republic -which means rule of the majority with protections in place to prevent the TYRANNY of the majority over the minority. It sure doesn't mean tyranny of the minority over the majority or that the majority must pretend they aren't the majority, does it? It doesn't mean the majority must forfeit the rights the Constitution also gives THEM. Everyone has the RIGHT to acknowledge God any time they want -and there are no restrictions regarding the piece of land they happen to be standing on when they do either.

If someone isn't being FORCED to participate, FORCED to join a religion, FORCED to participate in religious activity -then their rights have been fully observed. But where in the Constitution does that mean the majority must pretend they aren't the majority and that they are constitutionally restricted from acknolwedging God on state or federally owned land or buildings?

2. With or without the inclusion of the word "God", it still remains a CIVIC exercise and not a religious one.

3. The guy was asking for help arguing his side of the debate -not whether you wanted to take up the debate on the other side. And not whether these arguments would actually win the entire debate. But given the fact the justices pointed out some of these very points when hearing arguments on this issue -such as the fact the mere inclusion of the word "God" does not turn the Pledge into a prayer and it is still a civic exercise that is at all times voluntary - they are legitimate points to argue.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I would say that any public organization that forces a reciting of The Pledge, including the phrase 'one nation under God' does border on establishment... Who or what 'God' is was given by the framers of the constitution to the smallest unit of government authorized to operate in America, individual families.

The true issue lies in how it is enforced. If education or other government services are denied because someone is unwilling to acknowledge the concept of 'God' then I think the spirit in which the constitution was framed is violated.

If the students are not given a choice in using the phrase, it should be explained to them and their guardians that the definition of 'God' will specifically not be provided by the school and the guardians should be required to fill that void.

Obviously, this is the opinion of only one average Joe.

-Joe

 

[José]

Originally posted by frazzledgear
The Establishment clause does not mean government must remain neutral between ALL religions on one side and atheism on the other. It is ordered to remain neutral only between RELIGIONS.

The Establishment clause is part of a historical, 200 year old document.

21th century secular states do not allow any blatant manifestation of religion inside state facilities like the pledge or school prayer because these are activities unrelated to teaching that almost always exposes non religious people and religious minorities to an unpleasant situation.


But nevermind...

Let's keep treating the American Constitution as a Holy Book that cannot be altered instead of turning America into a FULLY FLEDGED, MODERN SECULAR STATE that protects its non-religious citizens and religious minorities from this kind of embarrassing situations.

 

[YWN666]

In fact, it could be argued that a government that never acknowledges God has officially chosen atheism as a religion and is no longer neutral at all.

That is nonsense. The absence of religion does NOT equal atheism. The installation manual for my Kenmore dishwasher doesn't mention God once. Does that mean it is an atheist dishwasher???

Our government does NOT demand in any way, shape, or form that god does not exist. It is neutral on the subject and should remain that way.

 

[YWN666]

The Pledge with the phrase "under God" links patriotism with belief in God and relegates non-believers to outsider status. The Pledge worked for us for many years without the phrase and it can work for us again without it. If you feel the need to insert "under god" while you're reciting the pledge, no one is stopping you.

 

[YWN666]

1. We have a democratic republic -which means rule of the majority with protections in place to prevent the TYRANNY of the majority over the minority. It sure doesn't mean tyranny of the minority over the majority or that the majority must pretend they aren't the majority, does it? It doesn't mean the majority must forfeit the rights the Constitution also gives THEM. Everyone has the RIGHT to acknowledge God any time they want -and there are no restrictions regarding the piece of land they happen to be standing on when they do either.

We have a constitutional republic - majority may come into play in elections but the majority does not rule when it comes to rights. This is not a popularity contest or mob rule. The rights of the majority 99% do not trump the rights of any individual.

 

[YWN666]

This is an article that appeared in the Charlotte Observer in July, 2002:
========
Posted on Mon, Jul. 01, 2002
Loving God and loving country -- separately
ARNOLD H. LOEWY
Special to The Observer

Perceived judicial attacks on God or country are not taken kindly by the populace or politicians. This point has been illustrated over and over again by attempts to amend the Constitution to allow school prayer and punish flag burners. So it should come as no great surprise that when God and country appear to be under attack in one fell judicial swoop, the politicians will indeed become restless. Consequently, the senate's 99-0 rejection of the 9th Circuit Court's decision invalidating the phrase "under God" in the flag salute was not unexpected. It was, however, unfortunate.
I know of no more important duties than the support of God and country. But they don't mix well. We elect senators and congressmen to enact laws describing reciprocal duties between ourselves and our country. We do not elect them to prescribe our duty to God. For that we have priests, ministers, rabbis and other clerical or lay church leaders.
Roger Williams, one of our most pious founders, insisted on separation of church and state because of his firm belief that civil leaders were unqualified to lead us in the ways of God.
More recently, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of government neither endorsing nor disapproving one's religious beliefs.
Put differently, one's devotion (or lack thereof) to God is irrelevant to her status as a citizen. The phrase "under God" in a patriotic pledge certainly disapproves of Buddhists, Taoists, ethical culturalists, secular humanists and, of course, atheists.
One might be tempted to respond: "So what? We're right and they're wrong. Who cares if a few heathen are offended?" That, however, is just the point. You and I might know that we're right and they're wrong, but the government is not permitted to know that. The government must remain neutral.
In some ways, the public pledge in school is worse than public prayer. With prayer, the nonbeliever must identify herself as a nonbeliever by not participating. But with the pledge, a devoutly patriotic American atheist may appear to be unpatriotic when he was merely ungodly. Compelling the atheistic patriot to either appear unpatriotic or betray his religious convictions is precisely the choice that the establishment clause forbids government to impose on its citizens.
For those who think that "under God" is merely political and not religious, imagine a hypothetical future when America is controlled by a majority of atheists, who decide to substitute "without God" for "under God" in the flag salute. I would hope that the Supreme Court (even if then also controlled by atheists) would hold that unconstitutional. I would argue that however atheistic the majority of the country may be, our fundamental charter demands that the majority's religious philosophy not be the basis of our country's politics.
Ironically, it was the Soviet Union's dictatorial infusion of atheism into the warp and woof of Soviet society that prompted us to add "under God" to the flag salute in the first place. Perhaps we should have added "with freedom of religion" instead. That would have properly highlighted the difference between us and the Soviet Union.
Those who worry that invalidation of "under God" in the pledge might lead to the eventual demise of "In God we trust" on our coins and currency should recall Jesus' admonition in regard to the propriety of Caesar's likeness on the coins and currency of the realm. He famously remarked: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." God most assuredly deserves our trust, but he doesn't need "Caesar" to provide it. Our alternative motto, e pluribus unum, from the many one, describes both our diversity and, in pledge terms, our indivisibility. And, it lacks the divisiveness of a motto spiritually offensive to some and theoretically offensive to others.
The love of both God and country are characteristic of most good American citizens. It is my fondest hope that this will continue to be the way we are. But countries that seriously integrate the two are not among those that we like to emulate. The Shiites of Iran and Islamic Jihad are two recent examples of the harm that can come from excessive intermixing.
While America would never go down that path, we would do well to remove ourselves as far as possible from the Theocratic State. As Justice Jackson, the Nuremberg prosecutor, once observed: "It is possible to hold a faith with enough confidence to believe that what should be rendered to God does not need to be decided and collected by Caesar."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold H. Loewy is Graham Kenan Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380

 

[José]

Originally posted by YWN666
That is nonsense. The absence of religion does NOT equal atheism. The installation manual for my Kenmore dishwasher doesn't mention God once. Does that mean it is an atheist dishwasher???

Our government does NOT demand in any way, shape, or form that god does not exist. It is neutral on the subject and should remain that way.

This is the most common (and dishonest) debating tactics employed by fundamentalists from all religions, YWN666.

They always try to bridge the abyss that separates a modern secular state like France, Italy and atheist states, particularly those that follow the communist ideology, like the Soviet Union, China.

I just shake my head and ask myself what kind of state of deep mental confusion leads someone to confuse a NON-CONFESSIONAL state like France with an atheist state like Albania under communism.

Well, learn something new everyday...

You join a Message Board and all of a sudden you "find out" that the Enlightenment and the Marxist ideology are one and the same thing.

tsk, tsk, tsk...

 

[Turboswede]

What if the pledge included the words "under Allah"?

Would you insist that children had to recite it then?

I rather doubt it.

Thats just dumb as Allah is just Arabic for "God" why would anyone say the pledge in english and then say "God" in Arabic?

 

[YWN666]

Thats just dumb as Allah is just Arabic for "God" why would anyone say the pledge in english and then say "God" in Arabic?

I think you missed the point.

 

[YWN666]

This is the most common (and dishonest) debating tactics employed by fundamentalists from all religions, YWN666.

They always try to bridge the abyss that separates a modern secular state like France, Italy and atheist states, particularly those that follow the communist ideology, like the Soviet Union, China.

There seems to be collective ignorance/dishonesty among fundamentalists. Once one of them reads a falsehood on a right wing website, they all automatically know it and repeat it. It's like they're all reading from the same playbook and when they resort to such tactics, it tells us that they have no substance to use as ammunition. They think if you're not with them, you're against them.

 

[Turboswede]

I think you missed the point.

No I got the point, but it was still a poor analogy, Khali or Shiva would have been a better example. I think you missed my point that the "Gods" of all 3 major religions are actually the same God, like the Muslims say "There is only one God"....

Not that I believe it, but I thought using the term "Allah" was specificy used to provoke the most extreme reaction short of "Satan" when the analogy was truly flawed.

Was the US founded on some Idea of a "higher power"? Yes, but I know Jefferson was a diest who though of "God" as the great watchmaker, or the invisible hand of Adam Smith, or the Voice of the collective people. It was the age of reason where science was replacing religion as a means for explaining the reasons why the world is as it is.

So, I don't think the term "God" as used in the pledge is a violation of the establishment clause of the constitution.

OMG I am soooooooo glad I never have to go to school again!!!!

 

[editec]

I think you missed the point.

But his missing the point made mine rather well, didn't it?

 

[Andrew2382]

I remember the days when everyone in my class said the pledge and noone even questioned saying it, Then we even sang the national anthem or America

 

[YWN666]

But his missing the point made mine rather well, didn't it?

Yep. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your point was that if the tables were turned and the christian "under God" was replaced by "under Allah" in the pledge, christians would be screaming bloody murder instead of saying "Oh, what's the big deal?" as they are now.