Justify the Pledge...

[YWN666]

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

I remember those days, too, but we were 5 or 6 years old when we learned to recite the pledge and I'd bet few kids that age even knew what the pledge meant. We had no idea that such coersion was a violation of our rights so we just went along because the teacher told us to and the teacher was always right.

 

[YWN666]

From the decision in Newdow v. US Congress
Judge Goodwin:

"In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation 'under God' is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity...........A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. The school district’s practice of teacher led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect forthe ideals set forth in the Pledge, including the religious values it incorporates".

 

[Turboswede]

From the decision in Newdow v. US Congress
Judge Goodwin:

"In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation 'under God' is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity...........A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. The school district’s practice of teacher led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect forthe ideals set forth in the Pledge, including the religious values it incorporates".

Sounds lke a 9th Cir Opinion.

 

[YWN666]

Sounds lke a 9th Cir Opinion.

So what? Did you read the legal reasoning that I quoted?

 

[N4mddissent]

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"

Atheism is not a religion, but it is in manner of speaking a religious belief. If you define religious belief as one's interpretation of the nature of divine power. The nature of that power is non-existence for the 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.

Since the Declaration of Independence was pre-constitutional, I think it would be ridiculous to look back in hindsight and then label it "unconstitutional". However, it is instructive that when the Constitution was written it did not in any way acknowledge a creator. There is no mention of a creator or god within the actual Constitution. The actual text reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" but I think some people often read this as saying an establishment of a religion. The phrase "under god" clearly establishes belief over non-belief. The fact that the word "god" is singular might also indicate that it establishes monotheism over polytheism. And please don't do the strawman argument about being forced to worship or forced to join a church. We are talking about a government employee-a teacher-with a captive audience and we are discussing students being compelled to recite something that may fundamentally be contrary to their personal religious convictions. It is an unnecessary situation. The original pledge did not even include the phrase "under god" and was written by a minister. If you say the pledge four or five times leaving out the "under god" portion, you'll find that its cadence actually flows much better. Without that phrase, it is clearly acceptable. But some people want to keep the phrase in and then want to allow students to be compelled to recite it.

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.

You are demonstrated contradictions within your own argument. Either atheism can be considered a religion or can't be. I think it can be considered a religious view. But even then, as you stated, a secular government is not an atheistic one. An atheistic government would support the position through statements and policy that there is, in fact, no god. A theistic government through statements and policy supports the position that there is a god. A secular government should offer no support to either position and thus remain neutral. I don't understand why this point is so difficult for people to generally understand.

But a teacher cannot and does not create official government policy.

However, as a government employee, the teacher in his or her role is an extension of the government. This is why private teachers are not bound by the same restrictions. And a teacher can support any position they like outside the boundaries of their duties as an educator.

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".

Here is this statement again, but without the word "any" since the 1st says "of religion" not "of any religion". So that teacher cannot be giving an official government endorsement to religion by leading students in a civic exercise that happens to mention the word "God" Doesn't seem nearly as sound does it?

There is NO "right" to not hear stuff you may not agree with in this country whether it involves religious beliefs or political beliefs.

And no one claims such. People can hear religious views or speech all the time that they disagree with. However, the government should be representative of all of its citizens, not most of its citizens. Especially when it is such an easily avoidable issue. What harm does it cause to ask that our government be religiously neutral? Changing the national motto from E. Pluribus Unum which really was an extremely good motto that captured the spirit of America's foundation into "In god we trust" was a disgrace and was unnecessary. Adding "under god" in the pledge was unnecessary. No one is trying to infringe upon the rights of the religious majority any more than is expected in regards to any position requiring neutrality. No one would propose that the government make denial of the existence of god part of national priority. No one would suggest a pledge that takes out "under god" and substitutes the phrase "without gods or creeds". That would violate the rights of believers. The argument is simply an appeal for neutrality. Don't say anything since it is not necessary and that way no one is compelled to choose between conformity or exclusion from the community.

 

[Turboswede]

So what? Did you read the legal reasoning that I quoted?

Well, it’s a Minority opinion and the 9th Cir. Tends to be a little on the fringe of interpretation.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I stopped saying the pledge in 9th grade because of I thought the whole idea of pledging Allegiance to a symbol of the state 1st and then to the Republic seemed a little fascist to me, well and because I was a little trouble maker (I don’t feel that way now so no flames please).

Point is, there are valid arguments for why "one nation under god" does not violate the establishment clause, and whether you agree with those arguments is up to you.

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

So you think our Constitution is "broke" or what? You mean we managed to have a nation unique among all others in the world because our Constitution needed a major "do over" all this time? LOL We have always had a secular government because our government has NEVER ruled in accordance with a religious doctrine. "Secular" is not a synonym for ATHEISM -get over it. The synonyms for "atheism" are: godlessness, heresy, irreverence, infidelity, irreligion, nihilism, skepticism and paganism. But not "secularism".


AGAIN:

1. The Pledge is a civic exercise and not a religious, whether it includes the word "God" or not. The Pledge is at all times a voluntary exercise. The word "God" does not somehow apply more pressure to involuntarily participate. You seem to be under the impression there is a "right" to not hear words that express an idea with which you disagree -which isn't true at all. Whether it is a political idea or a religious one. Start banning some kinds of speech because you find the IDEA behind that speech "offensive" merely because it expresses something you don't personally agree with - and you can pretty much expect to find that one day it is YOUR speech that is banned.

But I bet you are one of those who thought it was a great idea to increase the coarseness of society by insisting the First Amendment has far greater use being bastardized to protect vulgar speech instead, right? And insist it is just too bad the founders thought they were actually protecting religious and political speech with that amendment -you know, the kind of stuff they knew got people tossed in prison in Europe for believing and saying? That you find the word "God" mentioned during the course of an entirely voluntary civic exercise to be far more objectionable than hearing a character in some network TV show say "*****" or "asshole" (much less the far more obscene language heard on cable TV) says something so sad and pathetic about you, doesn't it?

2. Your opinion that the Constitution was seriously flawed and required a "do over" all along is rather off topic when it comes to a school debate about a civic exercise. (Debates just aren't interesting to hear unless both sides are arguing valid points and countering with legitimate arguments and you've contributed nothing to the guy who was asking for help with it.) But it is a rather alarming expression of the true agenda of atheists and their REAL desire to see the majority tyrannized by the atheist minority - and the majority stripped of their Constitutional rights. As if because it is a right they personally have no use for, it is somehow objectionable if they should happen to hear or see others exercise it.

If some group came along and argued their opinion that only the guilty hide behind the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and since it is a right they would never need since they aren't criminals, that they found it objectionable when others invoked their 5th Amendment right - and therefore they believe that everyone else should be forcibly stripped of that right entirely -- would that also work for you? ROFL

We all have identical rights in this country but it doesn't mean everyone MUST exercise every single one of them or MUST find each of those rights equally valuable to themselves on a personal level, does it? So whether you personally CHOOSE to exercise some of these rights or not, or personally find some to be of no value to your life than other rights are -cannot EVER determine whether OTHER people even get to keep theirs.

Your last sentence is a real jaw dropper. If no one is forcing you to join a church, government isn't forcing you to participate in religious activity -then government has fully protected the rights of the non-religious, sorry. But AMAZING you think the rights of the non-religious somehow include a "right" to never see, witness or hear the religious exercise THEIR rights! ROFL Gee, do you get bent out of shape and demand government "protect" you from hearing political ideas and speech because you so strongly disagree with it? Seeing or hearing others exercise ANY of their rights isn't a matter of "embarrassment" to those who aren't exercising it at that time, sorry. What a bizarre notion.

If anyone should be embarrassed about anything - atheists should be embarrassed about having their bigotry and intolerance of those who hold different beliefs - so easily exposed.

 

[Skeptik]

Here in the golden state, parents have the right to have their children opt out of saying the pledge. Very few ever do, but they can if they object to it. Isn't the same true in other states as well?

The phrase "under god", which was added in the '50s to differentiate us from the "godless Communists", of course, doesn't say "under Jesus, or Bramah, or Alla (which really does just mean "god" in Arabic), or Buddah or any other deity. Only a small handful of people really object to the concept of god, and they can opt out of saying the pledge if they want to. I don't see where that violates any establishment of religion clause. In fact, if the government were to outlaw the "under god" phrase, wouldn't that be establishing atheism as a religion?


Most elementary school students have no idea what they're saying. First of all, words like pledge, allegiance, republic, nation, indivisible, liberty, justice, are not in their vocabulary for the most part. Secondly, most of them have no concept of "country". Ask a nine year old what country he lives in, and he's just as likely to give the name of his town as anything else.

Given that, I'm not sure just what the pledge accomplishes, other than making the school board and some of the parents feel good. Maybe it helps establish the concept of country, or nation. I'm not sure.

The above words did make a good first of the year vocabulary lesson for me, at least. I knew that they would hear them a lot during the school year.

 

[YWN666]

The phrase "under god", which was added in the '50s to differentiate us from the "godless Communists", of course, doesn't say "under Jesus, or Bramah, or Alla (which really does just mean "god" in Arabic), or Buddah or any other deity. Only a small handful of people really object to the concept of god, and they can opt out of saying the pledge if they want to. I don't see where that violates any establishment of religion clause. In fact, if the government were to outlaw the "under god" phrase, wouldn't that be establishing atheism as a religion?

Absolutely not. Keeping the pledge religiously neutral is NOT establishing atheism. That isa common misconception. We're not asking that the pledge be changed to say "under no god". We're just asking that religion not be adddressed at all. That is not violating anyone's rights.

Also whether someone has the option of not saying "under god" when the pledge is recited is irrelevant. The violation is in the teachers leading the class to recite the pledge including that phrase. Atheist students might feel coerced into participation and the US Sup Ct has said that such a thing is not allowed. A fairer way would be to remove the phrase from the official pledge and allow students to add "under god" or "under (insert your deity here)" on their own.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So you think our Constitution is "broke" or what? You mean we managed to have a nation unique among all others in the world because our Constitution needed a major "do over" all this time? LOL We have always had a secular government because our government has NEVER ruled in accordance with a religious doctrine. "Secular" is not a synonym for ATHEISM -get over it. The synonyms for "atheism" are: godlessness, heresy, irreverence, infidelity, irreligion, nihilism, skepticism and paganism. But not "secularism".


AGAIN:

1. The Pledge is a civic exercise and not a religious, whether it includes the word "God" or not. The Pledge is at all times a voluntary exercise. The word "God" does not somehow apply more pressure to involuntarily participate...

The point of the original post is the assumption that the pledge, including the phrase 'one nation under God...' is mandatory for children in public school.

Any organization, including a government, can encourage anything without violating the spirit of non-establishment.

If the assumption is changed to "The Pledge is at all times a voluntary exercise", the point of this thread becomes moot.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Here in the golden state, parents have the right to have their children opt out of saying the pledge. Very few ever do, but they can if they object to it. Isn't the same true in other states as well?

The phrase "under god", which was added in the '50s to differentiate us from the "godless Communists", of course, doesn't say "under Jesus, or Bramah, or Alla (which really does just mean "god" in Arabic), or Buddah or any other deity. Only a small handful of people really object to the concept of god, and they can opt out of saying the pledge if they want to. I don't see where that violates any establishment of religion clause. In fact, if the government were to outlaw the "under god" phrase, wouldn't that be establishing atheism as a religion?


Most elementary school students have no idea what they're saying. First of all, words like pledge, allegiance, republic, nation, indivisible, liberty, justice, are not in their vocabulary for the most part. Secondly, most of them have no concept of "country". Ask a nine year old what country he lives in, and he's just as likely to give the name of his town as anything else.

Given that, I'm not sure just what the pledge accomplishes, other than making the school board and some of the parents feel good. Maybe it helps establish the concept of country, or nation. I'm not sure.

The above words did make a good first of the year vocabulary lesson for me, at least. I knew that they would hear them a lot during the school year.

That we accept the fact that any given 9 year old in America does not know what country he / she lives in is a national humiliation and an indictment of our educational bureaucracy.

Shame on us.

-Joe

 

[Taomon]

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

There is nothing wrong with having the Pledge of Allegiance recited in school as long as the children understand what and why it is. That is where the violation lies. Most of these children are not taught about the actual history of the Pledge, why it should or should not be recited and what their rights as Americans are concerning it. Usually the history is glossed over with patriotic undertones (being lumped in with the study of the America Revolution).

That is indoctrination. That is a violation of ethics and civil liberties.

If we teach the true history of the Pledge, its meaning and the right to decline recitation...then there is no problem with having it recited at schools. We are not there yet.

Most elementary students believe that they will get into trouble if they do not recite it. That is a truism that school officials are lax to correct. In the words of one Superintendant that I spoke to, "I don't want a bunch of kids refusing to say the pledge for no reason." My response to that was "Why not? It is their right. Let them have and understand their freedom."

The Pledge of Allegiance was created by Congress as part of the Red Scare to ensure Americans were not Communist Sympathizers. The problem with that is if I choose to be a communist and live in America...that is my right. That is what every soldier fought and/or died for.

We are never truly free if limitations of liberty exist. Not knowing one's rights is a limitation. The dumbing down of civics in school is a purposeful attempt to limit our freedom.

 

[editec]

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.

Yup.

The words "under God" do not belong in that pledge.

The words "under God" were insinuated into the pledge by the anti-Communist fruitcakes of the early 1950s.

The story in those days was that communism was Godless, ergo we must tell ourselves that we are Godful people.

Look around you.

Does this look like a society GOD would approve of?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Yup.

The words "under God" do not belong in that pledge.

The words "under God" were insinuated into the pledge by the anti-Communist fruitcakes of the early 1950s.

The story in those days was that communism was Godless, ergo we must tell ourselves that we are Godful people.

Look around you.

Does this look like a society GOD would approve of?

"If God does not punish America, He owes Sodom and Gomorra an apology."
-The Rev. Billy Graham

-Joe

 

[YWN666]

Here's a novel idea: Instead of teaching kids a pledge that they don't understand, why don't we teach them why this country is great and let the loyalty follow? They may be a bit young to understand but they eventually will and it is certainly better than having them recite words that are meaningless to them. We don't want robots, we want them to appreciate what they have by living here.

 

[YWN666]

Most elementary students believe that they will get into trouble if they do not recite it. That is a truism that school officials are lax to correct. In the words of one Superintendant that I spoke to, "I don't want a bunch of kids refusing to say the pledge for no reason." My response to that was "Why not? It is their right. Let them have and understand their freedom."

I like your post but I think kids in elementary school are a bit young to understand what their constitutional rights are and object if they feel that they're being violated. I remember when I was a kid in elementary school, we were taught that what the teacher said was always right. It was beyond our comprehension to think that the teacher could do something wrong and have to be corrected. She is the teacher, after all! I don't know how difficult it would be to get a 7 year old to understand that he can buck the teacher's authority if his constitutional rights are being violated but that he can't if he is instructed to do his homework. High school students might be a different story.

I'm not saying we should allow students to think they'll get in trouble if they don't recite the pledge. I just think they shouldn't be put in a position where they have to make that decision.

 

[YWN666]

Look around you.

Does this look like a society GOD would approve of?

<sarcasm on>
No, but "god works in mysterious ways" dontcha know! Who are we to question his ways? If he has a reason for killing thousands of people with a tsunami, then I'm sure it must be a good reason.
<sarcasm off>

 

[FireGod]

The synonyms for "atheism" are: godlessness, heresy, irreverence, infidelity, irreligion, nihilism, skepticism and paganism.

Try again.

Most elementary school students have no idea what they're saying. First of all, words like pledge, allegiance, republic, nation, indivisible, liberty, justice, are not in their vocabulary for the most part. Secondly, most of them have no concept of "country". Ask a nine year old what country he lives in, and he's just as likely to give the name of his town as anything else.

Please tell me this is not true for your kids. My 8 year old knows this and has known it for some time.

 

[Skeptik]

That we accept the fact that any given 9 year old in America does not know what country he / she lives in is a national humiliation and an indictment of our educational bureaucracy.

Shame on us.

-Joe

They don't understand the concept of "country" at that age very well. It's a matter of child development, not of education.

What is a country, BTW? Can you give a definition?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I don't think anyone has argued that the US Constitution cannot be altered. I think the problem is that you can't alter it simply by wishing it different, or by pretending it already says what you want.

If you want America to be "turned into a fully-fledged, modern secular state" - and you clearly assume that this is something everyone agrees is equally desirable - please feel free to accomplish it via the legally acceptable means available.