(POL) Reciting Pledge of Allegiance in school unconstitutional

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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

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

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

[kenparker23]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It's certainly not a governments endorsement of any religion

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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

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

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

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

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by kenparker23

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

You are mixing up terminology. State suppression of religion is telling you that you can not practice your religion. In this country, you can walk down any street in America with a "WWJD?" or "I'm a Jew!" or "I can't, I'm Mormon" t-shirt on and not legally get bothered by any law enforcement official because of it. This is one of if not the most religiously free countries in the world.

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

[st.cronin]

This is the dumbest argument of all time.

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

http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewe...21657&cat=HOME

[ThunderingHERD]

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

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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

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

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

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SackAttack]

Dola,

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

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

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Without getting into the constitutionality...

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

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

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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

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

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

Just two cents from a sick man.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

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

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

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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

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

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

[BrianD]

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

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

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

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

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

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

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

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

[Klinglerware]

Dola --

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

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

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

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

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

[st.cronin]

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

Just fyi.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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

a) not a public school, or

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

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

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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

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