quote: SAN FRANCISCO — The Pledge of Allegiance was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist whose previous attempt to get the pledge out of public schools was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gotta love the 9th Circus!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, y'know, it IS unconstitutional as written. Shame about that; they should really rewrite it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah. As I'm repeatedly told, the Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what it actually says. So it's probably not unconstitutional.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe there was a law passed in Indiana this year saying that you have to say the pledge of alleigance in public schools now, and have a flag in the room.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
quote:I believe there was a law passed in Indiana this year saying that you have to say the pledge of alleigance in public schools now,
Now, that will be overturned as soon as one student refuses to say the pledge and a school gets overzealous, unless there's something in there saying that individual students must be allowed to abstain.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
they are allowed to abstain, but I'm not sure if it's in the law (ask fugu, he's better at these things than me)
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I'm repeatedly told, the Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what it actually says. So it's probably not unconstitutional.
Either way, it shouldn't be unconstitutional - unless you think the wording of a pledge actually amounts to some kind of real pressure on a kid to switch religions. (Having been a kid who had to recite the pledge, I seriously doubt the average student views it as anything other than one of many largely unimportant exercises they put you thorough in school.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They ruled that Newdow didn't have standing to bring the case because he didn't have custody of his daughter, thereby avoiding an unpopular ruling.
All this does is put it back before the SCOTUS, so they can't weasel out of it this time.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Declaration of Independence is on display all over the place and large amounts of it are learned by students for them to recite.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Declaration of Independence is on display all over the place and large amounts of it are learned by students for them to recite.
And yet it is a historical document, NOT an affirmation. It is NOT unconstitutional to make students read works that include mention of God; it IS unconstitutional to force them to affirm their worship of God.
quote: So Dag how is this Judge using precedent from a dismissed case?
While I'm not a lawyer, I imagine it's because the precedent on the case remains binding even if the specific case itself was dismissed on unrelated grounds, as no higher precedent exists to contradict it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Dag how is this Judge using precedent from a dismissed case?
The decision was overturned on other grounds, and may thus be cited for either persuasive or or binding authority, depending on circuit rules.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing in the Constitution says that religious references are illegal, only that government can't make a law that establishes religion.
One of the earlier wordings of the amendment said "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion" (annals of congress) That pretty much covers "under God." A "law respecting the establishment of religion" is broader language.
The DOI isn't a law, and it predates the constitution. It IS history, however, so there is nothing illegal about teaching it. Neither is it illegal to teach that the "Pilgrims" were deeply religious people who established a religious government. The Mayflower Compact is more profoundly religious in nature, and yes, it's part of the standard curriculum. There's nothing wrong with that.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One Nation under God means you are affirming your worship of God? That's news to me. I think if you ask an English teacher that part of the pledge is about the nation.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It affirms that one believes the nation is under a God,... The implication is that one who pledges allegiance ALSO must believe in a God.
The government is forcing people who pledge to accept (publicly, if not privately) that God exists.
The simple alternative (to me) is to just omit the mention of God, so any citizen can pledge allegiance without having to accept any stance on the existance of a God.
posted
Imagine being a Christian, and having your kids told to recite what amounts to an oath, which includes the phrase "Under Allah". Or "Under Satan", or "Under the Flying Spaghetti Monster". In public school. It would be a terrible violation of their religious rights. So how is it not violating the rights of atheists to be told to recite a pledge which affirms the existance of God?
Even if your kids are not forced to recite the pledge, they still are taught it, and expected to recite it.
Its amazing to me that this is even an issue. I really have a hard time seeing the other side of this debate.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think if you ask an English teacher that part of the pledge is about the nation.
Speaking as a former English teacher, I'm afraid you're wrong.
"I pledge allegiance to...the United States...(which is) one nation, under God..."
The phrase makes very clear the belief that the United States is a single nation (which was quite relevant at the time it was originally written), as well as the belief that it is a nation subservient to God.
Requiring that students say that they believe that the United States is a single nation is not unconstitutional. Nowadays. Requiring that students say that they believe that the United States is subservient to God is.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, in California, all children are allowed to abstain from saying the pledge. And we were taught that we didn't have to say it if we didn't want to in kindergarten.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pledging allegiance to the flag of a nation that you profess to be an establishment of God sounds a lot like affiring your worship of God to me.
Yes, to many it is just some boring thing we say in school, I did it many times, never really caring one way or the other what I was saying. Given the option today, I don't think I'd say it, but for other reasons.
But the fact that it can be legislated that you be forced to profess your allegiance in a statement to a God, that to me is a violation of the first amendment. Besides, everyone knows which God is meant in that pledge, they aren't talking about Allah, they aren't talking about Zeus, or Buddha, or Ahura Mazda, and certainly not the God of any animist religions. I'd certainly call that a violation of the first amendment.
And the DoI can't be unconstitutional, it isn't a piece of legislation. Also, it's a historical document, it doesn't demand you worship it or show allegiance to it just by reciting it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since 1943 every single child is allowed to refrain from saying the pledge in public school. This is settled law.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the entire point of the case that was brought before the court was that an athiest child was being forced to learn and recite the pledge.
If since 1943 they've been allowed to refrain from saying it, why is this an issue at all?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, the whole Pledge blows chunks. It's meant to serve as a kind of mission statement for the country AND a propaganda piece to drive certain facts into the heads of the poor lemmings who recite it.
Those "facts" initially were that the United States is "one nation" and "indivisible," just to remind people that the North won the Civil War. (The addition of "liberty and justice for all" makes it sound more noble, of course, but is kind of incidental to the reason the pledge was written.)
When "under God" was added, it was specifically to add "under God" to "indivisible" as another not-universally-accepted factoid to drill into the heads of youth. It's self-evidently unconstitutional in that format.
But the whole Pledge itself is kind of pointless, and should really be written to SAY something if we're going to keep it around.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
kq, what if you are a patriotic atheist who wants to pledge allegiance, without compromising one's beliefs?
When I was growing up, all those 15-20 years ago, we were NOT told it was optional, ever. I found out later that, because one classmate was a JW that they were allowed to be silent due to religious dissent, but her parents definitely had to notify the school system. Otherwise you had the case where a bunch of my friends (in 6th/7th grade or so) refused to recite it, because they knew they didn't have to, and the teacher berated them.
posted
> Imagine being a Christian, and having your kids > told to recite what amounts to an oath, which > includes the phrase "Under Allah". Or "Under > Satan", or "Under the Flying Spaghetti > Monster". In public school. It would be a > terrible violation of their religious rights.
OK, I'm a Christian, so it's not a big stretch of the imagination for me on that part. I'll have to imagine the kids.
Of course, my kids are not coerced to recite the pledge containing "under the Flying Spaghetti Monster," because under Supreme Court precedent, that would clearly be a violation of their rights.
So I tell my kids, "A lot of people believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is watching over our nation. They're wrong, because there is no such thing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it makes them feel better to think that. You don't need to recite the pledge, but you should respect other people's beliefs and not make fun of them because they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
As I see it, this is about atheists trying to attack other people's beliefs, not about defending their own.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, imagine a classroom in a public school during homeroom.
Every day, at the same time, the pledge of allegiance is read over the loud-speaker. At this time, the entire class stands up to recite it along with the voice being broadcast over the speakers.
You, as an atheist student, have two choices.
1) Stand and recite the pledge, something which offends you straight down to your core beliefs, and fit in.
2) Remain seated, effectively announcing to the class that you have a problem with reciting the pledge. There are two reasons that you could have for not reciting the pledge, either you are an atheist, or you have something against the United States. Whichever the students assume, a large portion will judge you negatively based on your choice, and you will stand out.
And why does every atheist have to make that choice every single day in a public school? Because of some crappy legislation passed when we were paranoid of those godless pinko commies.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
EJS, except your talking about 5/6/7 year-olds, without a real grsp of these sorts of things, and it's an event that's repeated almost every day for most of their young life. Oh, and what if they actually want to pledge their allegiance to their contry, without tacitly supporting the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
posted
There were at least 4 or 5 kids in every class I was in who, for some reason or another, stood but did not recite the pledge. (We were asked to stand whether we participated or not.) No one ever had a problem with it.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I see it, this is about atheists trying to attack other people's beliefs, not about defending their own.
That's funny, as I see it, the addition of "under God" in the first place was an attack on other people's beliefs too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not the same, but I got all the kids mad at me for refusing to donate to the United Way because it conflicted with various beliefs of mine. The school was running a contest by homeroom - most donations per person - and everyone was pissed because I hurt their chances for a pizza party.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is the pledge to the Flying Spaghetti Monster presented as the Pledge of Allegiance to our Country? Is it said daily in class? Are students instructed to face the flag and hold their hands over their hearts when they say it? I submit it's a bit different.
For the record -- and it's been gone over about a zillion times here -- I think this guy's lawsuits are not only a dumb idea, they're counterproductive because they rile up religious people who then will overreact in the pro-God direction to counter this fool's initial atheistic overreaction.
I ALSO think that the adding "under God" to the Pledge in the first place changed a pledge from something all Americans could say and mean it, to a pledge that merely most Americans could say and mean. I see it as needlessly devisive and exclusionary.
Just don't think this single-issue bozo's methods are the way to go about effecting change.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well he certainly wasn't going to win by trying to get legislation passed to overturn it. No Congressman in the country would touch it.
Secondly, what can the crazy religious right really do? Rewrite the first amendment? They are powerful, but they'd never get away with that much.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a simple solution: get rid of it. Sing the national anthem instead. We did that in school (or, if we didn't sing, we just stood up and listened to a recording of it) in Canada.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, all the good patriotic songs have God in them. I guess if you took the last verse out of "My Country, 'Tis of Thee", it would be okay.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not why I hate it. I think our anthem ought to say something about what we aspire to be, not that we managed to fight off a distracted empire in 1815.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In God We Trust" didn't go on the money right away, either. It took almost a hundred years to get it on all the money minted in the U.S., starting from the first documented requests in 1861 to 1956 when Congress, acting in response to the godless commies, officially replaced our existing motto. "In God We Trust" appreaed on paper money the next year.
So. Our original motto was "E Pluribus Unum," Latin for "One from many" or "One from many parts." Inspiring, meant to convey the concept that America was a united country that was stronger for all its many components.
But it was decided to change that wonderfully inclusive motto to "In God We Trust," a phrase that simply does not apply to all Americans.
God was forced upon us, but if anyone says anything we are obviously heathen PC liberals trying to remove all traces of God from government.
Thing is, while I might be inclined to let such things go and hope that they fade eventually, I personally feel that "In God We Trust" is a terrible slogan even for the religious. It implies that God is always on our side, and that's a dangerous attitude to take, especially if it keeps you from examining your side very carefully.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
