posted
I know we've been over this before. Heck, I've started threads about this before. I don't know if any good can come of another thread about this, but I just can't help it. So it's another Pledge of Allegiance thread.
Yesterday as I was driving home I caught the end of a news clip about the Supreme Court's decision in the Elk Grove School District v. Newdow case. As I was driving, I became increasingly uncomfortable, to the point that I could actually feel physical pain in my chest. Not because of the decision itself, but because of the issue. I don't know why I care so much about being an American and maybe I should just try to become more apathetic, but I can't help my reactions whenever this issue comes up. I tense up, my heart starts beating faster, and a little voice inside me starts screaming "Why don't they want me?!" I know I'm being dramatic. I can't seem to help it.
I just don't understand. I don't understand any of it. I don't understand why a statement of patriotism has to be tied up with a statement of faith. I don't understand what benefit people get from it that is worth me having to feel this way.
I've heard the argument from idolatry, and I don't understand it. How is affirming allegiance to a worldy government the same as worshipping a false idol? Does putting "under God" in the Pledge make the flag a Christian symbol?
I've heard the argument that this is a Christian country, and I don't understand it. What does that mean? If this is a Christian country, what does that mean about all of the people who are born here, who live here, and who die here who are not Christian? What does it mean about me? Why is it important that our institution of government associate itself with Christianity? What would the negative effects be if the government took no stance at all with respect to religion? Not that it took the stance that there is no God, but if it left it completely up to each person to decide for himself? Why would that be a bad thing?
I've heard the argument that the Pledge is not mandatory and that I need not say all of the words, and I don't understand it. Why should I have to declare my patriotism in a different way from anyone else? Why should I have to choose between my principles and protecting my children from ridicule?
I love my country. I do my part. I pay my taxes, I serve my jury duty, I vote, I go to work every day, I help other people when I can. Why shouldn't I be entitled to feel as much an American as anyone else?
I just don't understand.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Having regard for the existence and future of our Homeland,
Which recovered, in 1989, the possibility of a sovereign and democratic determination of its fate,
We, the Polish Nation - all citizens of the Republic,
Both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty,
As well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources,
Equal in rights and obligations towards the common good - Poland,
Beholden to our ancestors for their labours, their struggle for independence achieved at great sacrifice, for our culture rooted in the Christian heritage of the Nation and in universal human values,
Recalling the best traditions of the First and the Second Republic,
Obliged to bequeath to future generations all that is valuable from our over one thousand years' heritage,
Bound in community with our compatriots dispersed throughout the world,
Aware of the need for cooperation with all countries for the good of the Human Family,
Mindful of the bitter experiences of the times when fundamental freedoms and human rights were violated in our Homeland,
Desiring to guarantee the rights of the citizens for all time, and to ensure diligence and efficiency in the work of public bodies,
Recognizing our responsibility before God or our own consciences,
Hereby establish this Constitution of the Republic of Poland . . .
posted
How does the phrase "under God" make the pledge Christian? If it were "under Jesus" I could understand that complaint. Maybe I'm just ignorant, because I haven't been around for those other threads.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't really care either way about the pledge - the words weren't inserted until the Red Scare in the 50's, but it's not mandatory and it means a great deal to many people.
But I love the SC's decision, because I completely agree with its reasoning - the guy didn't have any right to bring the suit in the first place. That was the decision of the custodial parent, and he wasn't it. It's a wretched situation when the courts have to pick a parent to be the final say, but situations arise that demand it and the court picked the mother. From all the accounts I've read, he sounds like an utter prick.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't get it either. I personally don't believe that a person should need to stamp the label of their religion on everything around them. I think it's a sign of childishness, actually — the ability to live a religious life while also interacting normally with the world outside that religion seems like a part of maturity to me. It's a child that has to grab everything and shout "mine!" and it's a dog that has to piss on every lightpost
I'm happy belonging to a minority religion whose beliefs are not borne out by the larger society I belong to. I actually think my faith works BETTER that way. The more you get large groups of Mormons together thinking the same way without being tempered by reactions from the outside world, the weirder they get.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph- because, as stated by those creating and backing the legislation that put the phrase into the pledge, it would affirm our status as a christian nation.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. The Polish preamble is WEIRD. Did they miss any constituencies? *grin*
----
Seriously, though, yeah, it sucks that the American government is full of God. It waxes and wanes depending on how many foxholes we're busy digging, though.
(BTW, kat, I predicted back when this case first popped up that the Supremes would use that excuse to bury the case -- mainly because they're way too scared to actually rule on this one.)
posted
I'm with the majority here, I really don't see why the pledge of alliegence needs 'God' in it (though it bugs me way more that kids are forced to say it than that our pledge has it), but also the SC was right in this case, the father had no right to bring the suit (though of course I defer to someone with greater legal experience than me... *cough*Dag*cough* ).
quote:If this is a Christian country, what does that mean about all of the people who are born here, who live here, and who die here who are not Christian?
Well, duh! it means one thing, and one thing only: YOU ARE ALL GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!
No, it doesn't.
You have to sneak around, and hide your disbelief. You have to go around looking like a true Christian, instead of the blaspheming unbeliever you truly are in your black, withered heart.
posted
gah, i've never understood why not using "under god" in the pledge is considered ignoring our roots or ignoring god. i think it's just making th pledge what it's supposed to be about - allegiance to a country and the ideals of freedom that the country was formed under.
i just don't like the idea of making decisions for people concerning spirituality. and i've never bought the argument that "you don't have to say it" because it makes you an outsider and i thought the whole point was to promote unity.
i pissed off a lot of people at church before, but i've always been under the impression that if you want to show god respect you should worry more about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked than saying his name to a flag.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:BTW, kat, I predicted back when this case first popped up that the Supremes would use that excuse to bury the case -- mainly because they're way too scared to actually rule on this one.
Actually, given abortion cases, Brown, and a host of others, I sincerely doubt any of them are afraid of ruling on this. I'd bet at least half of them can't wait to rule on it.
Nor is this just an "excuse." It's actually a very important judicial doctrine that only people with standing can bring a case, and that the Supreme Court not make judgements absent a valid case and controversy.
Face it, the Supreme Court has nearly unlimited theoretical power. The checks on it are largely the psychological restraint placed on theoretical responses by the political branches and the people.
The cases and controversies requirement, besides being mandated by the Constitution itself, is one means for the judiciary to be sure a constitutional issue is ready for the anti-majoritarian resolution the court brings to it.
posted
"I sincerely doubt any of them are afraid of ruling on this."
Oh, I don't. Because this is one of those cases where the only correct ruling is the unpopular one, and this court isn't known for its guts OR its respect for law.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, do you disagree with their decision, then? Do you think they should have allowed non-custodial parents a final veto over the child's life? That would be a disaster.
I didn't think that they would sidestep making a final decision on it, but I did think from the beginning that this was the most elaborate revenge plan on an ex ever dreamt up. This guy is not someone ANYONE with a sense of humor or shred of sympathy for the kid and her mom would want to represent them.
I respect his right to not want anything to do with God. I'm not impressed with what he's replaced that with. He has a child with a woman with whom he is on such bad terms with that he'd spend years in the courts strutting like a rooster and using his daughter to further his own agenda rather than come to an arrangement with the mom and do what's best for his family. And never married or not, and still with her or not, if he has a daughter, then she and her mother are part of his family.
quote:Oh, I don't. Because this is one of those cases where the only correct ruling is the unpopular one, and this court isn't known for its guts OR its respect for law.
In fact, this statement is self-contradictory. If they don't have "respect for law" (whatever the hell that means), then why would they be afraid of making the "incorrect" decision (again, whatever the hell that means)?
posted
kat, I don't think Newdow's doing this to get back at his ex-wife; by all accounts, he's been obsessed with separating religion from government for years, and his family has been at most a lever for him to use to achieve that goal. He's a pretty odious guy, yeah, and he is -- like so many people who wind up bringing cases before the court -- definitely not the person we'd like to see bringing a case of this importance. *shrug* That said, I find it highly unlikely that this was the court's primary concern.
-----
"If they don't have 'respect for law' (whatever the hell that means), then why would they be afraid of making the 'incorrect' decision"
Perhaps because -- and this is just my gut feeling -- the court would probably split on that decision along strictly partisan lines, and they don't want to go down that road again.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That said, I find it highly unlikely that this was the court's primary concern.
No, their primary concern was respect for the Constitution and the principles of judicial review.
quote:Perhaps because -- and this is just my gut feeling -- the court would probably split on that decision along strictly partisan lines, and they don't want to go down that road again.
I don't think this court fears splitting on partisan lines on any case. The stakes are far less high than many cases they've split on partisan lines.
posted
Nah. It's a different gloomy assertion. Basically, looking at almost every prominent case decided by this court over the last six years, I'm hard-pressed to come up with a single decision that seems unmotivated by politics and rooted in sound law. They seem to do okay on the minor jobs, but I can't help feeling like they consistently fumble the big ones.
C'mon; you saw the way they completely blew that partial-birth abortion one, right? And dollars to donuts, they did it deliberately.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's a child that has to grab everything and shout "mine!" and it's a dog that has to piss on every lightpost
That was great Geoff.
Kat, about the SC's ruling, I couldn't be happier myself. The man had a point, but the reasoning he went about changing it was all wrong.
I myself don't mind "Under God" in the pledge because I believe in God. A lot of people don't, and I don't believe they should be FORCED to say it, and they never were. I haven't heard anybody EVER complain about the pledge, and I got my high school diploma from the Elk Grove School District a year ago. I have been there since kindergarten, and I have never witnessed the any of the crap this guy is spewing.
My personal opinion on Michael Newdow: He's a prick who has issues with churches. He's not out there trying to get "under God" clipped from the pledge because he feels it's his duty. I think somebody in some church pissed him off (a lot of people are pissed off by chuches), and this is his way of saying, "Hah! I'll show you!"
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"it would suggest that this court has something resembling a scruple left to share among the nine of 'em."
Though I disagree with the minority addendum of three Justices, the Court was being extremely scupulous and far-seeing with this particular decision. They were much wiser than I in catching the most important factor in this case as it wended its way through the legal system.
"Hard cases make for bad Law." And a finding for the plaintiff in this case would have set the precedent that a non-custodial parent has the right to use the federal courts to overrule decisions by the custodial parent. With such a precedent, the courts would soon be overrun by non-custodial parents trying to prevent the custodial parent from eg providing ballet lessons for their children because "dancing is the work of Satan". Giving legal standing to the non-custodial parent's desire to enforce his/her beliefs would create a HUGE mess of hard cases with the high potential of creating bad Law through the appeals process.
posted
The pledge is not required...nor are you required to listen to it. Having under God in the pledge makes sense...while this is not a Christian country....nor is it based on any one religion...as that would be unconstitutional; it is based on the existence of a God. Even our money says in God we trust. The pledge is no different from that.
As for the people who don't believe in God...they can't do anything about the money but they can leave the words under God out of the pledge if they would like. As for the questions saying why should they have to? You could also ask why the majority should change they way we say the pledge simply because it offends a small minority of people. Yes the minority should be protected...and if people were required to say that pledge I would be against it. However the minority should never rule the majority. They should not have the power the change how we say the pledge, simply because it offends them.
As for Tom's comment, the fact that they rejected the father's right to bring the case forward is more important than you might think. If they were to make a ruling either way on the Father's case others would use that ruling to give noncustodial parents more power in future. They made the right choice. This way the case can (and will) come to the court again but with a different party, one who has the right to bring the case forward. When the case finally is heard there can be no other issues involved...it must be completely clean. The fact that Scalia had to recuse himself this time was also problematic as well, next time they won't have that worry.
(edit) I see aspectre beat me to this last comment...but it is still true...and could have led to those types of problems mentioned in the future (edit)
posted
This doesn't "simply offend me." It hurts me. It causes me actual emotional pain and physical discomfort.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The fact that Scalia had to recuse himself this time was also problematic as well, next time they won't have that worry.
Ahh, you think he'll automatically recuse himself next time? I mean, his feelings on the case are known. It's not like he hasn't already made up his mind.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The pledge is not required...nor are you required to listen to it. The pledge is not required...nor are you required to listen to it.
That would surprise me. I don't think they let the kids with objections out of class, do they? Everyone has to stand and those with objections are supposed to stand there respectfully. Or did I imagine that?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ahh, you think he'll automatically recuse himself next time? I mean, his feelings on the case are known. It's not like he hasn't already made up his mind.
Nope - many justices have known opinions about particular issues. It's pre-judgment on a particular case that is potentially problematic.
posted
Lupus - the problem with your reasoning is that for 62 years the words "under God" weren't in the pledge. They were stuck in there by Congress in 1954 (coincidentally 50 years ago this year) to separate us from "godless communists."
"In God We Trust" was added to our coinage in response to pleas from devout people during the Civil War, and the motto first appeared in 1864. It appeared sporadically until 1938 when all money was struck with that motto. In 1956 (also in the midst of Cold War hysteria) "In God We Trust" was declared our national slogan. Before 1956, our motto was E Pluribus Unum, "One from many." Entirely secular, it spoke of our varied nature and beginnings and the strength we held in unity. After 1956 our slogan bestowed our success to a deity that not all of us believed in.
I am not bothered by anyone else's religion or their public display of it. I have no desire to see God removed from all instances of public or political discourse, and I would fight to the end before allowing even a word of the Constitution or Bill of Rights changed.
But before 1954, all Americans could say the Pledge without leaving any words out. After 1954, that was no longer true.
I am not trying to take anyone's God away from them. But how dare anyone tell me to just leave some words out or leave the room if I want to proclaim my patriotism honestly. The original sentiments were changed by a grass roots campaign, I really don't see where anyone can complain just because a grass roots campaign works to change them back.
That said, the guy was a moron and any attempt to change the Pledge by judicial fiat would create more backlash than this country needs right now. I have no desire to see a religious war begin over something like this.
But don't for a minute think that because I don't stand up and demand the Pledge be changed by force that I'm at all happy about it.
[ June 15, 2004, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does the phrase "under God" make the pledge Christian? If it were "under Jesus" I could understand that complaint.
If you say "God" without a prefix like "a God" or "Roman God" then it's a reference to the Judeo-Christian God. That's simply the way the English language works: adjectives and articles are for exceptions, and unqualified nouns and pronouns assume the default. If you doubt this, just ask one of the kids who recites it every day whom "God" refers to.
As far as I know, the Pledge is not any more officially recognized than "God Bless America" or other cultural artifacts of the time. The bitter irony of indoctrinating little kids with it needs to end, though -- here we're trying to prove we're better than the godless commie heathens, but the solution we come up with has them swear oaths to an "indivisible" nation-state. Disturbing.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Dag, old habits die hard. Of course, I am one who likes having the reference to God there, so I would be motivated to keep saying it. In fact, now that I think of it, if it were officially changed, many people probably keep inserting the reference to God. There would still exist that "division" in the way it is said, the lack of unity. And of course it would be unconstitutional to *force* anyone not to say it just as it is unconstitutional to *force* anyone to use the reference to God.
But I understand that having it there is not fair to a large number of people, and I can't think of a rational reason why it should stay. But a lot of people have trouble being rational about their religious beliefs and understanding others' points of view. This is such an emotional/sentimental issue and many have trouble separating thought and emotion.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would much prefer if it had never been added. Actually removing it is going to affect many people the same way having it in there affects Saxon, but if it had never been in there, this wouldn't be an issue.
posted
For part of my school life (ancient history), the pledge was compulsory. At that time of my life I had many problems with the pledge, although not with the "God" part of it - but I understand the objections of others. While it was required, I ended up just moving my lips without actually saying anything.
Finally, in high school, word came out that the pledge was no longer mandatory - you didn't have to recite, stand or salute.
I chose to stand for the pledge and still do, reasoning I would do that for ceremonies and flags relating to other countries as well - so I could stand for this flag out of respect for others.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
everyone was required to stand for the pledge in my schools. i attended a forum where students voiced dissension over this.
i do not think "well they don't have to say god" and "they can leave the room" are just or community-building suggestions. the last thing we need in schools and in this country is more reasons to segregate and ostracize people. kids that believe in god will feel crappy that their friends don't want to stand with them, and kids that don't believe in god get to feel crappy about leaving their CLASSROOM because someone decided we should appoint spiritual beliefs for all americans. that's crap. i think many cultures and beliefs should be celebrated and respected in this country, but not in such a way that we practice exclusion and create more outcasts. and what if a kid doesn't know what he believes? gah. i never said the pledge in high school. i always stood and i always observed the moment of silence because i believe in the struggle for peace, for understanding, for liberty, and i honor the sacrifices that have been made so i can choose to stand for the things i believe. but i did not like the idea of forcing a generalized religious notion on people that are standing unified as a people that want freedom and justice for all, not christmas presents.
saxy, i am not sure what you meant in reference to my first post. i don't think i was insinuating what you may have thought i was insinuating. but maybe this post cleared things up if there was a misunderstanding.
(edit: the dissension was not just for "god" in the pledge, but was from kids that rather hated america. i told them i felt like they should be allowed to choose if they wanted to stand or not, but i would stand because i cherish their right to complain, and so i could still disagree with certain parts of our government but still be a participant. i was essentially standing for their right not to stand the principal actually really respected the way i expressed myself and i think we decided that no one had to stand, but everyone had to observe the moment of silence, but it was their choice what to do with it. as long as they were, well, silent.)
quote: I would much prefer if it had never been added. Actually removing it is going to affect many people the same way having it in there affects Saxon, but if it had never been in there, this wouldn't be an issue.
Yeah, they had no idea what a mess they were causing in 1954. Did they?
What I find interesting is how few people realize how recent an addition it was and the circumstances. Without that knowledge, they feel like someone is trying to take away a long and cherished tradition held since the birth of the nation.
Most people don't realize either how recent our modern-day celebration of Thanksgiving is either. I know I didn't until I researched it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
porce, I didn't say anything regarding your first post. If I were to say something about it, I would say that I appreciate your viewpoint.
--------------------------
quote:Actually removing it is going to affect many people the same way having it in there affects Saxon
I've heard this before, but I don't understand it. Not to say that it wouldn't happen, but I just wouldn't understand it if it did. If the wording was changed to "under no god" or "under Allah" or something, I could understand other people feeling the way I do now. But I don't understand how anyone could feel left out or unwanted if there were no statement at all. For me it's not so much the fact that I do or don't have to say the words. It's the fact that having the words in there and, even more, having so many people who would fight to keep them in there, says to me in very loud tones that America doesn't care about me, doesn't want me. I just don't understand how the lack of a statement would cause that feeling in anyone. But then, feelings don't always make sense.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
