Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional?

[Uraniun235]

Just don't say anything while the other sheep- er, humans, drone out "under God". Just leave the fucking words out, as the Pledge was originally crafted!

In my opinion, that presents a much stronger message than not saying it at all. When you stay silent, others can think theirs is the right version, and that you're just some godless heathen. When you say your version, you're telling them that they're wrong and directly challenging their beliefs.

And, I think it's just Oregon law, but every public school in Oregon is mandated to provide an opportunity for the student body to recite the Pledge at least once a week. Note the word opportunity; it's one that can freely be declined, as long as you're not blatantly disrespectful to others.

But ultimately, the "under God" words in the Pledge are one of the pettiest things someone could squander court time over.

[RedImperator]

The Framers meant for the United States government to be completely secular, with no position whatsoever on religion (or lack thereof). They had a perfectly good reason for this--in 1787, the great religious wars of Europe were as recent a memory for them as the American Civil War is for us, and they didn't want the same shit to happen here.

Incorrect. The framers wanted to avoid a state religion. There was never any intention to keep religion (as a whole) out of government, but instead to prevent the near theocricies which were previlent in europe at the time. They feared a state backed religion only. And, wether you want to admit it or not, including the phrase "under god" just may not be such an issue. I don't see it as one myself, and I do not belive that the US SC will ether.

Nice theory. Too bad James Madison disagrees with you.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm

Jefferson wasn't a framer of the Constitution, but his imput is always interesting.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm

Noah Webster is a favorite of those who take your view of the establishment clause. Unfortunately, his attitudes during the founding period, which are most relevant to a discussion of the Founder's intent, were quite different from his views later in life.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qwebstrn.htm

George Mason? Separationist.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmason.htm

Charles Pinckney? The same.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qpinck.htm

Edmund Randolph was so concerned about the separation of church and state that he worried about the clause forbidding the establishment of a religious requirement to hold Federal office, because he felt that might imply the government has religious authority.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qrandolf.htm

What about the Congress as it debated the First Amendment (which had to pass both houses before it became part of the Constitution)?

Well, sorry, but it seems that the Senate came up with three different versions of the establishment clause that would have weakened it to merely forbidding Congress from respecting any establishment of religion OVER ANOTHER (a major component of the accomidationalist argument), all of which failed in favor of the stronger language actually used.

What's all this argle-barlge mean? Basically, it casts serious doubt on your argument that the Framers only meant to prevent the establishment of a "state religion", a common accomidationist argument that isn't supported by the writings of the framers themselves (and, no, out of context snippets don't count).

Also, regaurding your claims of congressional intent as to which "god" the phrase ment, congressional intent does not read into laws, only the specific wording. If it was otherwise, our court system could be cut in third and still have extra time on their hands, as much of it is spent dealing with the results of wording and not intent of the laws.

BZZZZT! Try again. Congressional intent is ROUTINELY taken into consideration by the Supreme Court when dealing with the specifics of a law. If the wording of a law is vague, the Court tries to figure out what the INTENT of Congress was in order to make a ruling on that law. Try putting "congressional intent" and "supreme court" into a Google search sometime and watch what happens.

So what do we have here, in all? We have the phrase, "under God", inserted by Congress in 1953 (prompted in part, apparently, by a sermon given by a Presbyterian minister http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020628-26247314.htm). There can be no doubt this was intended to be the Christian God--which excludes Muslims and Jews, by the way, because the concept of the Christian God carries with it the divine nature of Jesus Christ. And at any rate, claming "God" can refer to Hindu dieties, Buddah, Wiccan spirits, and the athiest self-determinist man (as I've heard some argue) is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Madison's writings especially give us great insight into the minds of the Framers, who were greatly concerned with forcing a particular religion, even in minor details such as establishing a Congressional chaplain, on a minority who could not in good conscience accept that religion (Madison refers to Quakers and Catholics, but he certainly would have extended it to Moslems, Hindus, Bhuddists, and athiests had any of these groups been a significant minority at the time). Putting "Under God" into the Pledge and reciting it in public schools is unconstitutional. Period. It's a stupid issue, but now that it's been brought up, I have to defend the 9th Circuit's ruling.

Will the Supreme Court agree with me? I don't know. Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia, and Rhenquist probably won't. Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souder probably will. That leaves O'Connor and Kennedy, and if either one sides with the liberals, as they do from time to time, the ruling stands. We'll see how this turns out.

[Wicked Pilot]

One nation under the sky would be quite correct

I like it. Thanks for your suggestion.

[Durandal]

Teh 1st admendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Read that carefully. It does not state, nor is it intended to imply, that religious practices can not be made, nor does it state / imply that references to religion can not be made. The phrase "under god" does not establish a religioin or honor any established religion. "god" is a term used by many religions, and there is insificient information in the phrase "under god" to state which "god" it refers to, or even which religion's god it refers to. Even if we assume that it is ment to refer to the christian god, one should remember that is the same god as that of the Muslim and of the Jews (and let's not forget the various sects of christianity ether).

Look at the context under which it was added, genius. If a Christian organization campaigned for its insertion, you can bet that it wasn't put there for the purpose of respecting all religions. Aside from that, the God of Christians, Muslims and Jews isn't the god of Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, et cetera. Therefore, all those establishments are disrespected.

I love this argument of, "Congress can respect establishments of religion as long as it tries to respect all of them." Bull-fucking-shit. The Constitution says that no religious establishment can be respected. It sets a lower limit, not an upper limit. If I said, "You can't kill a person," would you infer that it's acceptable for you to kill more than one person?

[ArmorPierce]

I'm a genius....

[RedImperator]

I'm a genius....

um......what exactly does that mean......did I spend more than an hour laying the smackdown on a Goddamn sock pupet?

[Slartibartfast]

Heheheh, the guy's wife's name is Sandra Banning... get it? "Banning", LOL, huhuhuh...

Anyway, reciting any kind of mindless pledge or singing the hymn or whatever to me is like very retarded. I never did it in school, even if I was later reprimanded. So what if I'm not some kind of nationalistic idiot? What if I don't like or believe in god? Yuck fou.

[phongn]

IIRC, the decision was simply that schools can't require kids to recite the pledge with the current wording.

Seriously folks, (for those of us living in the U.S.) when you were a kid and had to recite the thing every morning, didn't you often change a few words around (usually in the name of little kid humor)?

During my latter years in high school, I refused to recite it on the basis that it forced me to swear allegiance to God. I simply stood there with my hands at the small of my back.

Around middle school most students stopped reciting the pledge (though one of my friends pledged his alleigance to the Orlando Magic ). We were required to stand and be quiet while it was going on, but we didn't have to say it.

[His Divine Shadow]

The only recourse they had was to ban schools from officially reciting the Pledge every morning until it is changed back to the way it was.

I find this excessive to the extreme, and this is the norm?

Man we recited something like this once or twice in our lives.

[Sir Sirius]

The only recourse they had was to ban schools from officially reciting the Pledge every morning until it is changed back to the way it was.

I find this excessive to the extreme, and this is the norm?

American kids really recite the pledge every morning at school? Man, I'd expect something like that in a totalitarian regime, but in the U.S...

Man we recited something like this once or twice in our lives.

Yeah, the only time I've Pledgeg Allegiance to Finland was when I took my 'Soldiers Oath' in the Army.

[Durandal]

The only recourse they had was to ban schools from officially reciting the Pledge every morning until it is changed back to the way it was.

I find this excessive to the extreme, and this is the norm?

Man we recited something like this once or twice in our lives.

You can't very well indoctrinate people into mindless nationalism if you don't use low-level brainwashing, can you?