Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional?

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-02-28 03:46pm

Interesting news article...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... allegiance

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-02-28 03:50pm

Stupid. They could always, change the pledge back. Instead of just forbidding it.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-28 04:37pm

neoolong wrote:Stupid. They could always, change the pledge back. Instead of just forbidding it.

No, they can't. To change the Pledge would require an act of Congress (fat chance) or the Supreme Court (possible, but I'm not holding my breath). 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. As it stands, the official Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, and therefore public schools cannot lead chidren in its recitation.

The thing that worries me most about this case is Newdow himself. He's a nutcase, and his daughter isn't even an atheist. He could have made a perfectly legitimate and effective case by just challenging the Pledge on its own merit, rather than from the basis that it's harming his daughter, because that basis is pretty much irrelevant. Whether or not his daughter is hurt by reciting it does not change the fact that the Pledge endorses religious beliefs, which is not allowed. However, since that basis has been shattered by the mother, who says that the daughter is Christian, his case is weakened.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-28 04:37pm

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)?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-28 04:38pm

Darth Servo wrote: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.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-02-28 04:47pm

I think both sides are full of shit. The fundies are wrong - God has no place in the pledge - but that hippie jerk-off Newdow is an opportunist asshole who doesn't mind using his daughter to get his way.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-02-28 04:47pm

Durandal wrote:
neoolong wrote:Stupid. They could always, change the pledge back. Instead of just forbidding it.
No, they can't. To change the Pledge would require an act of Congress (fat chance) or the Supreme Court (possible, but I'm not holding my breath). 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. As it stands, the official Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, and therefore public schools cannot lead chidren in its recitation.

That's the problem. The fact that Congress wouldn't change it just goes to show they are more concerned about religion, than about what the pledge actually means.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-02-28 04:47pm

Durandal wrote: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.

Really?

They had it recitetd in your HS? When I was in school, they stopped all together at grade 9.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-02-28 04:50pm

I wouldn't consider an 8 year old kid to to truly be a member of any religion (or an Atheist for that matter), childer that young can't really form their own independand decision on the matter, they'll just accept what Mommy or Daddy tell them to accept.
Childhood credulity, the reason we have religions in the first place.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-28 04:58pm

Darth Servo wrote:Really? They had it recitetd in your HS? When I was in school, they stopped all together at grade 9.

Yes. Then again, I went to a private school

Sir Sirius wrote:I wouldn't consider an 8 year old kid to to truly be a member of any religion (or an Atheist for that matter), childer that young can't really form their own independand decision on the matter, they'll just accept what Mommy or Daddy tell them to accept.
Childhood credulity, the reason we have religions in the first place.

This is true, but Newdow argues from the standpoint that no one but the parent(s) should be enforcing religious beliefs on the child, and he is absolutely correct. If I was a parent and my 8 year-old child was forced to swear allegiance to God every day in school, I'd be pissed because it undermines my prerogative as a parent for raising my child with my beliefs.

neoolong wrote:That's the problem. The fact that Congress wouldn't change it just goes to show they are more concerned about religion, than about what the pledge actually means.

Exactly, so the only solution was to simply ban it. Also, they're ignoring the context under which it was added. Guess who campaigned for its addition? That's right, a religious organization, specially the Knights of Columbus. Guess why it was added? That's right, because "atheist" and "communist" were synonymous, and the US had to differentiate itself from the "godless commies." What fucking part about "under God" isn't religious bigotry?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-28 05:29pm

In my school it's not forced, but I agree that 'under God' really has no place in the pledge. What if it were 'One nation, under Allah' or 'under Vishnu' or something?

That said, get away from me, you dirty sinners.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-28 05:34pm

newdow

http://maddox.xmission.com/pledge.html

Cap'n Hector · Post by **Cap'n Hector** » 2003-02-28 08:12pm

I pissed off a bunch of schools by visibly refusing to say the pledge. At one school, I simply was late to that period as the only recouse so I didn't have to say it.

I don't need a silly pledge to be a citizen, and if I'm a terrorist it won't matter. There's no point.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-02-28 09:08pm

Nobody in my classroom recites the pledge. A teacher says it over the PA system, but the most anyone else ever does is mumble.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-02-28 09:12pm

Andrew J. wrote:Nobody in my classroom recites the pledge. A teacher says it over the PA system, but the most anyone else ever does is mumble.

What grade are you in? After second grade, we never said the pledge at all in any of my schools.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-28 09:19pm

Interesting. The day I heard about that ruling I also read that it was reversed, and that almost all of the government was opposed to letting the ruling through.. In all the schools I went to, we said the pledge in all grades...I never said it past like grade 2. I'm pretty apatheic towards this issue. I mean, they never should have changed it in the first place, so I don't mind if it gets taken out, but really, "under God" doesn't cause any thought about it or encouraging kids to take up religion. I don't know...I think some people take this kind of shit way too seriously and aggressively. If the planets were named after biblical figures, I'd bet there'd be some folks after changing that, too. But we all know those are long-dead Roman gods/legends so no one cares.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-28 09:23pm

Durandal wrote:The thing that worries me most about this case is Newdow himself. He's a nutcase, and his daughter isn't even an atheist. He could have made a perfectly legitimate and effective case by just challenging the Pledge on its own merit, rather than from the basis that it's harming his daughter, because that basis is pretty much irrelevant. Whether or not his daughter is hurt by reciting it does not change the fact that the Pledge endorses religious beliefs, which is not allowed. However, since that basis has been shattered by the mother, who says that the daughter is Christian, his case is weakened.

If my conlaw is right, no, he couldn't have just challenged the pledge on its own merits. In order to challenge a law in Federal court, you need to be able to prove that the law is causing some harm to you. I couldn't challenge, say, a parental notification abortion law because I don't have children and, obviously, I can't have an abortion. THat being said, Nedrow is a shitty poster child for athiesm and the separation of church and state. While he's getting his titties in a twist over three syllables in a meaningless oath his daughter probably mumbled her way through without even bothering to think about it, there's fundies trying to sneak creationism through the public school system's backdoor. It's like these assholes who get pissed someone's put up a manger scene in the town square. Jesus fuck, learn to pick your Goddamn battles and try not to piss off EVERY theist in the entire fucking world while you're at it.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-28 09:26pm

Fuck, when I was very young, I just said it phonetically. I thought "for which it stands" was "for witches stand" and I'd think about a witch on a podium. Lol.

LordChaos · Post by **LordChaos** » 2003-02-28 09:28pm

I would like to point out 2 things.

1st, the ruling by the 9th circut cort will be reviewed by the US Supreme Court.

2nd, the 9th is the most overturned court. The majority of their ruliings get overturned upon review.

All in all, the odds are against this ruling standing.

As for this entire "seperation of church and state" argument...

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).

Now, as to wether or not the pledge of alegence (with or without "under god" included) should be recited in classes, the US Supreme Court has already ruled on it. It is not unconstitutional to have the class recite the pledge, but individual students do not have to do so (they can remain quite instead). I do not have a problem with this for public schools (afterall, they are financed by the state, so a "patriotic" symbol/pledge has every right to be mandated by the school, just as morning mass can be mandated in a catholic school). Private schools also are an individual basis, as they may set whatever requirements they desire on entry and participation, so long as they are stated ahead of time and meet minimum requirements in education.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-28 09:52pm

LordChaos wrote:As for this entire "seperation of church and state" argument...

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,

Though it's quite possible your English is simply unclear here and I'm misunderstanding what you meant, government endorsement of a religious practice seems very clearly to be "respecting an establishment of religion".

nor does it state / imply that references to religion can not be made.

True enough. However, the phrase "under God" is more than just a "reference" to religion. When a congressman praises a local parish for running an orphanage, that's a reference. An Congressionally sanctioned oath that asserts the United States is "one nation, under God" is more than just a reference, it's the state declaring an official belief in a diety, clearly forbidden by the 1st Amendment.

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.

Bullshit. It's called "congressional intent", and in this case, there's no point even pretending Congress in 1953 meant anything except the Christian God.

Even if we assume that it is ment to refer to the christian god,

Not "assume". See above.

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).

Irrevelant. The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless it respects all religions equally". 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.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-28 10:02pm

Why not just "One Nation Under Canada"? It doesn't violate the constitution, and from a northern hemespheric orientation, it is quite accurate.

LordChaos · Post by **LordChaos** » 2003-02-28 10:25pm

RedImperator wrote: 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.

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.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-02-28 11:33pm

LordChaos wrote:
RedImperator wrote: 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.

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.

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Every letter and recorded speech we have from them indicates they wanted all religion out of government. Back it up or fuck off.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-02-28 11:34pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Why not just "One Nation Under Canada"? It doesn't violate the constitution, and from a northern hemespheric orientation, it is quite accurate.

No, we're south of Canda, not under it.

One nation under the sky would be quite correct

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-28 11:39pm

but carlins one nation under canada and above mexico works sooooo well