Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional...

[Archbob]

I'm a Liberal, but I think this ruling is too extreme. I totally agree for banning prayer from schools, but this is too much.

To me the Pledge of allegiance is more of a patriotic thing than a religious thing(I never consider it religious to begin with). I mean I could see where Afghan terrorist who live in America would have problems with it though..

 

[Sh3kel]

While the pledge of allegiance may seem siomething completely meaningless for an adolescent or a teenager, children and adults value it completly differently. Teenagers question everything - general rule of the thumb. Authority exists. Axiom. Conclusion? Teenagers question Authority. This includes, but is not limited to, student incited civil disobedience, stealing, burning ROTC buildings or draft dodging. The pledge of alleigance represents authority. Hence, Teenagers will be more likely to see no problem with this ruling.

Now Children. Children are totally different. They're still being shaped, their personality is undefined. The Pledge of Allegiance is there to make you feel I'm american, loyal and true. However, if you're uncofortable with it, that's why they made it O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L. meaning you don't have to say it to be American. The parent complained because he thinks his children are suspectible to Peer Pressure if they dont pledge allegiance. He worries about the message, not the wording. So, he goes to the court for justice and winds up with Overkill. The pledge should not be banned.

 

[Sh3kel]

Oh and:

Originally posted by Ren
Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free
We've golden soil and wealth for toil
Our home is girt by sea
Our land abounds in Nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare
In history's page, let every stage
Advance Australia Fair
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia Fair

When gallant Cook from Albion sailed
To trace wide oceans over
True British courage bore him on
Till he landed on our shore
Then here he raised Old England's flag
The standard of the brave
With all her faults we love her still
Brittannia rules the wave
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia Fair

Beneath our radiant southern Cross
We'll toil with hearts and hands
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia Fair

With Christ our head and cornerstone
We'll build our Nation's might
Whose way and truth and light alone
Can guide our path aright
Our lives, a sacrifice of love
Reflect our Master's care
With faces turned to heaven above
Advance Australia Fair
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia Fair

While other nations of the globe
Behold us from afar
We'll rise to high renown and shine
Like our glorious southern star
From England, Scotia, Erin's Isle
Who come our lot to share,
Let all combine with heart and hand
To Advance Australia Fair
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia Fair

Should foreign foe ever sight our coast
Or dare a foot to land
We'll rouse to arms like sires of yore
To guard our native strand
Brittannia then shall surely know
Beyond wide ocean's roll
Her sons in fair Australia's land
Still keep a British soul
In joyful strains the let us sing
Advance Australia Fair

<SARCASM>
BAN THE AUSTRALIAN ANTHEM! IT MAY OFFEND NON-CHRISTIAN AUSSIES BECAUSE IT REFERES TO CHRIST!
</SARCASM>

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Sh3kel
Now Children. Children are totally different. They're still being shaped, their personality is undefined. The Pledge of Allegiance is there to make you feel I'm american, loyal and true. However, if you're uncofortable with it, that's why they made it O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L. meaning you don't have to say it to be American. The parent complained because he thinks his children are suspectible to Peer Pressure if they dont pledge allegiance. He worries about the message, not the wording. So, he goes to the court for justice and winds up with Overkill. The pledge should not be banned.

It may be optional in absolute terms and that is a good thing, but seriously now, try explaining that to a 6 year-old who sees one of the most important authority figures in their life leading it and all of their friends reciting it. It may not be mandatory, but 6 year-olds are not equiped with the life skills to deal with taking a stand and marking themselves as religiously or ideologically different from their peers. For crying out loud, most at that age don't have the cognitive skills to realize that a tall glass of water poured into a short, fat glass is still the same amount of water.

Optional would be all well and good if we were only refering to highschool students, but we aren't.

 

[CrazyScientist]

If america can't stand on it's own merits, a pledge of allegiance isn't going to help it. Get rid of it, or failing that, at least put it back to the way it was pre-1954.

And despite the claims of some here, this country is most definitely not, one nation under god, and you're talking about it like it's an undisputable fact. Well, bring me some empirical evidence that there even is a god to start with, and if you convince me of that, then we can discuss his positioning relative to the U.S.

 

[Padma]

Wow! I went to bed 3 pages ago!

After catching up on all this discussion, I think Sh3kel probably expressed my feelings best:

While the pledge of allegiance may seem siomething completely meaningless for an adolescent or a teenager, children and adults value it completly differently. Teenagers question everything - general rule of the thumb. Authority exists. Axiom. Conclusion? Teenagers question Authority. This includes, but is not limited to, student incited civil disobedience, stealing, burning ROTC buildings or draft dodging. The pledge of alleigance represents authority. Hence, Teenagers will be more likely to see no problem with this ruling.

Now Children. Children are totally different. They're still being shaped, their personality is undefined. The Pledge of Allegiance is there to make you feel I'm american, loyal and true. However, if you're uncomfortable with it, that's why they made it O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L. meaning you don't have to say it to be American. The parent complained because he thinks his children are suspectible to Peer Pressure if they dont pledge allegiance. He worries about the message, not the wording. So, he goes to the court for justice and winds up with Overkill. The pledge should not be banned.

starlifter, I find usually myself in agreement with you. And I agree, this a a nation "under God". However, that is a faith-based statement, not a demonstrable fact. You may believe it, I may believe it, millions of others may believe it, but belief does not make fact. I could live without that phrase in the Pledge. The author's daughter said he would have abhorred the addition of those words had he been alive to see it.

The other thing I want to say goes back to Sh3kel's post: the Pledge "is there to make you feel I'm an American, loyal and true." With or without the "under God" phrase, the Pledge is part of our common American heritage. Every nation has its heritage, its culture. The USA started out as a conglomeration of people from many nations. Remember the old concept of a "melting pot"? How do you make these people feel like they are together, as one new nation? Part of that is building a common heritage. At least until recently, I don't think an American could graduate from high school without being able to recite at least part of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address from memory. Not because they were forced to, but because it was studied as an important part of our culture. There shouldn't be an American on these forums who doesn't recognize "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." as the start of the preamble to the Constitution. We all know about George Washington and the cherry tree: "I cannot tell a lie...". We may not all remember the details, but we all remember stories about Paul Bunyan, or Pecos Bill, or Johnny Appleseed. "Listen, my children, and you shall hear of the midnight ride of Paul Revere...". All these things, and more, make up the heritage of the United States. In this context, the Pledge of Allegiance is a touchstone for us, a connection to our common culture.

 

[ChrTh]

A few things:

1) The 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms...not sure where that came from

2) The Separation of Church and State is a derivation of the 1st Amendment, not the Amendment itself. All the Amendment says is the government can't A) Establish a National Religion (say, every American has to be Catholic), or B) Forbid you from practicing your religion. Adding 'under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance (or 'In God We Trust' to currency) does not do either. It would not surprise if at some point in the future, the Separation of Church and State itself is replaced with a different interpretation.

3) I'm offended by the immediate assumption that we're talking about the Christian God. The Jewish God existed WAY before the Christian God did.

4) The indoctrination argument is silly:
Opponent: Its indoctrinating our children. They should have the right to choose. I had to say it every day for 15 years, and it still bothers me.

Ummm...apparently you weren't indoctrinated...so why would they be?

5) I find it funny when the non-Americans rail against Nationalism and then riot after their Football team loses in the World Cup. (Well, I find Football rioting funny at any point)...Americans only riot when they win (cf. Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago...)

6) There is no 6th item

7) I think the most interesting thing about this is that its gotten people to really think about the Pledge of Allegiance. While there's a lot of knee-jerk reactionism (when isn't there?), a lot of academics are going to join the debate, so it should be interesting

8) As for my own viewpoint, well, the argument is complex and can not be fully thought out on a Civ III board. Both sides have good points (except the nasty German comment...Go Deutschland!)...and I'm not a big fan of Jingoism, which is far worse than Nationalism in my opinion. In the end I favor the status quo: since there's no decisive argument to remove it, it should stay. If it wasn't there, I'd say it shouldn't be added for there's no decisive argument to add it.

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[starlifter]

Sorry. Double post... evidently hitting stop does not work, even if the page never seems to upload!

I may insert my next post here, though, LOL.........

 

[starlifter]

I agree, this a a nation "under God". However, that is a faith-based statement, not a demonstrable fact. You may believe it, I may believe it, millions of others may believe it, but belief does not make fact

The "Under God" is not faith based. It is part of our very makup. It does not in any way abridge one's constitutional rights, and the oblique premise that the pledge is a prayer (thus clumsily attempting to bring the frivilous lawsuit into the possible domain of certain case law and Supreme Court rulings).

We are not talking about Faith or Belief in God... the nation is under God.... from the courts to the White House to the Capitals of America and every state to even most City Halls in America. Thoughout all national records, military actions, shaping of freedoms, construction of laws, in courtrooms, on coins, etc. etc etc. This is all objective, secular fact and has nothing whatsoever to do with an individual's faith, or freedom to practice religion.

Two of the three branchs of governement passed this constitutional law, and it has stood every such court challenge, and will likely stand this one on the merits, once the Judical activism is curtailed.

The way to change laws is for the people to have the say in it. If there is a constitutional question, the Supreme Court becomes the final arbitor if they choose. But the body of law they have written on this issue clearly records the opt-out as a viable protection of a citzen's rights.... and that is for forced prayer. This case involves neither cohersion, nor prayer. It involved statement of fact and a reminder of loyalty to the nation.

As long as nations exist, there is an implicit need for the citizens who enjoy it's benefits and comforts to supply the loyalty to it. That does not mean one must agree with all the politics, or even laws. And the Constitution explicitly grants the rights of lawmaking to the to the Legislative branch.

A constitutional test is not about what one's prefrences or biases are, like the athiest that brought the lawsuit. One must show legitimate deprivation of one's rights.... and issue in the case clearly does not violate the constitutional rights of the student, and further, similar precedent is already established contradicting the single (or both) judges that could have made it 2-1 or 3-0 against the plaintiff. But the appellate courts are not tryers of fact. And with the body of law established, the Supreme Court will probably pass on picking up the case... which means the 9th district will be bound by the ramifications of the activist judge(s), but not the rest of the nation.

The correct method in this particular case is to appeal to the lawmakers. If it is not a nation under God like it was in 1954 and has been since 1776, the lawmakers can simply change the law. Laws to cahnge with time. But in fact, America is a nation... one nation... under God, and there is not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone can get the representatives of this nation under God to declare it otherwise., at least for the forseeable future.

So a frivolous lawsuit is brought, and the system dismisses it as it should (the Federal Judge threw it out), but a slick lawyer used certain buracracies within the court system to lodge an appeal to a favorable set of 2 of 3 judges.
No matter what the wishful thinking of some posters, this is an abuse of the system, but the system is now, and has been, vulnerable to this sort of abuse... it is well known, and what it does is delay cases with actual merit.

The Federal Judge reviewed case law, precedent, and prior rulings, and applied it to the evidence in the case.... and threw the case out.... but the system failed when a judge on the appellate court failed to judge, and legislate instead.

But the nice thing about America as I ahe said before is that even average citizens have the right to judical access in this country. I do not begrudge the filer of the frivilous lawsuit, but rather fault certain technical failings of the legal appellate process... in this case, the current ruling is the one reported because one or two individuals are acting in discord with establish constitutional precedent. By allowing the shift to consider the Pledge a from of Prayer, in allows equivication from appelate judges that would, in effect, subvert the Constituton by legislating form the bench.... this is the term for judges substuting their judgement for that of lawmakers.

The issue of 1954 is a total red herring. It does not matter, Constitutionally, if it was 1776 or 2001 that the phrase "Under God" was first used. And strenous emotions objection to any references to God or Christianity by our Government does not, and never has, abridged the Constitution.

And despite the obvious wishes by some, stating "Under God" does not establish a religion (sorry ).



Long may her flag wave free... and forever may our schoolchildren recite the Pledge to our one nation, Under God!

 

[VoodooAce]

Sigh.

This is a nation, true.

Within this nation, there is a group that considers itself to live under god. Also true.

But not all of us live under that God. I don't. And I have a sneaky suspicion that none of you do, actually.

I think 'banning' the pledge takes things a bit far. Its harmless. Nobody, or at least the majority, when they say it, don't really believe the part about God anyway.

But, as I said earlier, all the court is doing is following the letter of the law. Change the law to suit your wants.....that's what will happen now. If so many feel so strongly about it, then so be it.

But, ChrTh, don't try to defendy your hypocrisy with semantics. An ammendment is an ammendment. Does it say anything about 'seperation of church and state' in the 1st???? Yes it does, thank you. I mean what kind of bullsh!t are you trying to pass over on me, here? That you can pick and choose from within an ammendment which parts you want to follow???

Anyway, THAT, my friend, is where that came from.

"The "Under God" is not faith based. It is part of our very makup. It does not in any way abridge one's constitutional rights, and the oblique premise that the pledge is a prayer (thus clumsily attempting to bring the frivilous lawsuit into the possible domain of certain case law and Supreme Court rulings). "

Starlifter, you're wrong. It's not part of MY makeup and I'M an AMERICAN.

It IS part of the Christians within, but not part of the makeup of the USA.

 

[amadeus]

Those extremists are on every side, including atheists.

By the way, your signature... a democracy is the majority rule, right? Well, most Americans believe in A God, so, I fail to see the problem.

 

[Dralix]

Starlifter:

You continually state that America being "one nation, under God" is a fact. People have challenged that notion. I have already asked you what "one nation, under God" even means. If you have explained it, I must have missed it somewhere. Now, your last post suggests that it is an act of law that America is "one nation, under God" (unless I misunderstood).

So again, I ask you, what does "one nation, under God" mean? How can you say it is a fact? If it is a fact, can you prove it?

Thank you

 

[ChrTh]

"But, ChrTh, don't try to defendy your hypocrisy with semantics. An ammendment is an ammendment. Does it say anything about 'seperation of church and state' in the 1st???? Yes it does, thank you. I mean what kind of bullsh!t are you trying to pass over on me, here? That you can pick and choose from within an ammendment which parts you want to follow???"


Actually, no it doesn't:

Amendment I (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


I recommend doing your research in the future.

 

[starlifter]

3) I'm offended by the immediate assumption that we're talking about the Christian God. The Jewish God existed WAY before the Christian God did.

... The two Gods are one and the same. That's why you often see the term "Judao-Christian", but it is often shortened to just Christian since Christians outnumber Jews, Muslims, Athiests, etc. in America.

5) I find it funny when the non-Americans rail against Nationalism and then riot after their Football team loses in the World Cup. (Well, I find Football rioting funny at any point)...Americans only riot when they win

Now THAT is funny! Post in the the Humor section!

In the end I favor the status quo: since there's no decisive argument to remove it, it should stay. If it wasn't there, I'd say it shouldn't be added for there's no decisive argument to add it.

OK. But since it is a law, the legislative branch can alter it any time... people that wish to do so should avail themselve of the opportunity!! Shoot, even run for Congress & Introduce the Bill yourself! Anything is possible in America.

PS, You will find me sticking up for you (even if I don't agree with your politics) if someone abridges your right to vote, or run for office (if you're legally qualified but denied because of your postion on "Under God" ).




One Nation, Under God, Indivisible...

 

[Ohwell]

Originally posted by Dralix
Starlifter:

You continually state that America being "one nation, under God" is a fact. People have challenged that notion. I have already asked you what "one nation, under God" even means. If you have explained it, I must have missed it somewhere. Now, your last post suggests that it is an act of law that America is "one nation, under God" (unless I misunderstood).

So again, I ask you, what does "one nation, under God" mean? How can you say it is a fact? If it is a fact, can you prove it?

He doesn't seem to want to respond, perhaps because he doesn't have an answer, or something else.

5) I find it funny when the non-Americans rail against Nationalism and then riot after their Football team loses in the World Cup. (Well, I find Football rioting funny at any point)...Americans only riot when they win

That doesn't happen much... but I don't think the football fanatics are that occupied with foreign politics!

And Voodoo Ace, I agree with you fully.

 

[ChrTh]

"And Voodoo Ace, I agree with you fully."

I wouldn't jump on the wagon with that one...he hasn't done his research (see my post above).

 

[VoodooAce]

Oh, come one, ChrTh, you're arguing semantics. I didn't provide a correct, direct quote.

You know what I meant....or am I jsut giving you toomuch credit?

I say its a toss up.

 

[ChrTh]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
Oh, come one, ChrTh, you're arguing semantics. I didn't provide a correct, direct quote.

You know what I meant....or am I jsut giving you toomuch credit?

I say its a toss up.

How is it arguing semantics?

Read the Constitution first. Here is the COMPLETE FIRST AMENDMENT:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You will note that it says nothing about Separation for one very good reason: the Separation of Church and State is an INTERPRETATION of the First Amendment. A good analogy is the SEPARATE BUT EQUAL Interpretation that lasted for many years; it was a legitimate (albeit arguably wrongful) interpretation of a constitutional amendment. In 1954 (bellweather year, huh?) a different Supreme Court from the one who made the previous interpretation revised the interpretation and said
In a similar vein, it is conceivable that a future Supreme Court could revise the interpretation of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE into something else. That is the reality of our Constitution and its derived Judicial System and is therefore not semantics.

Again, I advise that you do your research before you attempt to argue.

EDIT: Fixed all the misspellings of separate

 

[starlifter]

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

(In Congress, July 4, 1776)

This is the first of a multi-part history lesson, both for Americans and for non-Americans.

But first.... be honest now... how many have really read the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, or even the Declaration of Independence?

Some question truisms, like if America was indeed founded under God, and are we now still a nation .... one nation... under God.

The answer is, of course, yes.

You all know it, even if you don't post it... and even if you are an atheist. This does not commit any individual American to the Judeo-Christian ethic of America, and in no way impinges your First Amendment or Constitutional rights.

I've talked about the current state of affairs in 2002 from the secular perspective already, and won't repeat it again. Instead, this will be a spoon fed review of some important US Documents.

Note: Boldface items are mine, for emphasis.

First, the US Declaration of Independence.

by the Founding fathers of America:

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. ...

Questions? Revisionists would doubtless like to rewrite history and erase "God", but it is there, complete with the capital G.

Also, note the very principle of this nation's founding, in the first sentence of the first of our nation's official documents refers to the basis of our one nation, Under God, to "the law of ... God".

by the Founding Fathers of America:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: - that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The "Creator" is God, for those that are unfamiliar with English. Complete with the Capitalization. This is Paragraph Two, first sentence, BTW.




by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America:

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Again, "Divine Providence" with the capital letters. God.

Questions?

This is the concluding statement, with both reliance on and protection from God... and the basis cited for the right of America to exist, and then resist those that would destroy her.


Lesson 1: God was the inspiration and foundation of America. .. ONE NATION, UNDER GOD.

Note: The terms "Christian God" or "Islamic God" or "Hindu God" , et. al. was not referenced. Just "God". Just like in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Lesson 2: There were atheists amongst our founding fathers. They all signed.



by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America:

we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

How many of you are willing to make such a sacrifice right now, today, for your own country, be it America or your own home nation? These men did so with no guarantee of the future in order to forge the very nation of America that has continued to exist Under God, to this very day. Many made the ultimate sacrifice to establish America. Many more have died to keep America and the world free.

Are you willing to at least have allegiance, even if you shrink from your modern, comfortable, secure life of today? People of many faiths, and many without faith, proclaimed the same words, including the references to God, and affixed their names for all eternity to this most fundamental document in American history.

Without it, and without the Devine Inspiration of God, America would not exist today. Doubless this land would be inhabited, but it would not be America.


God HAS blessed America, and America has never forgotten God...

 

[knowltok2]

The phrase "under God" is in refference to an establishment of religion(s). It certainly isn't in reference to all religions, since some of them don't have a god, or have more than one. As such, a law about it would be in violation of the rule against making such laws.

This reminds me of the whole prayer in school thing. people get so up in arms about the school not leading a prayer. I always wonder if they have such little faith in their faith that they feel that prayer in school is vital to their children keeping it.

To me the same applies with the pledge and with these two words. Have more faith in your country and its citizens then to worried about the children making a daily oath of fealty. I do not need the Pledge of Allegiance or the words "Under God" to make me love my country, be willing to defend her with my life if called upon, and abide by her laws (Other than speeding ). I appreciate the Pledge, and when I say it, I mean it even if I don't concern myself with those two little words, and even if I didn't say it every day I went to school growing up.