Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional...

[starlifter]

For many in this thread grinding their political axes, this case is about America's right to Freedom of Religion. In many countries in the world, you are simply killed if you dare to object to the state dogma, much less practice your own religion.

The issue is if a school child, who is not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in the first place, has her right to Freedom of Religion infringed upon by the Congressionally Mandated phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Let's keep this supposed "infringement" in perspective. For example, many Isamic states, in particular, are notoriously intolerant of even Muslims of diferent denominations (e.g., Shiite and Sunni).

But th lawsuit is about the phrase "Under God" inserted by the US congress in 1954.... The Federal Judge in the original lawsuit saw it for what it was... a frivilous lawsuit.

The Federal Appeals Court (9th District) overturned the US Federal Judge by a 2-1 vote. What this means is that the Appeals Court itself may change its mind in the next few months, or the case could be taken up by the US Supreme Court. In any event, it is binding only on the 9th District states...



The thing to keep sight of here is that even an "average" American can have free access to the US Justice system, even if they are off in left field in the view of the majority of Americans, like this lawsuit instigator is.

People may not like it, but America is now, and always has been: one nation, under God

Peope don't have to believe in God, and they still have full rights. But America is a Nation of God, and that is what has made America great, despite howling in recent years from those that seek to rewrite history and/or mire America in a Godless mess.

"God Bless America.... Land That I Love.... Stand Beside Her, And Guide Her..."

 

[Hitro]

Why hasn't it originally been in the pledge then?

 

[RebelX210]

The court ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, citing the Establishment Clause. I doubt that the court has ever studied the Constitution. The Establishment Clause reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Including the phrase "under God" in the Pledge does not, by any stretch of the imagination, establish a religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits an established church. It was meant to free cititzens from having to pay taxes to support an established church, as was the case in Great Britain (Church of England), the Netherlands (Reformed Church), and other European countries at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Now, some people personally feel "under God" should not be in the Pledge. Fine, they are entitled to their opinion. They should tell their representative how they feel. They should raise hell about it if they feel strongly enough. But the courts should not be banning something that is not unconstitutional. The courts are not in place to represent the people or to decide what should be the law. That is what Congress is for. It is Congress that should decide on the fate of the Pledge of Allegiance, not the courts.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by starlifter

Let's keep this supposed "infringement" in perspective. For example, many Isamic states, in particular, are notoriously intolerant of even Muslims of diferent denominations (e.g., Shiite and Sunni).

This in my opinion is faulty logic. Your point is that "others are far more intolerant of other religions than us so therefore you have no right to complain". A comparison to that is sort of like a poor person here being told "most people in the third world are FAR poorer so you have no right to complain"

But th lawsuit is about the phrase "Under God" inserted by the US congress in 1954.... The Federal Judge in the original lawsuit saw it for what it was... a frivilous lawsuit.

Peope don't have to believe in God, and they still have full rights. But America is a Nation of God, and that is what has made America great, despite howling in recent years from those that seek to rewrite history and/or mire America in a Godless mess.

You may not think it was frivilous if you were being forced to say an islamic prayer every morning. Or if you were forced to admit that there is NO god.

You say a person that believes in no god (and i'm guessing you also mean a "dfferent god") has "full rights" but I don't believe this to be true in this case. That is where our disagreement roots from.

By forcing me (or my child if I had one) to be inundated by a christian reference or prayer shows that we DON'T have full rights. We don't have our right to choose.

If reference to religion is totally removed from both government and education you have lost nothing. You can still praye henever you want in your home and can go to church every sunday. You also have the right to teach your children to believe in whichever god you choose (a right everyone will equally have). All you've lost is the ability to do so for 30 seconds every morning.

As for a "godless mess". Also something I disagree with. As an athesist I have never stolen or physicaly harmed any other person. I live my life treating people fairly and honourably and yet I have never attended a sunday morning church ceremony.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by RebelX210
Including the phrase "under God" in the Pledge does not, by any stretch of the imagination, establish a religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits an established church. It was meant to free cititzens from having to pay taxes to support an established church, as was the case in Great Britain (Church of England), the Netherlands (Reformed Church), and other European countries at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

from the CNN article:


The court said the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.

The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."


This to me means that it IS in reference to Christianity and it's god.

 

[ozscott75]

Under whose god?

The requirement of any citizen of a secular nation to acknowledge the existence or not of a divine being is an infringement on their rights.

The US is a widely divergent mix of religions, some believe in a God, some do not, members of these religions are still capable of having a profound allegience to the republic, however, the forced recognition of a divine being, regardless of name can breed resentment.

The removal of the phrase under God does not in any way water down the spirit of the pledge, but does make it more accessible to a wider range of citizens.

 

[RebelX210]

Originally posted by RedWolf


from the CNN article:


The court said the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.

The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."


This to me means that it IS in reference to Christianity and it's god.

Yes, it is a reference to God, no kidding. The tradition of taking an oath over the Bible is also a reference to God and Christianity. You may not like it. Even if 99% of Americans did not like it, that does not make it unconstitutional, because it does not establish a taxpayer-funded religion (an established church). Thus the courts have no business banning it; again, the courts aren't meant to represent the people. The decision should be up to Congress, the representatives of the people, not the courts.

 

[CornMaster]

Well..I think everything I was going to say has been said....

I'm against the Pledge because Children have no choice where they live, and should not be forced to align themself US when they really have no choice.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

The pledge of allegiance ruling was a correct one. The First Amendment states that no religion shall be favored over another. This is an important safeguard: freedom to practice whatever religion one wishes to, or none at all. What about someone who does not believe in God? Why should this person be made to pledge an allegiance to something they don't believe in? The most important function of the judiciary is safeguarding the minority from the majority. Sometimes the majority of people will feel a certain way about one issue, but they will be flat-out wrong. The judiciary is there to decide Constitutional issues, whether their decision is popular or not.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Sh3kel
The pledge is bloody optional! You don't HAVE To say it, they're whining it convets the message they dont want to recieve!
And i'm not even a US citizen! Hell, my Mexican passport requires me to hate them officially!

Doesn't matter if its optional or not; the schools are officially favoring Christian religions by including the phrase "under God." If you didn't believe in God, how would you feel if this allegiance was being spoken by the faculty and 90% of students? Tradition should not get in the way of what is right.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Sorry - Admin, please delete this one

 

[starlifter]

This in my opinion is faulty logic. Your point is that "others are far more intolerant of other religions than us so therefore you have no right to complain". A comparison to that is sort of like a poor person here being told "most people in the third world are FAR poorer so you have no right to complain"

You took the wrong context. The context was to show the fundamental denial of Religions freedom, even the denial of Liberty and Life itself.... merely for "being" a different religion in some Islamic states. Contrast that to a lawsuit in the US claiming that a schoolgirl who is not even forced to say a basic pledge of allegiance to the country that keeps her free, is claiming an abridgement of religious freedom! The contrast is starK.

Later on, I said "The thing to keep sight of here is that even an "average" American can have free access to the US Justice system..."

So I said nothing about "poor" nations at all, now did I?


And if you reread the post, you see that not only did I not say she had no right to complain, but I specifically said she had the right to access the US Justice system, even as an average person. In America, we do have those rights, and some of us actually even defend them no matter what our own personal viewpoint is . BTW, she would simply be killed by expressing that though in some nations, though....

You may not think it was frivilous if you were being forced to say an islamic prayer every morning. Or if you were forced to admit that there is NO god.

You're a master of the obvious.... but fail to see that your nightmare scenario is actually true in many nations.... not so in the US, and not so in this lawsuit. If I lived in repressive nations, I would leave or die trying.

1. The Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer. Clinton-eque parsing of words cannot alter that fact.

2. No one is forced to admit anything. You just threw that statement in gratis, to attempt to confuse the issue.

3. American is a nation founded and existing under God.

4. America forces no one to become a certain religion or denomination.

5. The plaintiff was never forced to say the Pledge, but even if she was, it is not a Freedom of Religion issue.


May God always Bless America, and all of it's inhabitants of all Faiths.... even the atheists and agnostics!



EDIT: Fix formatting.

 

[Omega Zero]

And what, might I ask, is wrong with indocrination? Children need to be indocrinated! When children are born, they have no natural moral sense. It must be ingrained. People who have no moral indocrination often turn out with no moral sense at all. It seems that what many atheists want is not freedom of religion, but freedom to not have to hear any references to god or religion.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by starlifter
3. American is a nation founded and existing under God.

You have stated this twice now. What exactly do you mean by it. Why or how is America a nation under God? How do you know? What does it mean?

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by starlifter

You're a master of the obvious.... but fail to see that your nightmare scenario is actually true in many nations.... not so in the US, and not so in this lawsuit. If I lived in repressive nations, I would leave or die trying.

No I understand that my nightmare scenario is true in many nations. Thats why I suuport laws that move us farther AWAY from that.

2. No one is forced to admit anything. You just threw that statement in gratis, to attempt to confuse the issue.

3. American is a nation founded and existing under God.

I was not trying to be argumentative. I actually do believe that students are being forced to admit something.

5. The plaintiff was never forced to say the Pledge, but even if she was, it is not a Freedom of Religion issue.

The pledge says that you live in a nation existing under god. Therefore you are admitting that the christian god exists... If you don't actually believe in that god (or believe in another) then yes it goes directly against your religious beliefs.

The idea of whether kids are being forced to say the pledge is debatable as you say.. however if getting an education in a public school REQUIRED a student to say the pledge then i would say that it is most DEFINITELY an issue of religious freedom. Also a human rights violation.

 

[PinkyGen]

The court is technically correct, as the adding of the words by Congress for the explicit purpose of worshipping a Christian God is clearly a violation of the 1st amendment. This is not some ancient tradition like our currency saying "In God We Trust", but a clause added in 1954 for political points.

It won't stand though, no politician would dare support this, and any other court will overturn this.

 

[starlifter]

The pledge says that you live in a nation existing under god. Therefore you are admitting that the christian god exists... If you don't actually believe in that god (or believe in another) then yes it goes directly against your religious beliefs.

No, it does not. I respect your own religious prefernce and fully support your right to exercise it and even to speak out against things like the Pledge of Allegiance and even God.... but in terms of demonstrable objective fact, you are simply totally wrong.

This is a statement of fact, not of subjective belief: America is[/b] a nation... one nation.... under God.

This does not compel any citizen to worship any god, much less believe the God. It is a statement of fact.

Moreover, the state does not even compel people to attend a church of God's, or grant extra constitutional rights to those that believe in God. And the God in question is not even specified in the statement... a statement which is not compulsory for the individual to make in the first place.



I've said it earlier, but here goes one more time:

1. No one is being forced to say a prayer.

2. No one is being forced to say a non-prayer, like the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. The term "Under God" does not reference a specific God, or a denomination, or even a religion.

4. The phrase "Under God" is factually and technically correct, and totally applicable.

5. If people do not like living in a Nation under God, let them vote with their feet and leave. America will take no hostile action against them for leaving.

6. America, under God, provides the very freedom of choice to exercise religion (or not to) that is being used to tear down the very institution that provides that blanket of freedom. There are lots of frivilous lawsuits in America, and this is one.

BTW, lest you forget, a single person (one of the 2 judges) voted one way, which is why this made news. One person out of 2, in 280 million. This ruling is not binding on the vast majority of US jurisdictions, and may in fact be reversed in the next few months by at least one of the 2 judges that voted that way.


People can choose to post their own opinions, of course, and I actaully respect that, een though I find it rather humorous to argue with the basic facts as delineated under teh Constitution (not one's assumption of the Constitution, but what it really says). Unclear areas of the Constitution are interpreted by the Supreme Court... but his area is clear, and has been ruled upon before, and will likely not be accepted by the Supreme Court, which will allow indivisual Federal Destrict Couorts to make such decisons. If other DCs make similar rulings, look for the Supreme Court to weigh in one day. Then the ball will be back with Congress.

But the case really belongs in the hands of the representatives and Senators of the person(s) in question... Congress can remove or modify it if they see fit.

If, at some point in the future, the US Supreme Court directs the removal of "Under God", then at that moment it will be time to make it mandatory for every schoolchild to say the Pledge again.

The real question for America should be the background and suspect politics of the two dissenting judges that overturned the Federal Judge in the first place. My bet is that either this is an interium ruling until the Gov't can present more information in the next few months, or one or both of the judges are essentially liberal activists, substituting their 2 judgement for that of the 535 elected representatives of the 280,000,000+ American People.



EDIT: Typos & rearrange paragraph.

 

[Greadius]

I went through 8 years of school without saying the pledge once. I have allegiance to what the United States Constitution stands for, not a glorified poem written about a piece of cloth. It has always bothered me because it reminds me of type MINDLESS indoctrination that is necessary in totalitarian and authoritarian states. Its not in democracies. Our ideas and beliefs have strength of rational arguement, logic, and fairness behind them. We don't need indoctrination through memorized epithats to the flag, but by showing the principles of freedom in practice.

Originally posted by starlifter
Contrast that to a lawsuit in the US claiming that a schoolgirl who is not even forced to say a basic pledge of allegiance to the country that keeps her free, is claiming an abridgement of religious freedom!

Appreciate all the rights you get by not excercising them

Originally posted by starlifter
The plaintiff was never forced to say the Pledge, but even if she was, it is not a Freedom of Religion issue.

Not really... that is a strong part of the arguement, but it is more of a freedom of speech issue.
Its one of the four fundamental freedoms, and the government failed to and will continue to fail to make a compelling arguement as to why stating the pledge of allegiance is necessary.

Originally posted by starlifter
May God always Bless America, and all of it's inhabitants of all Faiths.... even the atheists and agnostics!

Wow! Even us? How kind of you

Originally posted by RedWolf
however if getting an education in a public school REQUIRED a student to say the pledge then i would say that it is most DEFINITELY an issue of religious freedom. Also a human rights violation.

They are not forced to say it, but it is expected. In other words, you would be unusual not to think a piece of cloth represents the will of a diety you might or might not believe in.

Originally posted by Omega Zero
And what, might I ask, is wrong with indocrination? Children need to be indocrinated!

Right. But not at the age of 9 by the state. That is the parents responsibility.

Originally posted by Omega Zero
It seems that what many atheists want is not freedom of religion, but freedom to not have to hear any references to god or religion.

YOU can make references. It is institutionalized and expected agreeance (that is, I would have to specifically request to be excluded) that bother me. Freedom FROM any religion is as important as freedom TO any religion. Its not just pick one and pretend that is the God we're refering to.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by starlifter
It is a statement of fact, not of subjective belief. America is a nation... one nation.... under God.

Maybe my Constitution is out of date, but where exactly does it say that? Amatterfact, the Constitution does mention oaths, and in that mention it specifically outlaws the requirement of a religious test as a qualification for office.
And it also seems like the 1954 law that added it specifically added a single line that respects AN establishment of religion. Does the 1954 "under God" law not specifically respect AN religion, irregardless to which one you or I believe it is.

Originally posted by starlifter
The term "Under God" does not reference a specific God, or a denomination, or even a religion.

It doesn't have to in order to be unconstitional.

Originally posted by starlifter
If people do not like living in a Nation under God, let them vote withtheir feet and leave.

I vote at the ballot box. Without regard to the faith of the candidate. That type of mentality is exactly what the First amendment and article 6 are designed to protect against.

Originally posted by starlifter
America, under God, provides the very freedom of choice to exercise religion (or not to) that is being used to tear down the very institution that provides that blanket of freedom.

Are you implying that the Church provides a blanket of freedom, because as far as I knew that was the Constitional responsibilty of my Constitutionally mandated secular government.

Originally posted by starlifter
If, at some point in the future, the US Supreme Court directs the removal of "Under God", then at that moment it will be time to make it mandatory for every schoolchild to say the Pledge again.

Why? What are you afraid of? That they might learn to have secular respect for the country and not need God as an enforcer?

Originally posted by starlifter
People can choose to post their own opinions, of course, and I actaully respect that, een though I find it rather humorous to argue with the basic facts as delineated under teh Constitution

WHERE? I'm looking at a Constitution RIGHT NOW, I can't see God mentioned anywhere!

Originally posted by starlifter
My bet is that either this is an interium ruling until the Gov't can present more information in the next few months, or one or both of the judges are essentially liberal activists, substituting their 2 judgement for that of the 535 elected representatives of the 280,000,000+ American People.

279,999,999 thank you.

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by starlifter
5. If people do not like living in a Nation under God, let them vote with their feet and leave. America will take no hostile action against them for leaving.

Unfortunately I don't think this ruling will stand but I hope to god that some day it will.