Pledge Update - Breaking News

[Hard_Case]

Cordex says:
My friends, this entire debate is silly. It doesn't matter whether the pledge has the word "God" in it or not ... it really doesn't. It has nothing to do with your personal faith. I'm amazed that either "side" would consider this such an issue of contention. It's amazing that one word ... one little (how did Heinlein describe it?) "Anglo-saxon monosyllable" can cause this level of whining intolerance amongst so many intelligent people.

I'd hazard to say that the word God being in the pledge is a symptom of the issue at large....the perceived secularization of our society as a whole.

I would put it this way. We have in this country a freedom of religious expression...the First Amendment specifically states 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. This is just another in a long line of issues that presents the position of 'religious expression is fine...as long as it's done in the confines of your home, closed out and away from everyone else'. It presents a view of religious belief as being akin to leprosy, one in which anyone who has it must keep it away from everyone and everything....a modern style of persecution. Religion to many people is a part of their very lives...it would be like saying 'don't use your judgement in public', or 'only be happy when you're shut in your house, away from me'.

To try and put it in a more understandable vein.....how would it make you feel if the anti's, and parts of the government, told you that 'yes, you have the right to keep and bear arms....only in the confines of your own home....nowhere else. Carrying a gun is fine but don't do it anywhere in public'. That's the position that is being represented.

So no, in essence the words 'under God' in the plege do not DIRECTLY relate to personal faith, but the decision, the motivations behind it, and the ramifications following it, most certainly do. It really all boils down from the specifics to one general issue...how does one properly balance freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion...

 

[Marko Kloos]

It really all boils down from the specifics to one general issue...how does one properly balance freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion...

The Founding Fathers seemed to think it could be achieved simply by disallowing Congress to craft laws that either advance nor hinder any specific religion. This prevents any one religion from legislating their creed into law for everybody else, by keeping religion a purely private matter which is not subject to legislation.

Now we have people screaming bloody murder because they perceive the inability to legislate their beliefs into codified law for everyone as "anti-religion". All it means is that the government may not take sides in religious matters, neither for nor against, when it comes to passing laws on religious activity. It does not mean they can't mention God, it does not mean they're not free to practice their faith anywhere and anytime they want...it just means that they can't craft legislation which puts any religion on a better or worse footing than any other religion.

Note the unwillingness of the Church and State mixers to answer when someone asks whether they would then accept a mandatory Muslim or Hindu affirmation of faith in public schools. We then hear about how this country is a Christian nation, or how atheism is being taught as a religion in schools, or how making all kids affirm that we are a nation under God does not really constitute a religious statement. For these folks I have a few questions (with little hope of getting straight, non-evasive answers).

1. If you think that the First Amendment does not prohibit mandatory religious affirmations in public schools, would you accept the recital of the Pledge by your kids if it stated "a nation under the Goddess", or "a nation under many Gods"?

2. If you think that the words "under God" do not constitute an affirmation of belief to a specific religion, how do you reconcile the fact that many religions pray to more than one God, or no god at all? How do we include Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Shintoists, Norse neo-pagans, and other such religions...so that children who hold those beliefs do not have to recite an affirmation which runs contrary to their beliefs? (If you get to require the recitation of such an affirmation from all kids regardless of religion, why can't they require one from your kids?)

3. If you believe that the state may not tell you how to believe, how do you think we can best assure that the state does not take sides? Why do you think this can't be achieved by letting religious expression be a completely private matter? Would you feel that your religious freedom was violated if Muslims in Congress passed a law that prohibited you from eating pork, or a Jewish majority passed one that prohibited the consumption of all shellfish? How about a law that makes it mandatory for public school children to declare that we're "one nation under Cthulu"?

Hard_case,

the issue here is not with the word itself. Personally, I don't give a crap what god or gods anyone believes in, as long as they don't try to use legislative power to advance their beliefs.

The issue, and the reason why intelligent people beome "whining intolerants", is constitutional principle. If you allow a circumvention of the First Amendment, however miniscule, by stating that it's "not a big deal", you may as well incnerate the rest of the Bill of Rights as well. If you allow one exception, however minor, it'll be the camel's nose underneath the bottom of the tent. Religious groups have the freedom to practice their faith, but that wasn't enough for them. In 1866, a few of them used the diverted attentions after the Civil War to sneak a religious motto on our coins...not a generalized one, which promotes all religions, but one that is specifically monotheistic. That still wasn't enough, since they adorned both paper money and the Pledge of Allegiance with religious slogans in 1954. These are instances where they used legislative fiat to push the "proper" religion on every American, regardless of faith, simply shrugging their shoulders and saying, "This is a Christian nation...move somewhere else if you don't like it."

If we allow any religious group to legislate any religious creed into law, even if they're just "Anglo-Saxon monosyllables", we seed discontent and religious strife. (The problem here is not with the syllable, as mentioned, but with the fact that some people get to use the power of legislation to make *everybody* recite it.)

As far as the "leprosy" argument goes...please, give me a break. 100% of Congress is very ostentatiously religious, as is the President. Religiousness has a high social acceptance, to the point where a professed atheist would never be able to run for a seat in Congress. Religious expression is supported and widely accepted as good and desirable. (If any one group has a social stigma attached to them, it's the atheists...to the point where people call themselves agnostic just to avoid the stigma that comes with the term atheist.)

The only thing that is contended here is the interference of the government in religious matters, whther it hinders or advances religion. Private expression of religion is fine, public and legislated expression of religion is wrong and unconstitutional. (Pro-religion folks should be on the same page here, unless they want to find themselves in an America where their kids might be required to say the wrong religious affirmation in a public school. (Can you imagine the uproar among Baptists if their children were asked to recite "Hail Marys" in school, or read from the Book of Mormon?)

 

[johnbt]

I posted the following on another board a few days ago and decided to post it here:

I have a few things to say and a question or two. The question is about people, our neighbors, who belong to a variety of religions or no religion - that's legal, too. What about their freedom of religion? We supposedly have freedom of religion, but we didn't always.

I side with Thomas Jefferson on the separation of church and state.

Why should a anyone be required by the government-owned schools to recite words "Under God"? Not very neighborly, but there are better reasons to prohibit the requirement to say the current form of the P. of A., too.

Does anyone really want the government picking the morning prayer at school? What are you thinking about. I can't wait until the government decides to rotate the prayer - a religion from a different country each and every week for the entire school year. The children will love it.

In Colonial Virginia The Church collected the taxes and threw its weight around. If you didn't belong to The Church, you were in trouble. Do a search on early Quakers in America for examples of the restrictions and the fines(More than a few were killed in Boston, IIRC). I'd look it up myself, but I'm hot, tired and hungry.

Here's a link to some backgound info on Jefferson and development of his/our Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Here's one of my favorite parts:

"For some Virginians, however, imposing religion on people smacked of tyranny."

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm


"In Virginia, the American Revolution led to the disestablishment of the Anglican Church, which had been tied closely to the royal government. Then the question arose as to whether the new state should continue to impose taxes to be used for the support of all recognized churches. The proposal had a number of supporters who, even if they no longer accepted an established church, still believed that religion should be supported by the public purse.

For some Virginians, however, imposing religion on people smacked of tyranny. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both of whom would later be president of the United States, argued that religious beliefs should be solely matters of individual conscience and completely immune from any interference by the state. Moreover, religious activity of any sort should be wholly voluntary. Not only did they oppose taxing people to support an established church, but they also objected to forcing people to pay taxes even for their own church. To Jefferson, a high wall of separation should always keep church and state apart.

Jefferson drafted the following measure, but it was Madison who skillfully secured its adoption by the Virginia legislature in 1786. It is still part of modern Virginia's constitution, and it has not only been copied by other states but was also the basis for the Religion Clauses in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Both men considered this bill one of the great achievements of their lives, and Jefferson directed that on his tombstone he should not be remembered as president of the United States or for any of the other high offices he held, but as the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and as the founder of the University of Virginia."

For further reading: William Lee Miller, The First Liberty: Religion and the American Republic (1985); Leonard W. Levy, The Establishment Clause and the First Amendment (1986); Merrill D. Peterson and Robert C. Vaughn, eds., The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: Its Evolution and Consequences in American History (1988).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I've never been mistaken for a liberal. This is conservative stuff. Don't want the church, anybody's church, messing with the government. And I certainly don't want the government messing with anybody's religion.

Anybody's.

John

 

[Ben Swenson]

The issue, and the reason why intelligent people beome "whining intolerants", is constitutional principle

Nonsense and otherwise.
If this were about constitutional principle, the arguments would be whether or not the Gov't has the right to make kids say a pledge at all ("under God" being irrelevant). The answer, of course, is that they do not have the right to do this.

1. If you think that the First Amendment does not prohibit mandatory religious affirmations in public schools, would you accept the recital of the Pledge by your kids if it stated "a nation under the Goddess", or "a nation under many Gods"?

It was already decided by the Supreme Court on June 14, 1943 that a school can't make a kid say the pledge, this isn't what is being argued about.

Please see: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624

Since it has already been ruled that a school cannot require (force, mandate, demand, command ...) a student to say the pledge, there is no reason that they can offended by having to say the word "God" ... because they simply don't have to.

Lendringser: I don't think it is right for the Gov't to force anyone to say the pledge. With or without the word "God". If the issue is the kid being forced to say the pledge, let's address that seperately. The entire basis of your point is that children should not be forced to say "under God". I agree. They can't. There is already a ruling that shows that. Any case of someone being required to do so can be addressed by the courts on those grounds.

Now, sir, what is the problem?

edited to add:
By the by, the cite I provided shows that a school cannot require a child to say the pledge even without the words "under God"

 

[Ought Six]

As for the point about the First Amendment right of freedom of worship, that is an individual right which is specifically prohibited to the government. When a government employee in engaged in their government duties, they do not have that freedom, as they are at that time acting as an agent of the government.

For example, if you had a Jehovah's Witness working as a clerk at a welfare office, they are prohibited from attempting to convert people, although their religion demands they do so. Evangelicals may not preach to other employees while on the clock. The point is that government employees have their individual right to freedom of religion limited while on the job (which is also true in the private sector). Thus, it's perfectly legal and proper to prohibit a public school teacher from engaging in religious speech while on the job.

I would also point out that if a Native American teacher declared that we were "one nation, under the Great Spirit", Xns would be screaming bloody murder. That's why I find their position on this hypocritical. This kind of religious indoctrination of kids is A-okay with them only as long as they are indoctrinated with Xnity, and only Xnity. Mention any other God from any other relgion, and suddenly it becomes a totally unacceptable outrage. That exposes the true nature of their position, a promotion of Xnity in government-funded classrooms by government authority figures to impressionable kids that are forced to listen, all done without the permission of the parents.

 

[Betty]

Cordex quote: Since it has already been ruled that a school cannot require (force, mandate, demand, command ...) a student to say the pledge, there is no reason that they can offended by having to say the word "God" ... because they simply don't have to.

http://fyi.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/02/28/school.pledge.ap/
February 28, 2002 Posted: 4:11 PM EST (2111 GMT)
HARTFORD, Connecticut (AP) --
Responding to the post-September 11 burst of patriotism, state lawmakers around the country want to put the Pledge of Allegiance into more public schools.

Half the states now require the pledge as part of the school day , and half a dozen more recommend it, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This year, bills to make the oath mandatory have been brought up in Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, Mississippi and Indiana.

The state by state breakdown can be found here:
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/29/96/2996.htm

Dated October 2001:
Of these states, 25 require schools to include recitation of the pledge during the school day. These include: Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, Utah, California, Illinois, Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, Delaware, Kansas, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Mexico, South Carolina and Wisconsin.

Six states encourage schools to conduct the pledge but it is optional: Alabama, New Hampshire, Kentucky, North Carolina, Louisiana and Ohio.

Three states allow teachers or administrators to read or post the pledge: Arizona, Arkansas and Indiana.

These are the states that REQUIRE the school AND the indiviual to make the Pledge of Allegiance:
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, and New Jersey.

I went to grade school in the People's Republic of New Jersey - that would be Howard L. Emmons Elementary in Pemberton, NJ, Burlington County. Those did not recite the pledge were punished by standing in a corner or were not allowed to play during recess.

---------

I also have some very interesting factoids concerning teacher led prayer in school, but they're on my computer at work.

 

[Ought Six]

I think the Supreme Court has overruled state laws requiring individuals to recite the Pledge.

 

[Betty]

Than I must restate:

These are the states that REQUIRE the school AND the indiviual to make the Pledge of Allegiance: Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, and New Jersey.

And, if reciting the Pledge is not mandatory of the student, than why is the student punished?

I must also add that through my experience, a student was punished for not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge. If the same teachers could tune in to an indivudal voice in a class and hear the lack of "under God" on a student's lips, that student would also be duly punished, and I believe more so if the teacher was of a righteous nature. I believe teachers are state paid and therefore represent the state.

noted: Ought Six edited post after fully reading the text. Thank you.

Edited for typos. I need some sleep.

 

[Ought Six]

I did a quick websearch, and the Supreme Court did, in fact, rule that no one may be forced to recite the Pledge. Thus, state laws making it manditory are legally null and void. The case is West Virginia State Board of Education et al. v. Barnette et al., 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

 

[Betty]

That's really funny, considering some of the states made theirs mandatory after the 1943 ruling (that's the pre "under God" Pledge) and others are in progress of doing it now.

Like state laws follow the federal laws.

 

[Ought Six]

Could politicians passing laws they know full well are unconstitutional be.... <*gasp!*> .... just politics ?!?!

Ya think ???

 

[Betty]

Ought Six, I did read that Supreme Court decision and found this paragraph interesting:
(All paragraphs breaks mine for readability)

"As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing.

Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts to our present totalitarian enemies.

Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."

And this is fantastic:
"The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization.

To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes.

When they are so harmless to others or to the States as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."

http://www.greatsource.com/amgov/almanac/documents/supreme/1943_wvb_4.html

 

[Ought Six]

Great quotes. Thanks!

 

[Ben Swenson]

Runt:
As I have already stated: Requiring children to say the pledge - with or without the word "God" in it - is wrong and unconstitutional and has already been proven as such in the supreme court (as stated in the decision posted by myself and Ought Six). If a state passes a law forcing students or faculty to recite the pledge, an individual refuses to (as many people of varying faiths have) and is punished, then I could see that taken to court for a ruling. That did not happen in this case. This case was quite simply based on the feeeeelings a single person who was offended that his daughter had to hear one word. As such, I think this ruling was bad. His daughter's rights weren't trampled upon. His rights weren't trampled upon. He was merely (everyone ready for it? I should make this my sig line) whining and intolerant.
Thanks for the info, though, Betty.

Ought six said:
the Supreme Court did, in fact, rule that no one may be forced to recite the Pledge.

*grin* If you'd have read my post I would have saved you the search.

 

[LoneStranger]

Cordex;

I'm wondering if you have really, really looked at what you have written and if you are really, really thinking about it.

Quote:

This case was quite simply based on the feeeeelings a single person who was offended that his daughter had to hear one word. As such, I think this ruling was bad. His daughter's rights weren't trampled upon. His rights weren't trampled upon. He was merely (everyone ready for it? I should make this my sig line) whining and intolerant.

As a parent, I would have thought that he is responsible for the protection of his daughter's rights. As a parent is it not his right to determine what his daughter is required to say? Please do not tell me that a second grader is going to stand up and say no to a teacher led, class excercise.
If he has made a decision that his daughter is to be raised in a non-religious manner that is wrong by your own statement. Do you apply the same standard to those that wish to ensure that that their child is brought up in a particular religious manner?

As for your last sentence the only whining and intolerance I have seen is on your part.

As a note; Fox News had the father on a telephone interview on the day of the ruling. He stated that he had no problem with the pledge before they inserted "under God" in it.
Guess that means he is Anti-American to boot.

Easiest answer is to drop "under God" and go from there.

 

[Ben Swenson]

As a parent, I would have thought that he is responsible for the protection of his daughter's rights.

Certainly.

As a parent is it not his right to determine what his daughter is required to say? Please do not tell me that a second grader is going to stand up and say no to a teacher led, class excercise.

I'm sorry, sir. You seem to be better informed than I on this. Perhaps you can tell me where you learned that this case was based on the fact that the daughter was required to say the pledge. I have heard nothing suggesting that.
In fact ... (a quote from the ruling):

Newdow does not allege that his daughter’s teacher or
school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting
the Pledge.3 Rather, he claims that his daughter is injured
when she is compelled to “watch and listen as her state-employed
teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates
in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our’s [sic]
is ‘one nation under God.’ ”

3 refers to a notation discussing West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
Thus and therefore, I stand by my statement that he feeeeels injured by the fact that his daughter is required to hear the word "God".

If he has made a decision that his daughter is to be raised in a non-religious manner that is wrong by your own statement.

How so? When have I implied or suggested that?

As for your last sentence the only whining and intolerance I have seen is on your part.

*chuckle* Okay, buddy. Care to explain?

 

[Scott Conklin]

A new "twist" to this: Apparently the claim that "under God" was somehow offensive or harmful to his daughter has become a big question mark regarding this clowns honesty. Turns out his ex(or estranged) wife and the daughter attend church regularly and opposed his filing the suit. He even went so far as to say in an interview that this was about him and he'd prefer to leave his daughter out of it...

Fascinating.

 

[Tamara]

Zander,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then make your case; what religion was "established"? Who was forced to worship this religion?

I know they still taught the lost art of diagramming sentences so as to glean their meaning while you were in school. "Establish" is used nowhere as a verb in that sentence; rather the word used is "establishment", which is a noun.

"Congress", the subject of the sentence, is prohibited from performing an action, "making a law", that "respects" an "establishment of religion", such as the one you subscribe to.

"Congress shall make no law which esteems or refers to an establishment of religion".

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh-oh...there's the troublesome part for the religion prohibitionists. What do you do about that clause?

Cherish it. Because "free exercise" is the antonym of "compulsory exercise" or "officially sanctioned exercise".

And while you're pondering, please work on my original question WRT this subject...

Are you in favor of the Declaration of Independence being taught to students in government schools [indoctrination centers]?

'Yes' or 'no', please. Thanks in advance...

I'll ignore the simplistic tactic of the "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no, please?" question and say that I don't even oppose teaching the Bible in school within its proper context; I learned about Zeus and Odin in school, why shouldn't I learn about JHVH there, too?

 

[Betty]

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that mandating the Pledge is unConstitutional does not dismiss the reality that many states do mandate it. The states aren't going to change their policy until someone sucessfully challenges it.

I have no problem with a person making a case on Constitutional principle, even if the issue in particular didn't affect the plantiff. Is this man wanting to change the words of the Pledge or is he out seeking monetary compensation because he "feeeeels injured"? God anything should be kept out of public schools, period, unless it's a part of a Comparative Religious Studies class.

 

[Scaramanga]

Some info on why the pledge was changed in 1954. My apologies if this has been covered.

Quote by Congressman Louis C. Rabaut who was the House sponsor of the bill: “the children of our land, in the daily recitation of the pledge in school, will be daily impressed with a true understanding of our way of life and its origins.”

Quote by President Dwight Eisenhower: When he signed the legislation 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 excerpt from the official legislative history of the 1954 Act:

“The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual.”

This is from the recent court decision, and frankly I tend to agree, but this whole thing is getting out of control and will probably be overturned:

"In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The Court is saying that to recite the Pledge is not merely to describe the United States as a nation founded by people with deeply held religious beliefs; instead, it is to actually swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and – since 1954 – the reality of monotheism.”