Win a copy of Machine Learning for Business: Using Amazon SageMaker and JupyterE this week in the Jython/Python forum
or Object Design Style Guide in the Object-Oriented programming forum!
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Knute Snortum
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis
  • fred rosenberger

A little too much Political Correctness?

 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
A panel of the 9th Federal Circuit Court in San Francisco (surprise) has ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" because of the phrase "one nation under God".
Now I grew up without there being any religion in my household, but I also grew up reciting the Pledge in school, and have never had any problem with it. I can't help but think that the person responsible for bringing this lawsuit needs to get a life.
What's next? Most oaths of office, including the Presiden't end with "so help me God". US currency has "In God We Trust" written on it. Are we to change them as well?
After reading the reactions from Democrats and Republicans alike, do you think these judges have just seen their career flash before their eyes? One Senator came right out and said that those judges better not come before any proceedings of his, for promotions or otherwise, and that their names will be remembered. Another Senator said something about a stupid ruling from stupid judges. The Senate voted 99-0 to condemn the ruling, and have stated they will ammend the Constitution if the full 9th Circuit Court or the Supreme Court doesn't strike down the ruling. Even the House has taken shots at the ruling. The US Dept of Justice is looking into actions it can take, and the Whitehouse has denounced it as well.
Oh well, I'm sure it will be struck down shortly. But man, they do grow some strange ones out there on the left coast. :roll:
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 15304
6
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I would just like to have a picture of the Judge making his decision with the huge In God We Trust sign behind him like most courtrooms have.
Also, I think now that our paper currency must be unconstitutional. It has In God We Trust printed on it.
 
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Just because the Supreme Court is fundamentally right doesn't mean they are going to be popular.
Somehow the country survived until 1954, when the phrase "under God" was first inserted into the Pledge. So let's not have any nonsense about Washington or Lincoln -- men from the East Coast and the Midwest, mind you -- spinning in their graves over this "stunning reversal."
So let's dance: should someone who does not believe in any God be required to acknowledge "Him" in the course of pledging allegiance to this nation?
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
This one hasn't gone to the (US) Supreme Court yet - but it seems to have a good chance of getting there soon. It doesn't necessarily have good chances of success there, unfortunately, but it does have notably better chances than it would if it were in the hands of elected officials, who are of course eager to try to convert public outrage into votes in the next election.
So let's dance: should someone who does not believe in any God be required to acknowledge "Him" in the course of pledging allegiance to this nation?
Speaking as an atheist myself - heck no. It amounts to saying either (a) you must believe in God to be a good citizen, or (b) it's OK to "pledge" things you don't really believe. Neither seems acceptable to me. However it seems that most people at least are not required to say the pledge at all. The supreme court has specifically asserted that childen may choose to remain silent. It's still troubling to me that they're put in an environment where it's expected that they say the pledge. But that's a bit short of a requirement.
Are there situations where the US government legally requires people to acknowledge a God? I'm not sure. Naturalized citizens come to mind; I believe you have to say the pledge of allegiance to become a naturalized citizen. Is it possible to omit "under God" in this situation? Or, when giving legal testimony I know that swearing-in statements typically invoke God, which would make it near impossible for me to ever swear to "tell the whole truth". I think there are alternate oath forms available, but don't know. (This probably varies by state.) Does anyone know?
Things like the mention of God on money and in various other official contexts do not concern me so much, as long as they don't claim to directly reflect my own beliefs. It's things like pledges and oaths that I find problematic and potentially offensive. Others may believe what they wish; just don't try to dictate what I believe, or write scripts for me that I can't honestly recite.
I can certainly understand that mainstream America doesn't see why this should be a problem. And compared to other forms of government oppression which exist in the world, it's pretty minor. Atheists are generally able to function in society just fine despite a few bad laws, thank you. But for those of you who don't see the point, consider - what if the situation were reversed, and your children were being led to assert allegiance to a nation with no God. Wouldn't this be just a bit objectionable? Or even patently offensive? :roll: Heck, one or two theists might even get uppity enough to make a federal case about it.
[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Somehow the country survived until 1954, when the phrase "under God" was first inserted into the Pledge.


Well, it was only recognized by the US government in 1942 (although it had been written earlier), so it's not like it had a long history of being recited in our country before then. Compare those eleven years prior to 1954 with the forty-eight years since and you will get a clear picture on which side tradition stands.
I'm surprised some left-coast liberal judiciary struck it down, since it was written by a socialist to begin with. :roll: The phrase "under God" was inserted in 1954 as an anti-Communist move believe it or not, just to get some perspective of the history behind it.

So let's dance: should someone who does not believe in any God be required to acknowledge "Him" in the course of pledging allegiance to this nation?


That question was answered in 1943 (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette), so it's a moot point. The Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite the pledge. They have the option to remain silent if they choose, as well as to remain seated if they choose.
Now what these two judges tried to do is make it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge in school period. The Pledge is not an endorsement of any religion, it is a patriotic device. But regardless, anybody who has objections to it is free not to recite it.
If you want to make it unconsitutional to recite the Pledge in school, then you also have to remove any mention of God from every piece of the government apparatus. No more oaths that end in "so help me God", our money must be changed, and a countless host of other things in a similar vein will need to be changed as well.
We could debate whether or not the Republic is really "one nation under God". What does that mean? Well, the nation was most definitely founded on religious principles, historically speaking. That really can't be denied. So if we look at the meaning of the disputed text to equate to "one nation founded under God" or something similar, this is historically accurate. That some fail to acknowledge that is only denial of history, although ultra-liberals have never had much of a problem re-writing history.
Just to refresh all our memories, the First Amendment reads thus:
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.
Now I am not for state sponsored establishment of religion in any way. I just don't think that the Pledge of Allegiance does this. If anything the ruling violated the First Amendment because it violates freedom of speech, I would think.
As I said earlier, I look at the Pledge as a patriotic device to remind people what the flag and the nation it represents stand for. This is a healthy thing as it imparts a sense of history to our young as well as some pride in the accomplishments of those who came before them.
Now growing up in New England where we don't pronounce all of the letter R's in our words, I thought I was saying "one nation under guard" for the longest time.
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I think it's clear that "under God" was intended as a Cold War shibboleth, and if we were as good legislatively at retiring "traditions" as we are at founding them, we'd have gotten rid of this socialist divining-rod a few years before now.
There are really two issues at stake here. One lies in the right to refuse to pledge allegiance. That's actually the one I have a big problem with. I do think every citizen should be accountable to profess allegiance.
With the phrase "under God," it takes a decidedly different turn. Now if you do wish to recite the
pledge, but can only do so by acknowledging God, you have a problem. The law allows you to participate or not; it does not allow you to participate only under the terms of your own conscience, which may be free of any belief in a higher power.
If the kids are called upon to say it, they should be able to do so, I think, with no regard whatsoever to their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. The country is the country, God is God. In this sense, the notion of a separation between church and state doesn't exactly apply, but whatever does exactly apply certainly must prevail over free speech.
I think "free speech" is a red herring in this sense. You can still recite any pledge you like, just not under the auspices of a government-run agency, like a public school.
[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Compare those eleven years prior to 1954 with the forty-eight years since and you will get a clear picture on which side tradition stands.

Errmm... why not compare to the history of the nation itself, which did fine for many years without a pledge of allegiance at all? If the weather is sunny for nine months, rainy for a week, and snows for three months after that, would it make sense to say that traditionally the weather has been snowy?
If you want to make it unconsitutional to recite the Pledge in school, then you also have to remove any mention of God from every piece of the government apparatus. No more oaths that end in "so help me God", our money must be changed, and a countless host of other things in a similar vein will need to be changed as well.
The oaths, including the pledge, are significantly more important. I can use money without lying; I can't do that anymore with the pledge.
So if we look at the meaning of the disputed text to equate to "one nation founded under God" or something similar, this is historically accurate. That some fail to acknowledge that is only denial of history, although ultra-liberals have never had much of a problem re-writing history.
Ooh sounds cool, can I be an "ultra-liberal" too? :roll:
Sorry, the label just struck me as particularly silly-sounding. Much like "crypto-fascist" and other such inane labels - I forget that some people really do use such phrases with a straight face.
If the text were something like "one nation founded under a belief in God", fine. But that's not what it says. Evidently some people have no problem re-interpreting the English language to say things it does not.
As I said earlier, I look at the Pledge as a patriotic device to remind people what the flag and the nation it represents stand for. This is a healthy thing as it imparts a sense of history to our young as well as some pride in the accomplishments of those who came before them.
I can agree with those goals certainly. But by framing it as an oath, which children are encouraged to recite before they fully understand what it means and before they are mature enough to decide whether they fully agree with it, I think we also teach kids that it's OK to mouth words even if you don't really understand or fully agree with them. Not a good precedent, in my opinion.
Now growing up in New England where we don't pronounce all of the letter R's in our words, I thought I was saying "one nation under guard" for the longest time.

Hmmmm... seems kinda spooky though in retrospect.
[cue "Twilight Zone" music...]
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I don't see any reason why someone couldn't recite the pledge but when they get to the "under God" part simply remain silent.
The declaration of independence says that we are endowed with our rights by God.
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I don't see any reason why someone couldn't recite the pledge but when they get to the "under God" part simply remain silent.
Sure, that's what I do (on the rare occasions the subject comes up for me nowadays). There wasn't an issue for me as a kid, as I was enough of a believer that I didn't have a problem with saying "under God". But, do kids realize this is an option? Probably only if their parents are members of that durn ultra-liberal cabal. Children whose opinions differ from their parents are probably on their own here. (Gee, how many of those could there be?) And will some kids be teased or worse in return for indirectly indicating their beliefs in an area that is no one else's business? Probably some will, and some others will figure that it's easier to play along. This may not rise to the level of human rights abuses that would get Amnesty International in an uproar, but I think it's reasonable to argue that kids are in a coercive environment here. Unless the process of pledging allegiance is presented very differently now than it was when I was in school.
Also I'm not at all sure that selective silence is an option for naturalized citizens. Likewise for various oaths.
The declaration of independence says that we are endowed with our rights by God.
Which is fine as that's evidently what the signators believed. Personally I wouldn't have been able to sign it in good conscience without minor rewording - but I'm not expected to, either, so that works out OK.
[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
The real question is, how would any of your fellow students know that you aren't saying "under God"? When I was a student most of us were just mumbling the words anyway.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3244
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
And those who weren't mumbling didn't really have any idea what they it for. I saw something once on funniest home videos, a little girl reciting the pledge and instead of god she said Bob. I vote we change everything to Bob...
One nation under Bob...
In Bob we trust...
...so help me bob.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2676
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
This is an issue that I am on the fence on so it is really good to hear other opinions. Here are my thoughts:
First and foremost, don't think that this lawsuit is a father's concern for his daughter. The person who brought the lawsuit has admitted as much. The real reason he brought this lawsuit is because he didn't think he could win on trying to get "In God we Trust" off of our money.
I don't think that the act of adding "under god" to the Pledge is an establishment of religion, but having read the statements of Eisenhower when he signed it and the sponsor of the bill (sorry, I don't remember his name) it seems pretty clear that the intent of the bill was to establish religion. To that degree I support the decision of the court.
I am very afraid of the slippery slope that this decision treads on. I am in favor of removing "under god" from the pledge because it requires a person to acknowledge a god to be patriotic. I am very much against forcing people to say any pledge of allegiance (that is what dictatorships do, not free societies). If the decision stands, then what is next? Does "In God we Trust" get removed from our money? Do all references to god get removed from the Declaration of Independence?
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

The declaration of independence says that we are endowed with our rights by God.


It does. Of course, the Declaration itself is a open letter to King George III, and if nothing else could be viewed as a point which would be silly not to concede when asserting one's rights elsewhere.
At least some of the people who wrote that Believed it, I'm sure. But it's a fair guess none of those signers agreed to insist upon Belief among all the people as a foundation for a new state.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
I am very much against forcing people to say any pledge of allegiance (that is what dictatorships do, not free societies).

No one has been required to say the pledge (with or without "under God") since 1943. No one is forced to pledge their allegiance.
 
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2676
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
No one has been required to say the pledge (with or without "under God") since 1943. No one is forced to pledge their allegiance.


I know. I was just stating the way I feel on the subject.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
But the question isn't should "one nation under God" be removed. I personally would have no problem with that. The issue was that saying the Pledge in a public school was unconstitutional. They're not trying to change the Pledge, they are trying to prevent it from being uttered.
Looking at the First Amendment again:
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 don't see how "one nation under God" is respecting an establishment of religion. The intent of that part of the First Amendment was to prevent the country from establishing a state religion. Which religion does "one nation under God" try to establish? Christianity? Judism? Islam? Does saying "one nation under God" promote the establishment of any religion?
There has always been the option not to say it. However if it were made unconstitutional to recite the Pledge in school, then it seems you are also trampling on the free speech portion of that amendment, since you could legally no longer utter those words in that setting.
As has been pointed out, nobody is being forced to recite the Pledge. I do strongly advocate children being encouraged to recite the Pledge for a variety of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with religion. I would also strongly reject any notion that such encouragement is the type of thing that only goes on in dictatorships.
The Pledge is the first thing that kids learn about the responsibility inherent with being a citizen. Children should learn that there are certain responsibilities that go along with citizenship, as much as many in this country prefer a free ride and accept no such responsibility.
If parents find the Pledge offensive, just like anything else that is taught in school that might go against their belief system, such as evolution maybe, then it is their responsibility to explain to their kids how the Pledge meshes with their beliefs. Do you believe in the Pledge in general but object to that one phrase? Explain this to your kids along with why you think the Pledge is generally a good thing. Explain why you think that phrase is in there.
We have a very diverse population and to be honest it is getting very tiring trying to please all the people all of the time. The phrase "one nation under God" does not infringe on the rights of anyone. People at both political extremes need to stop trying to mold the rest of the population to their way of thinking. If there is something you don't like and that otherwise doesn't impact upon your rights, then don't participate in whatever it is, but don't try to take that thing away from everybody else (the majority) simply because you don't care for it.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

I can agree with those goals certainly. But by framing it as an oath, which children are encouraged to recite before they fully understand what it means and before they are mature enough to decide whether they fully agree with it, I think we also teach kids that it's OK to mouth words even if you don't really understand or fully agree with them. Not a good precedent, in my opinion.


We teach all kinds of things to children before they full understand them. That's what the teaching process is all about. Accepting allegiance to one's country and supporting the principles of responsible citizenship is something that as adults we guide our children towards. We make that decision for them. As government institutions, this is exazctly the kind of thing schools should be doing. They are not telling kids to be good Christians/Muslims/Jews/Wiccans/atheists/agnostics/etc..., they are telling kids to be good citizens.
Now if an adult does not believe their children should be taught to be good citizens with allegiance to their country (and allegiance does not mean supporting our nation in every action it takes), they don't need to be here, IMHO.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
In 1943 it was ruled to be unconstitutional to force any child to say the pledge. The court in this case did not say that saying the pledge is unconstituional... it said that saing "under God" is unconstitutional. Presumably this court would have no problem with the pledge if those words were removed.
I wonder how the court would rule if children were told to recite the Declaration of Independence everyday.
 
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2676
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I do strongly advocate children being encouraged to recite the Pledge for a variety of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with religion. I would also strongly reject any notion that such encouragement is the type of thing that only goes on in dictatorships.


There is a difference between requirement and encouragement. I will encourage my children to say it often (when I have them). I may even require it.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 664
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

As government institutions, this is exazctly the kind of thing schools should be doing. They are not telling kids to be good Christians/Muslims/Jews/Wiccans/atheists/agnostics/etc..., they are telling kids to be good citizens.
Now if an adult does not believe their children should be taught to be good citizens with allegiance to their country (and allegiance does not mean supporting our nation in every action it takes), they don't need to be here, IMHO.


Ok, my brainwashed friend, you've done it. US Constitution, Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
"Our (American) way of life is based on the fact that individual is superior to the State. The individual is altimate holder of sovereignity. That the State is the servant of the people." - quote from here by Antony C. Sutton. So how come "should be taught to be good citizens with allegiance to their country"? Isn't it putting the State above any citizen? That, my friend, is, first, unconstitutional, and secon, Hegelian (or Marxist, whatever you prefer) to the bone.
Shura
 
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2676
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I don't see how "one nation under God" is respecting an establishment of religion. The intent of that part of the First Amendment was to prevent the country from establishing a state religion. Which religion does "one nation under God" try to establish? Christianity? Judism? Islam? Does saying "one nation under God" promote the establishment of any religion?


According to the ruling it is an establishment of a monothiestic religion. If you can determine the intent of the bill from what Eisenhower said when he signed it, "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," then I tend to agree with the court decision.
[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Matthew Phillips ]
 
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2676
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:

Ok, my brainwashed friend, you've done it. US Constitution, Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
"Our (American) way of life is based on the fact that individual is superior to the State. The individual is altimate holder of sovereignity. That the State is the servant of the people." - quote from here by Antony C. Sutton. So how come "should be taught to be good citizens with allegiance to their country"? Isn't it putting the State above any citizen? That, my friend, is, first, unconstitutional, and secon, Hegelian (or Marxist, whatever you prefer) to the bone.
Shura


Showing allegiance to your country and putting the state over the individual are two different things. I like to think that I am very patriotic and I do pledge my allegiance to the U.S., but I very rarely agree with anything my government does. It seems that just about every action taken by the government blatantly ignores the Constitution.
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I'm still curious about how the pledge works for naturalized citizens, or if there are any other contexts where the pledge is actually required. I saw where Thomas asserted no one has been required to say the pledge since 1943. But since the 1943 case was specifically about children in public schools, I'm not sure if Thomas is including the natualization process when he says "no one". It's very possible that no one is required to say the pledge, even during naturalization. But I don't know, and am wondering if others have more solid info. No luck in web searches so far. Similarly, I'm curious if anyone knows how it's handled if you're being sworn in to testify in court.
[Jason]: We teach all kinds of things to children before they full understand them. That's what the teaching process is all about. Accepting allegiance to one's country and supporting the principles of responsible citizenship is something that as adults we guide our children towards.
Well again, I don't disagree with the goal (given that allegiance and responsible citizenship need not equate to blind obedience and acceptance of everything the state does) - I'm just skeptical about the effectiveness. I think it diminishes the significance and effectiveness of the pledge to hear it droned every morning for years. I recall the words acquiring a slight mocking quality in the mouths of some students.
I should note that by questioning the pledge itself I was bringing up a side issue. As noted by Thomas, the recent court decision is not about whether the pledge in general may (or should be) be recited, but about the specific wording of the pledge if recited. For my own part, I merely question the merits of pledge recitation in school, but I actively disagree with the "under God" wording.
[Thomas]: I wonder how the court would rule if children were told to recite the Declaration of Independence everyday.
Good question. In fact many children are required to memorize recite it at some point (at least, "required" to the extent that their grade may suffer if they fail to do so). But it's not currently instituted by the government, just at the discretion of individual teachers I believe - or perhaps at the school distric level in some cases. And more importantly (to me at least) it's not presented as an assertion of what the student believes, but as an excercise in memorization (and maybe even understanding ) a historically significant text. Not vastly different in this sense from memorizing and reciting parts of Hamlet or Henry V for example.
[Shura]: So how come "should be taught to be good citizens with allegiance to their country"? Isn't it putting the State above any citizen? That, my friend, is, first, unconstitutional...
Shura, Amendment X limits the power of the federal government over individuals and over state governments. State governments are still free to make whatever laws they want unless they violate some other part of the constitution. So with respect to Amendment X, Jason's view would only be unconstitutional if he were advocating federal laws or other intervention in this area. (And if he can't justify it with some other part of the constitution.) If you want to call his view unconstitutional, you'll have to find a more relevant section to quote.
[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
 
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand
Posts: 664
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
My opinion...Any State document that is recited every day thus is converted to a preacher, and therefore, should be ruled unconstitutional.
(going away...hmmm, I think they'll attack me again for this one... :roll: gotta stop pushing their "pain" button...)
Shura
[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
hmmm, I think they'll attack me again for this one...
No need. Some sort of meaningful content in your post would be necessary, before we'd feel the need to refute it.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:

Ok, my brainwashed friend, you've done it. US Constitution, Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
"Our (American) way of life is based on the fact that individual is superior to the State. The individual is altimate holder of sovereignity. That the State is the servant of the people." - quote from here by Antony C. Sutton. So how come "should be taught to be good citizens with allegiance to their country"? Isn't it putting the State above any citizen? That, my friend, is, first, unconstitutional, and secon, Hegelian (or Marxist, whatever you prefer) to the bone.
Shura


Yes, I suppose it is possible somebody with moral conviction might appear brainwashed. :roll:
As has been pointed out, Amendment X has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.
The statement I made, that children "should be taught to be good citizens with allegiance to their country", is neither unconstitutional or remotely Marxist. It is about teaching children responsibility and providing them the tools to make moral decisions.
Don't get hung up on some quasi-anarchist interpretation of the individual and some Marxist interpretation of society. It is a simple truth that, in the US at least (and many other places I would imagine), for the individual to prosper, society must prosper, and that means individuals must participate as responsible members of society.
Having allegiance to the US has nothing to do with blindly supporting everything it does as the correct course of action. It does have something to do with things like civic responsibility and upholding the ideals set forth in the Constitution.
[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2676
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
My wife brought up an interesting point on this issue, but I haven't had time to research it. The pledge of allegiance and the document to add the words "under god" were both passed as resolutions, not laws. If this is true, then it is not truly a violation of the establishment clause because it is not a law. As I research this further, I will share my findings.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 142
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
"God" can mean different things to different people. Since they don't believe in a God, atheists can simply define it as Earth or home or love or whatever they do believe in.
I think the Supreme Court will not uphold the 9th Circuit Court's results based on the various available interpreatations of the word "God".
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1365
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
This discussion seems to be based on the conception that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has now been declared illegal. Please read the ruling to understand why this is not the case. All that has been declared unconstitutional is the 1954 act adding the problem words and a particular california school encouraging students to say the Pledge with the added words. There is nothing wrong with saying the Pledge in school in its original official form.
 
Bartender
Posts: 2205
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
My understanding is that the ruling is even more narrow than this. The ruling is that a public institution that receives government funding cannot make the recitation of the pledge of allegience, in its current form, mandatory, as requiring the phrase "under god" is unconstitutional.
Within this narrow ruling, private organizations are still free to require their members to recite the pledge as-is, and/or public institutions cannot require it but voluntary recitation would not be prohibited. I would assume though that they still wouldn't be able to formally have a time set aside for this, so basically it would be up to individuals to do it on their own if they so choose.
All that being said however, the court also stayed their decision pending review, so right now, there's no restrictions in place, and school kids can still be required to say it.
One more thing...

Originally posted by Christophe Lee:
"God" can mean different things to different people. Since they don't believe in a God, atheists can simply define it as Earth or home or love or whatever they do believe in.
I think the Supreme Court will not uphold the 9th Circuit Court's results based on the various available interpreatations of the word "God".


I don't know if you realize how insulting this is. Why don't I find something that you find offensive, slip it into the pledge, and mandate that you recite it, and tell you "oh, if you don't like those words just make them mean something else to you."
What if the beef industry lobbied and got them to add the phrase "one nation, enriched by consuption of beef,"
That would be morally offensive to a great deal of vegetarians, as well as Hindus. You seem to be oblivious to the feelings of other people, but I find most "mainstream" religious people are as clueless as you seem to be.
[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rob Ross ]
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
My understanding is that the ruling is even more narrow than this. The ruling is that a public institution that receives government funding cannot make the recitation of the pledge of allegience, in its current form, mandatory, as requiring the phrase "under god" is unconstitutional.
The scope of this ruling, or rather its practical implications, has to be set so it is clear who has standing to sue. The real issue is whether the pledge as it stands is "consitutional," but federal endorsement (i.e., funding) is typically the way in whcih such rulings have impact.
There is nonetheless tangible impact in the fact of the ruling itself. With that 'go-ahead' signal, Congress could write new laws based on this principle. Well, maybe not in this case .
The 9th Circuit doesn't have a police force, but federal money can be quite the persuader. Funding is how the federal government enforced a national speed limit in the 80's: it refused to subsidize transportation projects in any state that allowed speeds over 55. I remember Nevada one year put up 65 and 75 signs and had a notice to stop funds from the local federal office in something like minutes. Down came them fancy new signs, but quick.
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
[David W]: This discussion seems to be based on the conception that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has now been declared illegal.
Some people seem to have had that conception, but I thought this was already cleared up.
[Rob]: The ruling is that a public institution that receives government funding cannot make the recitation of the pledge of allegience, in its current form, mandatory, as requiring the phrase "under god" is unconstitutional.
They (publicly-funded institutions) already couldn't make it mandatory - individuals can decline, or just omit some words. The issue now is whether they can lead students in the pledge.
[Cristophe]: Since they don't believe in a God, atheists can simply define it as Earth or home or love or whatever they do believe in.
Ummm, I don't think so. I agree that "God" is a fairly generic term that does include the beliefs of a wide range of different people, but atheists really can't be included. "God" can mean many things, but "no God" isn't one of them. If the decision is overturned (as it likely will be), I would hope it will be based on one of the other arguments. I could accept for example that the harm to atheists is minimal, or that the original wording of the Constitution perhaps should not be expanded on as much as it has been. But redefining words to mean their exact opposite seems a bit much.
 
Desperado
Posts: 3226
5
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I agree with Jason that somebody has to get a life
The guy that sued maybe.
But I agree that the state should not enforce any religion which I think it doesn't.
The Pledge acknowledges a "god", a Creator and that's it. I doesn't state, e.g., that Jesus is the only "son of god" etc.
However, I agree with the judges since there is no conclusive proof that there is a god.
It's a <em>personal</em> thing to decide to believe and the State should make no mention of it.
Let's NOT forget that it was added in the 1950s because of the cold war against the "<em>godless</em> communists".
 
Greenhorn
Posts: 19
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
http://www.georgetowntimes.com/red.html
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
An update I just came across: Supreme Court accepts Pledge of Allegiance case. Who knows, sometime next June we may finally get some closure on this burning issue.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
An update I just came across: Supreme Court accepts Pledge of Allegiance case. Who knows, sometime next June we may finally get some closure on this burning issue.
Well, this issue may get some closure, but it's far from over. The next issue is the "...tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God" pledge in the court of law. In my opinion, this is as ridiculous as the pledge of allegiance uttered by the kids.
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Well, it would be ridiculous for you or me to utter it. Personally I've never testified, so I don't know - is it possible for people to use modified version of these oaths? For me, putting my hand on a bible would be a meaningless act, harmless and irrelevant. Saying "so help me God" would be hypocrisy on my part, and an attoney who knew more about my beliefs could use this as a basis for attacking my own truthfulness on the stand. So I would hope that if I ever testify, I have the option of using a slightly different form of oath. And I suspect this is indeed the case, but I don't know. (As mentioned above.) Does anyone know for sure?
Assuming I wouldn't be compelled to say "so help me God", I have little objection to other people using this for, or even to it being the default form used by most people. A significant difference between testifying and reciting the pledge is that when you testify, you're usually doing so as an adult, able to make your own choices. You've already had ample opportunity to make up your own mind about what you think on topics like religion. Kids saying the pledge, on the other hand - this concerns me more, because it seems more like an active attempt to guide impressionable youths towards a state-sanctioned religion. Note the phrase "more like" above. As noted previously, I don't regard the whole pledge thing as a big deal either - I'm just saying it's more of a concern for me than the court testimony issue is.
[ October 14, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
this concerns me more, because it seems more like an active attempt to guide impressionable youths towards a state-sanctioned religion.


Which religion?
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Which religion?
Theism.
Note, again, "more like". I put it in vague terms because I wasn't trying to argue a big case here, and wasn't really interested in carefully finding the exact phrasing that would be most appropriate considering all the different ways various people would interpret what I wrote. But I do think that the pledge wording does have the effect of providing some indication to youths that belief in God is expected for "good citizens", and I do find that objectionable. Though only mildly so.
[ October 14, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Which religion?


Reformed Southern Zoroastrianism, 1934 Congregation, Second Conclave.
 
You don't like waffles? Well, do you like this tiny ad?
Java file APIs (DOC, XLS, PDF, and many more)
https://products.aspose.com/total/java
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!