Supreme Court Will Hear Pledge of Allegiance Case 1476
Decaffeinated Jedi writes "As reported in this CNN.com article, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case next year (most likely in June) involving whether public schools can lead students in a 'voluntary' recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. At issue in this case is whether the inclusion of the phrase 'under God' in the pledge constitutes an establishment of religion on the part of the state and an infringement on students' religious liberty when it is recited in the public school setting. This case comes to the Supreme Court as an appeal of the June 2002 ruling made by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals--a decision that led to one of the most active stories in Slashdot history." The CNN article's emphasis on voluntariness -- "whether schoolchildren can be allowed to recite the Pledge voluntarily" -- is grossly misleading, almost propagandistic. Most states have laws requiring the pledge to be recited every day as a class activity, and these are the laws in question. In theory students shouldn't be punished for failing to recite along with the rest of the class (due to a previous Supreme Court decision). No state has a law prohibiting anyone from reciting the pledge voluntarily, whenever they want to.
From my home town (Score:2)
We plan our Sunday breakfasts around church time... you can't eat in Elk Grove past 10:00am!
--D
Re:From my home town (Score:2)
huh? (Score:2)
Elk Grove may be a bit conservative, but I dunno about the rest of the area..
(I lived downtown for many years)
Re:It's a matter of timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's a matter of timing (Score:2)
90%+ of the citizens of the United States couldn't give a flying fsck if there even WAS a "Pledge". The last time I said it was sometime in second grade when we were forced to recite it every single day before school started. The entire written pledge wrapped around the gymnasium like some unholy altar.
patriotism - the last refuge of scoundrels (Score:3, Insightful)
> anything wrong with saying it? Is there anything
> wrong with believing what you are saying?
Is there anything wrong with coercing a pledge from children? Is there anything wrong with forcing children of a variety of religious and non-religious backgrounds to make religious pledges involving someone else's religion? Don't know where you come from buddy, but I'd say it's wrong.
> Is there anything wrong with having pride in your
> country, e
Re:It's a matter of timing (Score:3, Insightful)
Could you provide us with a link? I'd like to see who conducted these polls, the way the questions were worded, perhaps who was paying for the polls to be conducted. I'd hardly believe that a poll paid for by the Moral Majority, Inc. would be objective, and I'm relatively certain that there's damn little that 90% of Americans would agree on.
Is there anything wrong with the Pledge? Is there anything wrong with saying it? Is there anythi
Re:It's a matter of timing (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, for starters, the set of laws objected to by the atheist whose objections to having his daughter recite the Pledge got this ball rolling in the first place say as much, according to the original court ruling:
Re:It's a matter of timing (Score:2, Insightful)
and
You do realize that up until said 50's, the culture and traditions did not include the 'under God' bit, right ?
Which means that back then culture/traditions were already messed with.
Why do you oppose any notion of the same sort of thing happening now ?
Re:It's a matter of timing (Score:2, Flamebait)
If there are situations where someone must say the pledge, such as when becoming a naturalized citizen, then there should be an alternate, godless version. Not unlike the way "Do you swear before go
Re:It's a matter of timing (Score:4, Informative)
That's a fine theory, if not for the fact that that's not the original. The phrase "under God" was added during the 50s as part of McCarthyism's attack on godless communism. So, given that fact, I assume that you will be supporting the return of the Pledge to it's "original" godless version?
Re:It's a matter of timing (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a pledge expert -- that info came in while I was posting. Thank you for the info.
That's a fine theory, if not for the fact that that's not the original. The phrase "under God" was added during the 50s as part of McCarthyism's attack on godless communism. So, given that fact, I assume that you will be supporting the return of the Pledge to it's "original" godless version?
Again, I didn't know that, and yes, I do absolutely support the return of the pledge to its original godless version. More importantly, though (and this was my original point, and it stands), whether or not the "official" pledge becomes godless or not, there needs to be a godless version available for whatever purposes require a pledge today.
It has changed 3 times (Score:3, Informative)
Re:From my home town (Score:5, Informative)
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" -John Adams
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -John Adams
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." -Thomas Jefferson
"No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself, and the least and last of all should I undertake to criticize works on the Apocalypse (Revelations). It was between fifty and sixty years since I read it and then I considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams." -Thomas Jefferson
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." -James Madison
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." -James Madison
"That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." -Ethan Allen
"denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." -Ethan Allen
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." -Benjamin Franklin
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an
Flagrant Misquote. Verify your sources. (Score:3, Informative)
John Adams has often been quoted as having said: "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it."
John Adams did, in fact, write the above words. But if you see those words in context, the meaning changes entirely. Here's the rest of the quotation:
Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking ou
Re:From my home town (Score:3, Informative)
Nonetheless Washington was best described as a Deist. He rarely attended church and refused communion when he did. He declined ministerial attention on his death bed. After his death there was an active propaganda campaign, spearheaded by Rev. Mason Locke Weems, to portray his as a Christian. Many apocryphal (get it, apocryphal :-) ) story's and quotations resulted, including the ridiculous cherry tree business
Re:From my home town (Score:3, Informative)
Twenty times, in the course of my late Reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it." ! ! ! But in this exclamati[on] I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without Reli
Pledge almost is the same as prayer in schools (Score:2)
Re:Pledge almost is the same as prayer in schools (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pledge almost is the same as prayer in schools (Score:2)
Conformity vs. Principle (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pledge almost is the same as prayer in schools (Score:3, Interesting)
I declined to say the pledge throughout high school, but I don't think it was that big of a deal.
Re:Pledge almost is the same as prayer in schools (Score:2)
Re:Pledge almost is the same as prayer in schools (Score:5, Insightful)
What everyone must keep in mind is the First Amendment:
[cornell.edu]
I as an individual can profess my religious (non-)affiliations as much as I want. However, agents of the state cannot endorse or reject a religion while acting as said agents. Using school property to communicate a message with a distinctly theistic slant ("one nation, under God") is unconstitutional (again, see the Santa Fe v. Doe ruling). The state can't say one way or another about god (much in the way that Science should remain agnostic barring distinct evidence one way or another) unless it's in discussing religion in a neutral context. This doesn't mean that teachers can't pray, be religious, nor students; rather, you can't use public property or act on behalf of the government in a coercive way when doing it.
"under god" (Score:4, Insightful)
The Way it Was (Score:2)
Re:"under god" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"under god" (Score:3, Informative)
Care to know who disagrees with you?
From Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, unanamously approved by the U.S. Senate June 7, 1797: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity ag
Re:"under god" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"under god" (Score:2, Insightful)
Typical michael (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess there's nothing left to comment on, since the story was more of a long editorial rant than a newspiece.
Re:Typical michael (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyways, if Michael can use his position to further his cause, is it ok for moderators to moderate in favor of there causes?
Michael is clearly abusing his power. Wait a minute, abuse of power is something that Michael would complain about in one of his "editorials".
So its ok to abuse power as long as it favors Michael's cause?
Plus hes totally wrong (Score:5, Informative)
No state has a law prohibiting anyone from reciting the pledge voluntarily, whenever they want to.
Uhmm, except that a simple google search on "voluntary school prayer" immediately showed a third result of This case [216.239.37.104]. From the article:
A 22 word prayer, crafted by the New York State Board of Regents, was read aloud daily in public school classrooms. Student participation was voluntary. On June 25, 1962, the Court ruled the Regents' prayer unconstitutional.
In a public school, I cannot lead a group prayer, even voluntarily. Prayer must be seperate from the school. Then, following the page a whole three links down, there is full text of a bill urging congress to pass a "voluntary prayer" ammendment to the constitution. From the house resolution [216.239.37.104]:
32 WHEREAS, voluntary student prayer formed a part of American public schools [33] from their origination in 1642 for over three hundred years afterward, until [34] the U. S. Supreme Court, in a 1962 ruling, which the court said was "without [35] precedent," struck down what it described as "voluntary, nondenominational [36] school prayer";[]=line numbers
Despite what the all-knowing michael says, evidently after 0 minutes of research, there ARE LAWS AGAINST VOLUNTARY PRAYER. Of course, he says "no state," and since it was ruled unconstitutional, it would actual be the federal government prohibiting it. Yeah, thats what you must have meant, right michael? "no state has a rule against it, just the federal government." sure... how about doing some research before embarassing youreself. Oh, and you ended your sentence with a preposition.
Question: (Score:3, Insightful)
Read it again, YOU'RE wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
No state has a law prohibiting anyone from reciting the pledge voluntarily, whenever they want to.
What you said was
there ARE LAWS AGAINST VOLUNTARY PRAYER
That's 2 completly different things. He said there is no law keeping anyone from reciting the pledge. He said nothing about laws that keep you from leading prayer groups in school. So rather than accusing him of spending zero time researching his article you should spend a bit more than zero time reading
Re:Plus hes totally wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
And why is there such a need to lead a group prayer in the classroom? At my HS there were independent christian clubs (I'm not sure how the faculty was related - they may have been allowed to participate but not when class was in session or something, not 100% sure), they just did their group praying during lunch or break or whatever....the Christians were happy cuz they could still pray, the non-Christians were happy cuz they didn't have to sit thru it.
I have no problem with people
Re:Plus hes totally wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
> whenever they want to
[..]
You claim this is wrong because:
"A 22 word prayer, crafted by the New York State Board of Regents, was read aloud daily in public school classrooms. Student participation was voluntary. On June 25, 1962, the Court ruled the Regents' prayer unconstitutional."
There is a difference between:
- a student voluntarily saying a prayer, e.g. before having lunch, as they enter the school, etc. etc.
and
- a p
Re:Plus hes totally wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
You are, I suspect deliberately, confusing the is
Re:Typical michael (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally, most of the Slashdot editors keep their political biases in check when submitting stories. CmdrTaco and Timothy are both liberal, but do pretty well in keeping the stories more moderate than they'd personally like. (It must be pretty hard rejecting biased stories they want people to see to keep things fair.)
Michael on the other hand, frequently abuses his status...any long term slashdotter knows that.
Pledges (Score:3, Interesting)
Made compulsory, such a pledge is worthless, meaningless and a supression of intellectual activity. It represents a repudiation of Jeffersonian ideals, as embodied in the Declaration of Independance and U.S. Constitution.
Do we get to wear armbands, too?
Online Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
What does it have to do with anything Nerds are interested in?
It seems more like a topic for a civil libertarian blog.
I'm not saying the government is right or wrong. I'm just asserting this is off topic. Michael, can't you find another website to pound your drums on?
Re:Online Rights (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry; there are no other blogs that will hire somebody that inept.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Required pledges (Score:2)
not your routine case (Score:3, Informative)
Re:not your routine case (Score:2)
This bothers me.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This bothers me.. (Score:2)
Re:This bothers me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
When the school requires students hear that the nation is under God it establishes religion, and infringes on the student's freedom from religion. If the pledge is ok then having a athiest teacher expouse the virtues of athiesm should be just as acceptable.
Re:This bothers me.. (Score:2)
I hear this argument - let's look....
1) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
[Um, seems kinda religous to me.]
2) Thou shalt not make any graven images.
[Unless you're talking about plates for fake 20s this has no legal imapct.]
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
[Again - since when is THAT a law?]
4) Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
[Do I need to say it?]
5) Honor thy father a
Re:This bothers me.. (Score:2)
Besides "one nation without god" sounds like a Stalinist Russia or Communist China pledge.
Well Communism is based on materialism which seeks a life without God.
Communism is going the way of the Dodo so the newest wave of materialism is through Secular Humanism.
So by what principles do you build a Secular Humanist society? What governs morality? What do you hold in highest esteem for such a society to work?
Re:This bothers me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
You might be right that Society needs a stronger source of principles, but Society != Government. Society is too valuable to be entrusted to an all too fallable government that sways it's principles in the winds of popular opinion.
Nice commentary - nice and "misleading" (Score:3, Informative)
No harm is done . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Those Godless Commies (Score:3, Informative)
MSNBC (Yes I know, I'm too lazy to change my default home page...score one for MS) has this [msnbc.com] article with a little interesting tidbit at the end:
The phrase "under God" was not part of the original pledge adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress inserted the phrase more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.
Interesting that these contraversial two words where just an addition to seperate us from those "godless commies", no? Sounds on the whole rather silly now :-/
-Chris
Freedom *of* religion. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Personally, as a heathen (unbaptised agnostic if you will), I don't care. I said it as a child, and it hasn't ruined my life. Nor have I felt the government was forcing religion on me. The pledge is to the US, and our w
Re:Freedom *of* religion. (Score:2)
No, its "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Congress adding the phrase "under God" the the pledge sounds likse establishment to me. Public schools playing the same pledge over the PA every morning also sounds like establishment to me.
Re:Freedom *of* religion. (Score:2)
Good point. So by removing the phrase "under God" we are actually supporting the atheist view of religion. Hmm...
If issues like this are the biggest ones facing our country then we are far better off than I thought
Re:Freedom *of* religion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Atheism has no position on morality (except so far as an atheist cannot logically follow the "divine command" principle of morality). It has no opinion on abortion. It has no opinion on evolution. Atheism does not require belief in the Big Bang, or moral relativism, or the existence of the soul. Given non-belief in a God, some positions appear more likely than others, but none are required. I can be a pro-life, anti-evolution, moral objectivist who believes that he will be reincarnated as Steven Segal after he dies, and still be an atheist.
Glad that's cleared up.
Now, if "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" somehow supports the atheist "religion," what else is it implicitly endorsing through its silence? Well, it doesn't say anything against child-mulching machines, so it must be implying that they should be built and used to keep down the population. It doesn't say "one nation, with no nuclear strikes called in on Lindon, Utah," so the pledge is implicitly endorsing the annihilation of SCO's headquarters. To which I say, "Rock on!"
"Under God" doesn't belong in the pledge, and removing it simply remedies an inappropriate use of government power to promote a sectarian agenda.
Re:Freedom *of* religion. (Score:4, Insightful)
Once I got to high school, I realized that there wasn't anything wrong with me or my (non-religious) beliefs -- but up until that time I had assumed, based in part on the pledge, that everyone else (outside of some immediate family members) believed in God, and that I must be really messed up.
So personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the "under God" part go away, although inserting a pause for other people to say "under God" if they want to seems like a reasonable thing to do.
- - -
*My mother raised me Lutheran, church every Sunday and Bible school and whatnot, until one day I said "I don't want to go to Bible school." She asked, "Why not?" and I replied, "All they talk about is God, and I don't believe in God." I was ten years old at the time. My mother told me that she felt it was her obligation to raise me as she was raised until I was old enough to make up my own mind, at which point my beliefs were my own business. Go Mom! Ultimately, my mother still goes to church, my father doesn't, one of my sisters doesn't, one of my sisters does, and I occasionally consider joining a Unitarian church for the snacks.
pledge wrong, but not because of religion (Score:2)
The question that people should be asking is: why are we making kids stand up and recite something in the first place? Teachers should be presenting facts and explaining concepts (hopefully in a balanced way, but that's hard to enforce), not encouraging part
Forget the Pledge of Allegiance... (Score:2, Funny)
As a European.. (Score:2)
Ow, and the "under God" thing. Well, the US were kinda founded by people who didn't appreciate having religion forced through their throats, so it's only courtesy to, well, do
Re:As a European.. (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more. Here in the UK the Government, trying to keep one step ahead of the xenophobes (worryingly at the moment seemingly a majority of the country thanks to the tabloids), is considering forcing immigrants to read a pledge of allegiance to the UK Govt and Queen. If I had to d
Nationalistic dogma IS official US religion (Score:2)
If this nation were truly interested in liberty there would not be a dogmatic phrase at all. If students wish to burn the flag every morning in the parking lot they should be allowed to. Its their country too. Its th
The pledge and school (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
As for this slashdot comentary, I think if a student recited the pledge out of the blue in the middle of a lesson they'd be disrupting the class. I mean if we are going to stop doing the pledge because it's got the words 'under god', then should we change the pledge? Should we remove 'in god we trust' from our currency? Do we stop swearing in government officials with
Nationalism Sucks (Score:2)
Will I end up either in jail or in another country?
Re:Nationalism Sucks (Score:2)
Do not think or depression may occur.
GMFTatsujin
Have we already forgotten our forefathers? (Score:2)
Our first president recognized this quite clearly:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
- George Washington's farewell address, 1
no no no (Score:2)
It's Zod. Seriously though, why can't we just change the pledge to keep up with the times? Maybe instead something like, "one nation, mindlessly consuming, with liberty and SUVs for all"?
Establishment of religion (Score:2)
At the time of our Revolution, nine of our thirteen colonies had state-established churches, Congregational in the North and Anglican in the South. They overlapped, with no apparent understanding of the contradiction, with the eight new states who adopted Jefferson's clause, which he had proposed for his home Virginia, that granted freedom of religion, "according to the dictates of conscience." Jefferson's own Virginia did not embrace this language until ten years later. Fre
Re:Establishment of religion (Score:2)
Except that's not the issue. The issue is not what other people are saying, it's what his daughter is being pressured to say.
the atheist is making arguments to enfarce atheism as the religion of the USA.
"EnFarce" is probably the right word. Because there is no way that anyone is working to enfOrce athiesm as a religion because no one is lining you up to force you to go to any theoretical church of atheism,
God's Pals (Score:5, Insightful)
Your relationship with God is the only important thing in the universe, and you don't need a government to tell you how to have a good relationship with your deity.
And I don't need the government telling me how to have a good relationship with your deity. And you don't need the government telling you how to have a good relationship with my deity.
Our country is also strong enough to not have to declare that it exists through God's will. We made it, not God. The prophet George Washington didn't see a burning bush that implored him to lead his soldiers across the Delaware.
Our nation, like every human institution, is fallible. The more we bring God into it, the less we respect him, our nation, and ourselves.
God might help you make your personal choices, but you make bad decisions, too. Giving God the credit for your successes, and taking personal blame for your failures is dehumanizing to you and everyone else, and it leads to both a sense of false security (in your bad decisions), and false insecurity (questioning your relationship with God, just because you messed up.)
P.S. - if this comment pissed you off, then contemplate living in a country that forces you to worship a God that you don't believe in. Now, recognize that's exactly what you're asking other people to do in America. It's not YOUR country - it's OUR country. And the only way we can all get along, is to keep separate our personal and political worlds.
You have your personal relationship with your God, I have my personal relationship with my God - and the laws of this land should not give either one of us preferential treatment.
God != America
Wow, Michael, editorialize much? (Score:2)
Not "in theory" but "by law" a student cannot be penalized for not saying the Pledge. Well known in most high schools across the country, that; I didn't say it in high school nor did most of my friends, and nobody took any notice.
Where you failed to RTF'nA is that this is not a student saying "I was penalized for not wanting to say the pledge." Ergo, here's some relevant text (bolding mine):
Key Point ... "Under God" added by congress (Score:2)
The constituion has simple yet direct and literally applicatble language, when it states " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Congress made a law that established the Christian Religion as the defacto religion by enforcing "Under God" to be added. Its a simple as that.
An easy test case
Much better from the Washington Post (Score:2)
irony in micheal's comments (Score:2)
Kind of like not letting people decide if an article is propagandistic on their own.... i mean make a comment as yourself because i don't think a lot of people understand that the news is cnn posting that, not your interpretation of the news.
Michael needs to get his facts straight. (Score:2)
What the hell is Michael smoking here? They are not "the laws in question" They are going to decide on a California law. It may have precedence elsewhere at some other time. Michael should be either canned or at le
Simple soultion...drop "God" reference (Score:2)
I hope that cooler heads prevail. (Score:2)
This is an IP Case (Score:3, Funny)
Sigh. (Score:2)
These days..... (Score:2, Troll)
our tax dollars at work (Score:2)
Would you let a lawyer pilot the jet plan you are in? Why do we elect them into office...
Slashdot FUD (Score:3, Informative)
More Slashdot FUD. Did any of you editors actually go to public school in the US?
Pledging allegiance was voluntary when I went, thirty years ago. Many students did not pledge. Some were Jehovah Witnesses. Others weren't US citizens. Still others simply chose not to. This wasn't in some "enlightened" urban school, but down in deep rural America.
The schools may be required in some states to have this activity. But it is not required for any of them to coerce any students into participating.
No state has a law prohibiting anyone from reciting the pledge voluntarily, whenever they want to.
And no state has a law requiring anyone from reciting it either. If you don't want to say, don't say it. Duh!
Re:Slashdot FUD (Score:3, Informative)
Yes; I graduated High School 1 1/2 years ago.
"Pledging allegiance was voluntary when I went, thirty years ago."
And nothing can change over 30 years...
"And no state has a law requiring anyone from reciting it either."
Yes, but laws are not the only thing in force here. Perhaps a personal account is in order here. In Elementary School we began each day with the Pledge. Now of course you are taught by your parents that you s
Re:Slashdot FUD (Score:3, Informative)
And my sister, who was in school a couple years, was stunned to find it was voluntary, because students who didn't choose to stand were forced to. (Clark County School District, NV. And yes, you have the right not to stand for the pledge, too.)
brainwashing (Score:4, Interesting)
By the way, as far as I know, America is the only country whose citzens pledge allegience to a FLAG.
Mark My Words... (Score:3, Interesting)
It really comes down to 2 options:
1. The SC rules that it is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
IRC, this has already happened not once, but twice. Life goes on until the next time it is challenged. *yawn*
2. The SC rules that the words "under God" ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
If this happens, then things get fun. I would not be suprised to see a Constitutional Amendment proposed that specifically states that the United States of America has a Pledge of Allegiance and specifically states what that pledge is. This pledge will include the words "under God" This proposal will be approved in the House and Senate with speed to match the " Oops, We Forgot to Give Authority to Implement the Do Not Call List Bill" (Not the real name) that was passed within days of the courts ruling that the previous bill passed wasn't done right. Within weeks, enough states will have ratified he new proposed Constitutional Amendment, making any claims that the pledge is unconstitional moot, since something specified in the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. (Did I just say that?) You see, that is how checks and balances work, congress passes a law, president vetoes it, congress overrides the veto, the courts rule it unconstutional, the congress amendmends the constitution, the states ratify the change. Like I said, it gets fun then.
Now, a real Conspericy Nut (IANACN, Figure it out) would go on to state that the whole process has been initated to get the American Voting Sheep used to congress messing with the Constitution, by floating out some softball issue like the Pledge, then propose something else, then something else, then what the heck, repeal one or two existing amendments, then add another one or two... Rinse, and repeat... If it goes in reeeeaaaalllly slowly, it dosen't hurt as much, I've been told.
Again IANACN, but I do love to play Devil's Advocate.
Then again, I could be wrong. It's be known to happen regularly.
George Bush - God's President (Score:3, Interesting)
kill the suspense now and tell you that the mostly-friends-of-bush supreme court will be deciding in favour of god.
George Bush states that atheists are not citizens or patriots [holysmoke.org]
Bush puts God on his side [bbc.co.uk]
George Bush Invites God to School [about.com]
America Attacked Iraq, Because God Told George Bush To [jamesglaser.org]
President George "W" Bush: God's Man for This Hour [ncubator.com]
Is George W. Bush God?s President? [observer.com]
Bush announces war with plea for God's blessing [ekklesia.co.uk]
Re:George Bush - God's President (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Editors? (Score:2)
Exactly. Whether its modding down whole threads or posting editorial liberal stories...michael has frequently abuses his powers because to satisy his annoying activist needs.
Acidic Diarrhea, you've become the only person to ever move from my foes list straight to my friends list.
Re:Under God is True (Score:2)
The Constitution outlaws state religion, and enforces the separation of Church and State. If there are laws which require State institutions (in this case schools) to lead citizens in recitals including religious phrases, then those laws are clearly un-Constitutional. That's what this case is about.
Not accurate (Score:2)
The premise of the founding of this nation had little to do with religious freedom and everything to do with political and more precisely economic freedom.
Re:Under God is True (Score:4, Funny)
I didn't know the Pilgrims founded the U.S. Silly me! I thought it was colonists who wanted to be free of England. Wow! All this time I hadn't realized that the Boston Tea Party was really about freedom from religious persecution. Thanks for shedding light on those misconceptions, brother!
And what did those pilgrims do after the Revolutionary War broke us free from our English masters? Slavery! Yep, nothing like having God bless the practice of slavery.
I'll stop frothing now.
Re:Under God is True (Score:4, Informative)
Quoted from "James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments":
"Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? Can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure."
But as always, don't let the facts get in the way of your "history."
You should listen to yourself. (Score:3)
Your assertion that the founding of the country was religious in nature is ludicrous. I don't care whether you intend that to mean that in reference to the Revolutionary War or the colonization
Re:Under God is True (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, the pilgrims came late to the party. Many of the people who came before them were godless heathens. Even some of the founders weren't to fond of all the god sillyness. Ironically, it was those god worshiping Quakers that fought to make our constitution a secular one. They had been persecuted in New York by Peter Stuyvesant, in part for harboring Jews and Muslims when Stuy went on his witchhunt. When his bosses learned of the episode they told him they established the colony to make money and if he couldn't leave his religion at the door they would replace him. If you told Franklin that a pledge of allegiance was now done in public schools he would spin furiously in his grave.
BTW I don't like the pledge in schools, but religion isn't even near the main reason. When I came to this country and was told to "pledge allegiance" I didn't even speak the language. That's even more meaningless than your standard enforced pledge. But it's not that either. We live in a democracy, and a pledge of allegiance has no place in a democracy. This is my country and I have a moral duty to help my countrymen destroy the flag and it's government if it does not follow our wishes. The pledge undermines the teaching of that duty. Teaching our children to rule their government is the most important function of our schools.
Re:The constitution says *exactly* two things.... (Score:3, Interesting)
When I say "enacted into law", I mean they officially wrote it out as "this is our official pledge, endourced by the governemnt." - not "law" in the sense that you could get into trouble if you said it differenctly. (Like running a red light is against the law)
So whlie it's still not a clear case by any means, I am inclined to say that this teases the border
Re:The constitution says *exactly* two things.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The crap motto "In God We Trust" has NOT always been on our money. That too was added VERY late, during the anti-commie hysteria. It should go if you want to keep to historic principals. Keep your god to yourself, it has no hold on me and attempts to enshrine her or codify her into laws invalidate those laws for me as the very basis for such laws is nonsensical bull poop.