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.
Not just for atheists... (Score:1, Insightful)
"under god" (Score:4, 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.
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?
This bothers me.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pledge almost is the same as prayer in schools (Score:5, Insightful)
Under God is True (Score:0, Insightful)
This country was founded "under God". It was founded by those who could not worship God because of persecution. There i s n o d e b a t e about this. This is history. If you disagree, return to your history classes. This phrase in no way establishes a state religion. This simply recognizes what has happened. The prohibition of state and religion is not that it cannot be reccognized. It is a prohibition of establishing a religion BY THE STATE and ENFORCED BY THE STATE that all most adhere to.
You are free to worship some buddha or something, but that does not change what this nation is. A nation founded by people seeking to worship God free from persecution.
Re:"under god" (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:It's a matter of timing (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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.
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: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?
Re:"under god" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Under God is True (Score:2, Insightful)
2. This country was not founded "under God." It was founded by a group of capitalists, industrialists, farmers, and soldiers seeking political and financial freedom from England.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
3) Clearly, the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from "respecting and establishment of religion"; hence, the government (including all persons acting on behalf of the government) cannot influence a person's religious choice, nor is the government allowed to promote any one religion over any other.
4) It's not "some Buddha." It's just Buddha. And we don't worship him. We are guided by his teachings and his life; in a very similar fashion that Christians are guiding by Christ's teachings and life.
You should take the time to learn about other faiths, so that when you speak of alternate beliefs you a) know more about what you're talking and b) you don't come off sounding condescending and disrespectful.
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.
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.
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, even if you don't agree with its
> government sometimes?
No, blind patriotism is a fabulous tool for autocrats. It's great in fact. I think the Taliban would rate it really well.
But here's a question for you - exactly what do coerced pledges have to do with patriotism? The typical reason we see forced shows of patriotism is that some political party is trying to prove that it's more patriotic than another. How pathetic.
You probably have a flag on your car as well, don't you? That was the fashionable way to flaunt patriotism last year - but now they're mostly dirty and tattered. The folks who put them up were looking for a lazy way to show support for our country and have shown that they're often too lazy to even take them down when they're filthy and torn.
> Anti-Americanism within America is really annoying.
Not half as annoying as Americans that think free speach and critical thinking are unamerican. What does America mean to you? A totalitarian theocracy in which you're left alone as long as you never critize a conservative move in government?
Re:No harm is done . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Especially considering that "under God" was added after the fact. And it's not actually that I object to the words themselves; were the pledge simply a poem or some other form of expression, the inclusion of "under God" is perfectly okay by me.
But because the pledge is more-or-less sanctioned by the government (and also general social properness), I feel the inclusion of those words is a misuse of authority.
They're as unfair as "under Jesus," as unfair as "under many gods," and as unfair as "under no gods."
They're also as unfair as "one nation, whose citizens have blonde hair, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
We don't have things like that in it; they apply to everybody. So why do personal beliefs have to be a part of it? Why can't we simple be "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?"
* I think everyone has the right to believe what they wish, and that nobody else has a right to dictate that.
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. He has no problem He posts biased story after baised story. He claims to be a free thinking liberal, out to check any story that "is grossly misleading, almost propagandistic." Yet ironically, he stoops to the same misleading, propagandistic means to fight against what he thinks is wrong. [slashdot.org]
Since nobody here reads the damn articles anyway, I think it was quite useful of him to do so. I didn't know that state laws existed mandating the Pledge in classrooms, and I'm glad he pointed that out.
His comments belong in the comments section, not on the front page. There you can agree with it, mod it up if you'd like, or whatever. If you and michael still disagree, then Slashdot should change their motto to "Editorials for liberals, stuff to rant about."
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.
What I want (Score:2, Insightful)
That's all I ask, a little fairness.
Re:It's a matter of timing (Score:2, Insightful)
Incidentally, what's your reference for your "90+%" claim? Not that it really matters whether or not a majority want the phrase in; this is not a Christian nation, never was and never will be.
Let's hope the USSC has the courage to recognize that.
Eric Bamberg
Atheist
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.
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 it.
Leave the kids alone (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not try pushing legislation to require (make available) the Pledge of Allegiance in the workplace at the start of every business day.
At least then, you're doing it to voters who have a chance to let you know whether or not they approve....
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 praying at school, I just don't see why it has to be when class is in session. I don't think god's gonna strike you down if you wait 15 minutes just for the sake of ending the silly argument. Ya know, avoiding conflict, promoting peace, and all that?
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 prayer being read out in the classroom
the former is a private exercise of the freedom of religion while the latter is a clear endorsement by the school of the contents of that prayer.
Aside from constitutionality, my assesment of whether i or my religion should be allowed something is based on whether I would allow a group who's views i'm diametrically opposed to to do the same. E.g. if the majority opinion changes would i want my child to listen to a pledge saying "one nation under satan", even if it did not have to participate.
Re:Plus hes totally wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
As a non-religious student in our supposedly Godless public schools, I was subjected to constant abuse for my lack of beliefs, up to and including having a knife held to my throat, with the full knowledge of the teachers. And no, I didn't push my non-beliefs on others; I simply answered honestly when people asked me questions about what I believed, and why I didn't say the "under God" part when we recited the Pledge. That is what "voluntary" prayer as an official part of the school day gets you.
Re:It's a matter of timing (Score:1, Insightful)
Isn't that the typical procedure of indoctrination in totalitarian societies?
God (Score:2, Insightful)
It DOES establish a religion, what on eath else could it be doing there. Is it a historical comment?
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:
That's the law there. According to some news coverage of the issue, there are similar laws in other localities.
Those that somehow bring slavery into this discussion lose site of the relative magnitude and importance of each of the issues--especially their impact on those "affected."
I never made any claims about the relative magnitude and importance of the issues; of course slavery had a worse effect than coerced recitation of the Pledge. That's not the point, though - the principles are the same. In both instances a minority is unjustly made to do something by the majority. I can't agree just because 51%, 99%, or any percentage of the people in between believes in God, gives them the right to make the schoolchildren of the remaining people recite a pledge making a (completely superfluous) reference to God and avowing His existence. Nobody is making Christian kids swear oaths avowing the existence of Zeus or Shiva; why should kids who don't believe in God be forced to make pledges acknowledging His existence? If yours were the minority belief system, woud you want your kids made to recite a pledge acknowledging some deity you don't recognize?
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 anything wrong with believing what you are saying? Is there anything wrong with having pride in your country, even if you don't agree with its government sometimes?
Yes, no, no, and no. The point is that if a state is requiring the pledge be recited in school, you better pull that stupid line about god out of the otherwise harmless piece of idolitorous poetry. Requiring the pledge is requiring the students to declare belief in a religeous system that they might not hold. And that, my friend is anti-American.
This is to say nothing about the fact that the pledge is declaration of devotion to a piece of cloth (idolitory?), and a nation without any reference to the principles upon which this great nation was founded. Perhaps a pledge to the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be more apropriate, but then the religeous conservative lobby would hardly be in favor of that now, would they.
Anti-Americanism within America is really annoying.
I'd hardly call unflagging commitment to the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights "anti-Americanism", but then Joseph McCarthy probably would have disagreed with me. And apparently so would you. The whole loyalty oath issue really pisses me off, as it has been used in the past (and I'm sure it will be again in the near future) to paint loyal Americans as being anti-American for the simple crime of having commitment to thier beliefs and some grain of integrity.
One of the principle ideals that makes this country the great nation worth your (and my own) loyalty is that we have the right to dissent against our government, to dissagree with the authorities, and to hold differing beliefs (or no belief at all) about god, divinity and religeous expirience. If you throw these ideals to the wind in order to satisfy your nostalgia for a rather poorly written and misguided poem, you've just cheapened our basic national principles as a whole.
(I served my country to defend your right to burn it's flag. The piece of cloth fluttering above is rather pretty, but it doesn't mean shit if the paper this country is built upon is forgotten.)
The Pledge: A Modest Critique (Score:1, Insightful)
I think there are a few basic issues that people have been glossing over in their discussions of the Pledge of Allegiance that need to be examined in greater detail.
As a reminder, here is the government's post-1954 version:
What does "pledge" mean? It simply means "to promise," but in a very formal and serious way. "Allegiance" is just a synonym of "loyalty," but again it connotes more than just casual loyalty. So the first phrase of the Pledge could be simplified as "I formally promise loyalty to the American flag."
What is the moral status of promises to inanimate objects? In most moral systems, promises can only be made between or among "moral agents," i.e. those things that have self-awareness, hopes, dreams, goals, and desires.
Suppose I made a "promise" to my lawn, e.g. "I promise to mow, fertilize, and water you regularly so that you'll be beautiful and healthy." Now suppose that I "broke" that "promise" and my lawn turned brown and died. It seems that no promise, in the moral sense, would have been broken, since the lawn is not a person or moral agent, and so there was no actual promise in existence.
Or suppose I made another "promise": "Dear computer, I promise to upgrade your OS on or around January 1, 2003." Now let's say that I did not, in fact, upgrade the OS. Again, did I "break" a "promise" to an inanimate object?
But I can already hear people saying that the flag represents America, and so the promise is to the American republic or people, which are moral agents. However, the "and" after the first comma in the Pledge implies that the flag is NOT the republic. In fact, it states that the flag represents America.
But perhaps the flag is the American people, and so the first phrase really means: "I promise loyalty to the American people." However, this seems not to be the case. The flag is the abstract pattern of stars & stripes that we all know and love, and also the piece of cloth or other substrate upon which this pattern is imprinted. The American people are roughly 300 million individual biological organisms composed of DNA, protein, and other organic molecules. The flag and the American people seem to be different things, i.e. they are not the same thing. So the phrase "I pledge allegiance to the flag" does not mean "I promise loyalty to the American people."
Ah, but I can hear other people saying: "But that first phrase is really poetry! Don't take it so literally!" However, in point of fact, the Pledge is not poetry. It is prose. In fact, it is government prose.
If we accept the fact that the Pledge is prose, and that words have meaning, then it seems inescapable that when we force schoolchildren to say "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America," that we are forcing children to make nonsensical promises to inanimate objects.
Let's move on to the second phrase:
This is a formal promise of loyalty to the American republic.
But what is the moral status of promises made by children? Anyone who has ever dealt with or who has ever been a child knows that children are "persons," i.e. moral agents with self-awareness, hopes, dreams, goals, and desires, and so that promises made by children are morally binding.
For example, let's imagine that two 8-year-old children, Simon and Judas, formally agree to meet at a certain time & place to play "catch", i.e. to practice throwing and catching a baseball with baseball mitts. (It's good practice to get familiar with doing this and they both play Little League baseball.) Now suppose that Simon arranges his busy schedule and shows up at the agreed time & place, but Judas is playing Xbox and "It's like s
Re:It's a matter of timing (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not just a tradition - it is a *pledge*. I really cannot understand how people like you can trivialize the importance of pledges. You are not supposed to pledge to other gods ("Thou shalt not put any other gods before me"), yet you expect others to pledge to your god.
When I have gotten into a discussion with people who are arguing for prayer in school, I ask them if they would be willing to have the prayers on some days be to Allah. It's amazing how quickly they backtrack when another faith is given the same consideration that they are asking for. Would you be as willing to say the pledge if it was changed to "under Allah"?
-MDL
Re:George Bush - God's President (Score:3, Insightful)