News Why is reciting the pledge of allegiance in schools controversial?

[Anttech]

For example, the early Christians were asked to pledge their allegiance to the Roman emperors, or be put death

Early Christians also drowned woman, and if they lived they were witches, and if they died they were allowed a christian burrial...

You can't compare 2000 year old philiosphies with modern day ones.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

IMHO The religious belief of many is that God is over everything, and that you are pledging your allegiance to the country as a secondary allegiance not exceeding your allegiance to God. To omit this phrase means that the person who believes in God is forced to declare the country is above God. Omitting the phrase "Under God" does not allow a truly religious person to say the pledge in good faith.

No, I don't agree. The absence of "under God" does not imply "above God" just as me telling a friend I love them without saying "almost as much as my girlfriend" does not suggest I love them more than my girlfriend. The pledge is not to God - it is to the state. So long as the pledge does not explicitly state that allegiance to country supersedes any other, there is no problem.

For example, the early Christians were asked to pledge their allegiance to the Roman emperors, or be put death. The question was actually used as a means to test their faith.

Yes, but allegiance to the flag is not a test of religious faith.

 

[Evo]

I find it offensive because of the entire school environment.

Wealthy white fundamentalist christians driving SUV's and slapping "support the troops" ribbons (made in China) on the back; having prayer breakfasts before school and having class assignments writing letters to the president telling him five nice things about himself; conversations with parents saying they are angry that science will teach their children they evolved from monkeys (wrong), the spelling list this week comprised of exclusively war-like words (comrades, opponents, combat, endure, etc)...

Wow, that's pretty bad. I live in Kansas and it's not even that bad in the schools here. Of course the Kansas School Board was recently touched by the Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage. (just realized that a lot of members probably have no idea what that is in reference to).

 

[Artman]

The word allegiance derives from the Old English word "Liege" or "Lord." When you give your allegiance to something you are basically saying it is your one Lord. Now I don't know about other religions, but the Bible says that God said, "You shall have no other gods before me."

So, how can a Christian say the pledge of Allegiance, in good faith, without going against their beliefs, if you take out the phrase "Under God?"

You can't compare 2000 year old philiosphies with modern day ones.

Sorry, but Christianity is a 2000 year old philosophy.

 

[Gokul43201]

The pledge of allegiance is, to me, the most strikingly communist act commited by Americans.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The word allegiance derives from the Old English word "Liege" or "Lord." When you give your allegiance to something you are basically saying it is your one Lord. Now I don't know about other religions, but the Bible says that God said, "You shall have no other gods before me."

So, how can a Christian say the pledge of Allegiance, in good faith, without going against their beliefs, if you take out the phrase "Under God?"

Again, this isn't a real argument, just semantic silliness. First off, as you pointed out, the "Liege" in question is not God, therefore "allegience" has no explicitly religious connotations. Secondly, the usage of the word in America, which does not have the feudal system, already tells you that your definition is inappropriate. Thirdly, if "allegiance" suggested only ONE thing you can be allied to, the existing pledge is paradoxical, since you cannot pledge allegiance to the flag under God - it's one or the other. This is not a constructive discussion.

 

[sid_galt]

The nation was founded on freedom from Catholicism... not from religion.

The nation was founded on the principle of individual rights. Read the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Artman]

Again, this isn't a real argument, just semantic silliness. First off, as you pointed out, the "Liege" in question is not God, therefore "allegience" has no explicitly religious connotations. Secondly, the usage of the word in America, which does not have the feudal system, already tells you that your definition is inappropriate. Thirdly, if "allegiance" suggested only ONE thing you can be allied to, the existing pledge is paradoxical, since you cannot pledge allegiance to the flag under God - it's one or the other. This is not a constructive discussion.

My purpose is to state a reason for its inclusion, which I believe must be determined in order to decide if it should be omitted. So i did some reserach and found this:

In a message to Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart at the meeting of the Supreme Council in Louisville, August 17,1954, President Eisenhower, in recognition of the initiative of the Knights of Columbus in originating and sponsoring the amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance, said:

"We are particularly thankful to you for your part in the movement to have the words `under God' added to our Pledge of Allegiance. These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded. For the contribution which your organization has made to this cause, we must be genuinely grateful."

In light of this discovery, I'm changing my position on this issue. It seems to have been included as a reminder of God, which has no place in a government sponsered affirmation. I agree it should be removed.
http://www.st-raymond-dublin.org/kc/undergod.shtml

 

[loseyourname]

Come on, Pengwuino, how can you say the nation was founded on the basis of freedom from Catholicism? Maryland was a Catholic colony. Many of the southern colonies were basically Anglican, so it's hard to say the country was founded on the basis of freedom from the Church of England, too. Massachusetts was Puritan, Pennsylvania Quaker, and the other northern colonies various other strands of protestantism or with no religious affiliation at all. Many of the founding fathers were deists, and it is from Deist thinkers of the Enlightenment that our founding ideals derive from. The rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are not Christian ideals. In particular, a good deal of Christian thought (especially of the Augustinian strain) consider the exercise of free will to be the source of evil, and complete submission to God's will (hardly liberty) to be the only path to heaven. Jesus himself implied, if he did not say outright, that we should have no property. I don't see how anyone can claim that the pursuit of happiness was thought to be of any importance to Christians of that era, either.

I know that people will bring up the fact that rights were thought to be bestowed upon us by the creator, but nowhere is it stated that the creator is the Christian God. This is a Deist, or at least non-denominational ideal. Another thing to remember is that there were not many atheists around back in those days. Freedom from religion didn't have to exclude references to God or a creator, because everyone believed in one form of God or another. The nation has since progressed, and not everyone still feels that way. Besides, the whole "under God" phrase was just added to distinguish us from the atheist Soviet Union. It was stupid from the beginning and should never have been there in the first place. If we really wanted to highlight the important differences between the two systems, we should have been pledging allegiance to a country built under capitalist and democratic ideals, not under God. (In jest, of course, because being American does not require one to subscribe to any set of ideals other than the one that says we are free to subscribe to whatever damn ideals we please.)

 

[loseyourname]

In light of this discovery, I'm changing my position on this issue. It seems to have been included as a reminder of God, which has no place in a government sponsered affirmation. I agree it should be removed.
http://www.st-raymond-dublin.org/kc/undergod.shtml

Artman, it was added during the Red Scare of the 50s because communists were officially atheistic.

 

[Astronuc]

In light of this discovery, I'm changing my position on this issue. It seems to have been included as a reminder of God, which has no place in a government sponsered affirmation.

That is exactly the point. Most see it as a religious affirmation.

Just look at Judge Roy Moore who placed a copy of the 10 commandments in the court house. He maintained that the 10 commandments are the basis of US Constution and Law, which is certainly not the case.

Just listen to Senators Brownback and Coburn. IIRC, Coburn was possibly leading Judge Roberts toward stating that the Constitution and US law have their basis in the 10 Commandments. Roberts didn't go their, and it ended up with Coburn making a comment about natural law. Coburn had recited several of the Commandemnts about "Thou shall not . . . ".

There are quite a few people in the US who believe God and prayer must be part of the experience in public education. God and prayer belong in one's home and respective church of one's choice, and not in the public education system.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Jesus himself implied, if he did not say outright, that we should have no property.

Did he? The commie get!

 

[Art]

the bible also says "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" I wonder how wealthy neo-cons marry this with their christian fundamentalism?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

the bible also says "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" I wonder how wealthy neo-cons marry this with their christian fundamentalism?

A pinch of hypocrisy is most efficacious.

 

[SOS2008]

This ruling only adds support to the Republican party's complaint of judicial activism, and furthers the conservatives' argument against such rulings. This ruling lacks common sense, as well as prior precident. It is cutting hairs, and when Roberts and O'conners replacement is confirmed, there will be a backlash. Stupid. Stupid.

I am concerned about this adding fuel to the fringe fire too. The Christians of our nation have always been a majority that has been meddling in the government throughout our history. This is why I do not agree with the ceremonial deism (historical usage) as a test of separation of church and state and protection of individual rights. The fundamentalists in the U.S. not only have grown in number and power, but have become more extreme. To nip this in the bud, it is necessary to roll back all that they have done and enforce the First Amendment.

Those that oppose the decision do so because they do not value the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Agreed--it is not just a matter of our government favoring a specific religious belief, but protection of individual rights versus majority views. Last night Tucker Carlson said it is wrong for the minority to "force their beliefs down the throat of the majority" by removing these two words - Right.

The issue is whether you can spend public money doing it.

That too.

I know that people will bring up the fact that rights were thought to be bestowed upon us by the creator, but nowhere is it stated that the creator is the Christian God. This is a Deist, or at least non-denominational ideal. Another thing to remember is that there were not many atheists around back in those days. Freedom from religion didn't have to exclude references to God or a creator, because everyone believed in one form of God or another. The nation has since progressed, and not everyone still feels that way. Besides, the whole "under God" phrase was just added to distinguish us from the atheist Soviet Union. It was stupid from the beginning and should never have been there in the first place. If we really wanted to highlight the important differences between the two systems, we should have been pledging allegiance to a country built under capitalist and democratic ideals, not under God. (In jest, of course, because being American does not require one to subscribe to any set of ideals other than the one that says we are free to subscribe to whatever damn ideals we please.)

If there were any atheists that admitted they were atheist they would have been burned at the stake as a witch. True that the phrase was added to supposedly distinguish us from the Godless Commies. Those Christians always come up with something, don't they? As Jon stewart said last night, now our enemies are fundamentalists, so perhaps we should change it to: under the true God (or something like that).

Getting back to the majority religious group versus minority religions and equality for all, this is what is likely to cause civil war in Iraq.

 

[kyleb]

ehh? The Church of England is protestant, has been since its inception in 1530's (Your country was born post 1530 :-) ) When King Henry split from the Pope and setup his own Chruch... Before that All the UK was ROMAN catholic, ie they believed that the Pope is the head of the Church...

Yes, it can be considered Protestant in the fact that it rejected Papal athority, but it was still Catholic in much of it's theology and tradition (and in some ways still is). You can read more about this on the Church of England's own website.

 

[Entropy]

the bible also says "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" I wonder how wealthy neo-cons marry this with their christian fundamentalism?

Oh, don't even get me started! Infact, christian (christian as in what Jesus actually said and did, not necissarily what today's church teaches) teaching emphasises on physical as well as political neutrality. Meaning that even being president is sinful, or any political position for that matter. Also, the concept of forcing people to follow biblical rules, like in ancient Israel, was abandoned by the teachings of Jesus.

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

wow, one day and already five pages

 

[1123581321]

we live in a democracy right?
then i propose a solution.
Have a nation wide vote on it in 06. if the people don't like "under God" then that's their choice, and whoever doesn't like it has to put up with it. if they do like it, then the minority should have to put up with it. that's about as fair as it gets, because you should not impose the minority's personal feelings on the majorities.

 

[C1ay]

It is unconstitutional...again

No, not again. It was never constitutional in the first place so you should actually have said, "is unconsitutional still".

 

[kyleb]

we live in a democracy right?
then i propose a solution.
Have a nation wide vote on it in 06. if the people don't like "under God" then that's their choice, and whoever doesn't like it has to put up with it. if they do like it, then the minority should have to put up with it. that's about as fair as it gets, because you should not impose the minority's personal feelings on the majorities.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm .

 

[Manchot]

we live in a democracy right?
then i propose a solution.
Have a nation wide vote on it in 06. if the people don't like "under God" then that's their choice, and whoever doesn't like it has to put up with it. if they do like it, then the minority should have to put up with it. that's about as fair as it gets, because you should not impose the minority's personal feelings on the majorities.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with a little thing called the Constitution. You don't get to vote on that.

 

[SOS2008]

we live in a democracy right?
then i propose a solution.
Have a nation wide vote on it in 06. if the people don't like "under God" then that's their choice, and whoever doesn't like it has to put up with it. if they do like it, then the minority should have to put up with it. that's about as fair as it gets, because you should not impose the minority's personal feelings on the majorities.

Have you studied the constitution and bill of rights? Do you understand premises of protecting individual rights versus majority rule? Are you even American?

 

[Skyhunter]

In the 1970's, my classmates and I refused to stand and recite the pledge of allegiance (especially the "under God" part). The school authorities didn't appreciate that, but eventually we forced them to accept the fact that we would not be forced to do something against our beliefs and conscience. Most of us were against the Vietnam War and policies of the Nixon Administration.

I was involved with a movement in my school in the 70's as well. It wasn't a protest to the war, we would refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag on the dates where atrocities were inflicted on the native Americans under the US flag.

By forcing a truly religious person to say this pledge without the phrase "under God" is prohibiting their right to the free expression of their faith. For a non-religious person to simply omit the phrase means nothing.

Forcing anyone to "pledge allegiance is an infringement on their rights. The pledge should be dropped from high school altogether.

We are no longer isolated from the rest of the world. National sovereignty is an illusion, until a government represents all the people of the world, the idea that it is sovereign is ludicrous.

 

[Skyhunter]

the bible also says "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" I wonder how wealthy neo-cons marry this with their christian fundamentalism?

Actually that is a mistranslation. The word for camel, and rope made from camel hair were very similar.

[edit] What Jesus was driving driving at is that the only wealth that is truly yours is what you earn from your labor, "sweat of the brow". He was explaining to the wealthy man that with wealth comes great responsibility, and most who administer wealth believe it is theirs and use it for personal gratification.

 

[Skyhunter]

we live in a democracy right?
then i propose a solution.
Have a nation wide vote on it in 06. if the people don't like "under God" then that's their choice, and whoever doesn't like it has to put up with it. if they do like it, then the minority should have to put up with it. that's about as fair as it gets, because you should not impose the minority's personal feelings on the majorities.

Won't work. We would need to amend the constitution.

 

[kyleb]

Actually that is a mistranslation. The word for camel, and rope made from camel hair were very similar.

[edit] What Jesus was driving driving at is that the only wealth that is truly yours is what you earn from your labor, "sweat of the brow". He was explaining to the wealthy man that with wealth comes great responsibility, and most who administer wealth believe it is theirs and use it for personal gratification.

Could you explain how you see that as flowing from yourr retranslation? I don't follow you at all.

 

[Skyhunter]

Could you explain how you see that as flowing from yourr retranslation? I don't follow you at all.

It doesn't, except for the fact that it was part of the conversation Jesus had with the wealthy man. I guess I should have made a separate post.

The mistranslation is a tidbit that was pointed out to me by my linguistic friends that I thought I would share.

 

[kyleb]

It was said to the disciples after the conversation with the wealthy man; and I don't see how your "sweat of the brow" argument flows at all from the gospels.

Edit to clarify: Apparently your friend pointed out, and rightfully so, that the Aramaic word for 'camel' also applies to 'rope of camel hair'. However, that in-itself is not a valid argument to claim mistranslation; nor would mistranslation in this case change what is expressed in the comment. That is of course unless you care to argue that a camel-hair rope might be the width of a thread; yet even giving that remote possibility, the retranslation would conflict with the astonishment expressed by the disciples in response to the comment.

 

[Skyhunter]

It was said to the disciples after the conversation with the wealthy man; and I don't see how your "sweat of the brow" argument flows at all from the gospels.

Edit to clarify: Apparently your friend pointed out, and rightfully so, that the Aramaic word for 'camel' also applies to 'rope of camel hair'. However, that in-itself is not a valid argument to claim mistranslation; nor would mistranslation in this case change what is expressed in the comment. That is of course unless you care to argue that a camel-hair rope might be the width of a thread; yet even giving that remote possibility, the retranslation would conflict with the astonishment expressed by the disciples in response to the comment.

Does not the analogy it is easier to pass a rope through the eye of a needle, as opposed to passing a camel through the eye of a needle make more sense?

Sources of wealth.

1. Inherited wealth -- riches derived from parents and other ancestors.

As steward of inherited wealth you should consider its sources. You are under moral obligation to represent the past generation in the honest transmittal of legitimate wealth to succeeding generations after subtracting a fair toll for the benefit of the present generation. But you are not obligated to perpetuate any dishonesty or injustice involved in the unfair accumulation of wealth by your ancestors. Any portion of your inherited wealth which turns out to have been derived through fraud or unfairness, you may disburse in accordance with your convictions of justice, generosity, and restitution. The remainder of your legitimate inherited wealth you may use in equity and transmit in security as the trustee of one generation for another. Wise discrimination and sound judgment should dictate your decisions regarding the bequest of riches to your successors.

2. Discovered wealth -- riches derived from the uncultivated resources of mother earth.

Everyone who enjoys wealth as a result of discovery should remember that one individual can live on Earth but a short season and should, therefore, make adequate provision for the sharing of these discoveries in helpful ways by the largest possible number of his fellow men. While the discoverer should not be denied all reward for efforts of discovery, neither should he selfishly presume to lay claim to all of the advantages and blessings to be derived from the uncovering of nature's hoarded resources.

3. Trade wealth -- riches obtained as a fair profit in the exchange and barter of material goods.

As long as men choose to conduct the world's business by trade and barter, they are entitled to a fair and legitimate profit. Every tradesman deserves wages for his services; the merchant is entitled to his hire. The fairness of trade and the honest treatment accorded one's fellows in the organized business of the world create many different sorts of profit wealth, and all these sources of wealth must be judged by the highest principles of justice, honesty, and fairness. The honest trader should not hesitate to take the same profit which he would gladly accord his fellow trader in a similar transaction. While this sort of wealth is not identical with individually earned income when business dealings are conducted on a large scale, at the same time, such honestly accumulated wealth endows its possessor with a considerable equity as regards a voice in its subsequent distribution.

4. Unfair wealth -- riches derived from the unfair exploitation or the enslavement of one's fellows.

No mortal who knows God and seeks to do the divine will can stoop to engage in the oppressions of wealth. No noble man will strive to accumulate riches and amass wealth-power by the enslavement or unfair exploitation of his brothers in the flesh. Riches are a moral curse and a spiritual stigma when they are derived from the sweat of oppressed mortal man. All such wealth should be restored to those who have thus been robbed or to their children and their children's children. An enduring civilization cannot be built upon the practice of defrauding the laborer of his hire.

5. Interest wealth -- income derived from the fair and just earning possibilities of invested capital.

Honest wealth is entitled to interest. As long as men borrow and lend, that which is fair interest may be collected provided the capital lent was legitimate wealth. First cleanse your capital before you lay claim to the interest. Do not become so small and grasping that you would stoop to the practice of usury. Never permit yourself to be so selfish as to employ money-power to gain unfair advantage over your struggling fellows. Yield not to the temptation to take usury from your brother in financial distress.

6. Genius wealth -- riches accruing from the rewards of the creative and inventive endowments of the human mind.

If you chance to secure wealth by flights of genius, if your riches are derived from the rewards of inventive endowment, do not lay claim to an unfair portion of such rewards. The genius owes something to both his ancestors and his progeny; likewise is he under obligation to the race, nation, and circumstances of his inventive discoveries; he should also remember that it was as man among men that he labored and wrought out his inventions. It would be equally unjust to deprive the genius of all his increment of wealth. And it will ever be impossible for men to establish rules and regulations applicable equally to all these problems of the equitable distribution of wealth. You must first recognize man as your brother, and if you honestly desire to do by him as you would have him do by you, the commonplace dictates of justice, honesty, and fairness will guide you in the just and impartial settlement of every recurring problem of economic rewards and social justice.

7. Accidental wealth -- riches derived from the generosity of one's fellows or taking origin in the circumstances of life.

Except for the just and legitimate fees earned in administration, no man should lay personal claim to that wealth which time and chance may cause to fall into his hands. Accidental riches should be regarded somewhat in the light of a trust to be expended for the benefit of one's social or economic group. The possessors of such wealth should be accorded the major voice in the determination of the wise and effective distribution of such unearned resources. Civilized man will not always look upon all that he controls as his personal and private possession.

8. Stolen wealth -- riches secured by unfairness, dishonesty, theft, or fraud.

If any portion of your fortune has been knowingly derived from fraud; if aught of your wealth has been accumulated by dishonest practices or unfair methods; if your riches are the product of unjust dealings with your fellows, make haste to restore all these ill-gotten gains to the rightful owners. Make full amends and thus cleanse your fortune of all dishonest riches.

9. Trust funds -- wealth lodged in your hands by your fellows for some specific use, now or in the future.

The trusteeship of the wealth of one person for the benefit of others is a solemn and sacred responsibility. Do not hazard or jeopardize such a trust. Take for yourself of any trust only that which all honest men would allow.

10. Earned wealth -- riches derived directly from your own personal labor, the fair and just reward of your own daily efforts of mind and body.

That part of your fortune which represents the earnings of your own mental and physical efforts -- if your work has been done in fairness and equity -- is truly your own. No man can gainsay your right to hold and use such wealth as you may see fit provided your exercise of this right does not work harm upon your fellows."

It is not easy to separate one's fortune into these categories objectively, and distribute it accordingly. It is easier the pass a rope through the eye of a needle.

 

[kyleb]

Does not the analogy it is easier to pass a rope through the eye of a needle, as opposed to passing a camel through the eye of a needle make more sense?

Both make equal sense, and in more modern and less pious terms, one might say; "and monkeys might fly out my butt."

It is not easy to separate one's fortune into these categories objectively, and distribute it accordingly.

It is easier the pass a rope through the eye of a needle.

Ropes don't pass though needles any better than camels do, and as Jesus said; "a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven."

 

[Evo]

We don't allow discussions of religion, be careful here. Let's keep it to the topic which is removing the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance.

 

[Skyhunter]

Both make equal sense, and in more modern and less pious terms, one might say; "and monkeys might fly out my butt."

Good point.

Ropes don't pass though needles any better than camels do, and as Jesus said; "a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven."

You are correct. The exact translation is a moot point since the meaning is clear either way.

 

[loseyourname]

I should point out that I wasn't referring to that statement by Jesus anyway. I was referring to the part of the passage directly before that where he tells the man that, in order to get into heaven, he will need to sell everything he owns and give the money to the poor. That came across to me as Jesus advocating that we own as little property as we possible can or even no property. Sorry if this is getting a little too scriptural. It's a lot easier to avoid in a philosophical discussion than in a political discussion, where scripture itself has such a large impact on the legislative views of many lawmakers (or at least they say it does).

 

[kyleb]

Yeah, I actually had quoted that whole section starting right before the verse you mention and ending just after that bit that is still in my post; but it was edited down as it offended forum etiquette. Thankfully, the point of my post remains; and, at this point the hypocrisy of those legislators who defend the affirmation of God in the pledge should be quite clear. Now if only we can keep those hypocrites from installing Supreme Court justices who would overturn this ruling.

 

[Skyhunter]

Thankfully, the point of my post remains; and, at this point the hypocrisy of those legislators who defend the affirmation of God in the pledge should be quite clear. Now if only we can keep those hypocrites from installing Supreme Court justices who would overturn this ruling.

Good luck with that.

Let me know if there is anything else I can do besides letting my representatives know and writing letters to editors.

 

[McGyver]

The Art of Compromise and Failed Opportunity Costs

Yeah, I actually had quoted that whole section starting right before... Thankfully, the point of my post remains; and, at this point the hypocrisy of those legislators who defend the affirmation of God in the pledge should be quite clear. Now if only we can keep those hypocrites from installing Supreme Court justices who would overturn this ruling.

There are two key considerations one must consider in this Court's decision re "God" stricken from the Pledge:

1) Much can be said about the "Art of Compromise." Compromise in any free system is all about give and take, and being considerate of other's beliefs and Freedoms. The Circuit Courts and Legislatures play important roles, and to a greater degree, their success can be defined by their broader ability to build consensus relationships, agreement on policy, and Compromise. With all the problems facing the U.S., and the words, "God" and "In God We Trust" on our currency and much of government - on a scale of 1 to 100 (100 being the highest priority) - where does tearing into the Pledge rank? Who and How were citizens being harmed? Has this decision made the U.S. a better place to live? Could Court time/resources have been spent on more important issues? Has the ruling angered a large portion of the populace, and will there be repercussions?

2) Opportunity Cost: The opportunity cost in this decision is substantial. First, it will later (almost surely) be over-ridden by the new Bush Conservative Supreme Court thru a federal ruling? It actually will cause the religious Conservatives to rally up. It is frugal to go into a segregated minority community and yell out racial slurrs! You are certain to be attacked. This Court decision has done the same - handing down a decision probably opposed by 90% of the country. In these regards, it was a waste of Court time and resources. It is important to look at the entirely of the outcome, those affected, and likely future judicial action.

 

[Entropy]

2) Opportunity Cost: The opportunity cost in this decision is substantial. First, it will later (almost surely) be over-ridden by the new Bush Conservative Supreme Court thru a federal ruling? It actually will cause the religious Conservatives to rally up. It is frugal to go into a segregated minority community and yell out racial slurrs! You are certain to be attacked. This Court decision has done the same - handing down a decision probably opposed by 90% of the country. In these regards, it was a waste of Court time and resources. It is important to look at the entirely of the outcome, those affected, and likely future judicial action.

This sums up my argument completely. It just isn't worth sending this into Court.

 

[Skyhunter]

There are two key considerations one must consider in this Court's decision re "God" stricken from the Pledge:

1) Much can be said about the "Art of Compromise." Compromise in any free system is all about give and take, and being considerate of other's beliefs and Freedoms. The Circuit Courts and Legislatures play important roles, and to a greater degree, their success can be defined by their broader ability to build consensus relationships, agreement on policy, and Compromise. With all the problems facing the U.S., and the words, "God" and "In God We Trust" on our currency and much of government - on a scale of 1 to 100 (100 being the highest priority) - where does tearing into the Pledge rank? Who and How were citizens being harmed? Has this decision made the U.S. a better place to live? Could Court time/resources have been spent on more important issues? Has the ruling angered a large portion of the populace, and will there be repercussions?

2) Opportunity Cost: The opportunity cost in this decision is substantial. First, it will later (almost surely) be over-ridden by the new Bush Conservative Supreme Court thru a federal ruling? It actually will cause the religious Conservatives to rally up. It is frugal to go into a segregated minority community and yell out racial slurrs! You are certain to be attacked. This Court decision has done the same - handing down a decision probably opposed by 90% of the country. In these regards, it was a waste of Court time and resources. It is important to look at the entirely of the outcome, those affected, and likely future judicial action.

The court does not file the lawsuit it rules according to law.

You are suggesting the judge rule against his own better judgement and interpretation of the constitution?

Would that not be considered activist?

Compromising the law is not a good precedent to set.

 

[kyleb]

It seems that you both are missing the fact that this came before the court at the will of a citizen, and as citizens we each have the right to have any rational grievances heard by such a court.


Edit: heh, Skyhunter beat me too it.

 

[Entropy]

It seems that you both are missing the fact that this came before the court at the will of a citizen, and as citizens we each have the right to have any rational grievances heard by such a court.

I don't think it is a rational grievance.

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

I don't think it is a rational grievance.

please explain why you feel that way

 

[SOS2008]

The court does not file the lawsuit it rules according to law.

You are suggesting the judge rule against his own better judgement and interpretation of the constitution?

Would that not be considered activist?

Compromising the law is not a good precedent to set.

The problem is the constitution has been compromised in the past, and now it has come before the court.

I don't think it is a rational grievance.

People want to "go by the book" now because of a new fear that if extremists are given an inch they'll take a mile--remember Terri Schiavo? The majority of Americans did not support government intervention in this matter of individual right to privacy.

 

[McGyver]

Court Petitioners are permitted by law to submit cases and challenges for the higher Courts to hear. Petitioners are required to follow proper procedure. Such procedures specify that a person's Rights must be deprived, a miscarriage of Justice be at stake, or some matter Ruled in error by a lower Court. The Petitioner CAN also exercise other remedies and Freedoms available to him - such as ask the school in question for a change in Pledge protocol, or instruct his child NOT to recite the Pledge.

Freedom of speech rights allow Petitioners to speak out on his/her arguments. In this instance, this Petitioner has been all over the news, which many could infer to be his primary objective, rather than the outcome of the Court's ruling. He is asking the Court to rule that the word "God" not be publicly recited and shared at school - to the end that the majority who wishes to - CANNOT - and that such a word deprives his children's right to religious Freedom.

The Court CAN take notice of exteraneous actions surrounding the Petition. The Court can elect not to hear a case, refer it to another Court, including a lower or even higher Court. They also decide when they will hear and rule on the matter. They can also ask for additional juducial involvement.

I don't believe there is any Constitutional law that permits the word "God" to be recited in the national Pledge. Yet, there has not been any provision specifying that it can't. However, the word "God" is used widely throughout the Constitution, branches of government, on currency, etc. The issue raised was whether students who attend "Public Schools," should be required to recite the Pledge containing the word "God" - that such recitements could be construed to violate religious Freedoms.

The Court could have chosen a number of remedies, such as students cannot be "required" to recite the Pledge, can omit the word "God," change it to "Master" or any other Word. Yet the Court's ruling requires schools to remove the word "God" or cease from reciting the Pledge on school grounds. I am unsure How the Ruling impacts school sponsored events, and even off campus.

This Petitioner may next decide that the "currency" he and others must use to purchase and share goods and services at public schools be changed for a New currency with the word "God" removed, so that he and others he may alledge a violation of religious Freedom, can exercise their Rights and Freedoms as they purchase goods and services. I actually believe this is a more Meritorious Complaints - in that no real remedy exists for those whose Rights and Freedoms may be deprived.

I can't help but wonder if that is where this CHALLENGE is headed - to eventually remove the word "God" from all public writings and recitings, including the word "GOD" from the military code and culture. This would be changing 229+ years of military culture that has enabled the United States to exist as it does today. Such would be a substantial CHALLENGE to the core values of the United States.

Stephen Dolle
Time Travelor and Interpretor
www.diaceph.com

 

[SOS2008]

Court Petitioners are permitted by law to submit cases and challenges for the higher Courts to hear. Petitioners are required to follow proper procedure. Such procedures specify that a person's Rights must be deprived, a miscarriage of Justice be at stake, or some matter Ruled in error by a lower Court. The Petitioner CAN also exercise other remedies and Freedoms available to him - such as ask the school in question for a change in Pledge protocol, or instruct his child NOT to recite the Pledge.

Freedom of speech rights allow Petitioners to speak out on his/her arguments. In this instance, this Petitioner has been all over the news, which many could infer to be his primary objective, rather than the outcome of the Court's ruling. He is asking the Court to rule that the word "God" not be publicly recited and shared at school - to the end that the majority who wishes to - CANNOT - and that such a word deprives his children's right to religious Freedom.

The Court CAN take notice of exteraneous actions surrounding the Petition. The Court can elect not to hear a case, refer it to another Court, including a lower or even higher Court. They also decide when they will hear and rule on the matter. They can also ask for additional juducial involvement.

I don't believe there is any Constitutional law that permits the word "God" to be recited in the national Pledge. Yet, there has not been any provision specifying that it can't. However, the word "God" is used widely throughout the Constitution, branches of government, on currency, etc. The issue raised was whether students who attend "Public Schools," should be required to recite the Pledge containing the word "God" - that such recitements could be construed to violate religious Freedoms.

The Court could have chosen a number of remedies, such as students cannot be "required" to recite the Pledge, can omit the word "God," change it to "Master" or any other Word. Yet the Court's ruling requires schools to remove the word "God" or cease from reciting the Pledge on school grounds. I am unsure How the Ruling impacts school sponsored events, and even off campus.

This Petitioner may next decide that the "currency" he and others must use to purchase and share goods and services at public schools be changed for a New currency with the word "God" removed, so that he and others he may alledge a violation of religious Freedom, can exercise their Rights and Freedoms as they purchase goods and services. I actually believe this is a more Meritorious Complaints - in that no real remedy exists for those whose Rights and Freedoms may be deprived.

I can't help but wonder if that is where this CHALLENGE is headed - to eventually remove the word "God" from all public writings and recitings, including the word "GOD" from the military code and culture. This would be changing 229+ years of military culture that has enabled the United States to exist as it does today. Such would be a substantial CHALLENGE to the core values of the United States.

Stephen Dolle
Time Travelor and Interpretor
www.diaceph.com

There is a distinction between Freedom of Speech and Separation of Church and State. As with school prayer, even a moment of silence while others pray is compulsory (coercion) and endorsement (causing the minority to feel like a lesser citizen). The pledge is the same premise. I attend monthly meetings for an industry organization at which the pledge is recited. Even though I don't say the words, I would prefer not to be put in that position.

The Coercion Test, which was advanced by Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1992: "[A]t a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so"

Having "In God We Trust" is an endorsement by the government, and minting is done with federal funds, no? BTW, the minting of all coins with "In God We Trust" was not approved until 1938, and it didn't appear on paper money until 1956. Has it ever dawned on anyone that it shouldn't have been added in the first place? And might the question be asked whether people had religious freedoms before that time? Of course they did, and they still do. Those who choose to are still free to pray in public (e.g., bless their food during lunch) and speak of "God" when ever they desire, so there is no infringement upon their right to practice their religion or exercise their Freedom of Speech.

I saw the gentleman who headed this initiative, and he seemed very sincere (even annoyed) during the news interview, so I don't think this is about personal fame.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As far as I know it is not compulsory to recite "Under God" or even the pledge. I thought that it had already been legally established that this was the case. It seems to me to be a decent compromise that those who do not wish to recite this don't have to.
Now I'm sure there are probably still schools in certain regions where they make it compulsory, against the law as I understand it, which should be adressed but if I'm wrong about the law please let me know.

 

[McGyver]

There is a distinction between Freedom of Speech and Separation of Church and State. As with school prayer, even a moment of silence while others pray is compulsory (coercion) and endorsement (causing the minority to feel like a lesser citizen). The pledge is the same premise. I attend monthly meetings for an industry organization at which the pledge is recited. Even though I don't say the words, I would prefer not to be put in that position.

Having "In God We Trust" ... Those who choose to are still free to pray in public (e.g., bless their food during lunch) and speak of "God" when ever they desire, so there is no infringement upon their right to practice their religion or exercise their Freedom of Speech.

I agree wholeheartedly that "coercion" to adopt or follow any practice that is offensive to, or against the core of one's deep beliefs, invalidates all provisions of a covenant, and thus should be barred in all instances. Threats of "coercion" should be dealt with quickly by local municipalities, as it is unlawful. But I don't believe this Pledge case was really about coercion.

I also disagree with the Court's "remedy and relief" in this instance. I liken it "picking one leaf off of a magnificently giant tree, to permit sunlight to reach a fractional space on the Earth's floor, merely to give favor to one party." Sunlight should not be redirected to favor any on the Earth's floor.

If this Court challenge is part of a movement to remove all assertions concerning "God" from all aspects of public life, because certain persons believe such assertions represent an adoption of, and perhaps in some instances, a COERCION towards Christianity - then say it so. Coercion is unlawful.

However, "represenative adoption of Christianity" is sewn into the fabric of the Constitution, and expressed by most of its authors. It appears our founding Fathers did not view the many inferences and inclusions of the word "God" as adoption of Christianity as America's true religious State - because that was all that they KNEW at that time. Perhaps what has changed today that our founding Fathers never envisioned or viewed might become an issue, are inclusions of "God" in currency, the Pledge, and other matters well written.

What is at issue is whether these actually represent an expanded role of Church adoption in affairs of the State, or rather, merely raise the appearance of an "intent" to do so. I believe much of what some fear is the appearance of, i.e. the WORD "God" on our currency, in our Legislatures, and schools. An exception could be the military's adoption of "God" principles - yet I don't believe they specify which "God".

For the most part, I believe our higher Courts and Legislatures have moved forward with our founding Fathers' intentions. Undoubtedly, the most significant test of this over the last 100 years was the Roe v. Wade decision. In the previous century, it was abolishment of "slavery." And in that awakening, reverence to "God" as part of man, was pivitol.

Separately, there has been much debate as to whether Separation of Church and State actually was ever asserted in the Constitution. But what is irreputably clear, is that one cannot be Deprived from their Freedom to practice his/her Religious beliefs - as such Rights are established by the 1st Amendment. I believe it really was the 1st Amendment threat inferred in this "Pledge" case that pushed the Court so as to be compelled to act, rather than reason and remedy.

Lastly, I must re-assert that this case will actually serve to reinvigorate the religious Right movement - to bring religious ideals and adoptions more into state - at a time when the largest Court in the land, the Supreme Court, is preparing to become dominated by religious Conservatives - who will have authority to carry out such an agenda. As such, it is critial that those with differing positions come together. Diplomacy is truly an art - and seems to be in short supply today.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

As far as I know it is not compulsory to recite "Under God" or even the pledge. I thought that it had already been legally established that this was the case. It seems to me to be a decent compromise that those who do not wish to recite this don't have to.
Now I'm sure there are probably still schools in certain regions where they make it compulsory, against the law as I understand it, which should be adressed but if I'm wrong about the law please let me know.

One would have thought that was the logical approach. It was a question I raised earlier: can children not abstain from reciting the pledge? On the other hand, what is better: a pledge specifically worded for Christians at the exclusion of atheists and other faiths over which a child may be forced to choose between acting against their faith or alienating themselves from other children and the teachers; or a pledge that does not presuppose adherence to a specific religion but is religiously neutral and, as such, appropriate for all children to join in? Alienating, or open to all... what's better?

As I said before, the only people who could possibly think it worse for the pledge to be made appropriate for all children irrespective of faith are those who would have the Christian doctrine pushed down youngsters' throats at any available opportunity. I would have thought that would be grounds enough to dismiss their argument, but then that's religion for you.

 

[Skyhunter]

One would have thought that was the logical approach. It was a question I raised earlier: can children not abstain from reciting the pledge? On the other hand, what is better: a pledge specifically worded for Christians at the exclusion of atheists and other faiths over which a child may be forced to choose between acting against their faith or alienating themselves from other children and the teachers; or a pledge that does not presuppose adherence to a specific religion but is religiously neutral and, as such, appropriate for all children to join in? Alienating, or open to all... what's better?

As I said before, the only people who could possibly think it worse for the pledge to be made appropriate for all children irrespective of faith are those who would have the Christian doctrine pushed down youngsters' throats at any available opportunity. I would have thought that would be grounds enough to dismiss their argument, but then that's religion for you.

I find it hilarious that the act of pledging allegiance to the flag violates the second commandment.

What is the purpose of having children recite a pledge to begin with?

In my mind there is something wrong with the brainwashing of children in the first place. We should abolish this practice altogether.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I find it hilarious that the act of pledging allegiance to the flag violates the second commandment.

What is the purpose of having children recite a pledge to begin with?

In my mind there is something wrong with the brainwashing of children in the first place. We should abolish this practice altogether.

That too would make sense, I guess, but I'm not an American. I don't know... Sometimes I think the whole national pride thing is nice. Sometimes I think it's a tad creepy.

We had to sing The Lord's Prayer at primary school (who exactly does the Lord pray too?), and sometimes even the national anthem. I didn't think much of it at the time - they were just lyrics to songs I didn't understand. Didn't understand what Yellow Submarine was going on about either. But looking back, while I didn't turn into a Bible-basher, it is clearly unethical to force kids to beg God for forgiveness, yield breakfast materials or to preserve the head of Church of England, even to an easy-to-follow melody. In a Christian school, fair enough. I hope it still doesn't go on in state schools.