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

[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.

 

[SOS2008]

But I don't believe this Pledge case was really about coercion.

Even without the words "under God' the Pledge or any pledge is coercion, and has always been controversial within religion. For example, I remember Jehovah Witness children who did not participate in the Pledge based on the commandments ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me." And in reference to the flag, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.) They were the minority who were made to feel a lesser citizen.

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. ...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.

The intent is not to remove reference to God or any other element of religious practice from the "public square." This is fundamentalist hype. It is only to keep it separate from state, meaning out of publicly funded institutions such as schools. And yes, the Christian majority in this nation has tried to expand it's role in affairs of the State for years. As I have posted, the words "under God" were added to the pledge in the 1950s and 'In God We Trust" to currency in the late 1930s--not so long ago, certainly not in view of the passage of history.

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.

As another member stated above, the constitution and laws of the land are not negotiable. School prayer was finally ended, and the religious right went bonkers. They are already pushing back harder with the teaching of creationism via ID in public schools. Are you suggesting that if we left school prayer in place, the fundamentalists would not be pushing the ID angle now?

Unfortunately, the direction of the Supreme Court is a sad concern. It is too bad that many people did not understand the impact of this while voting under duress about terrorism. It will likely be a divisive matter that will split our country further.

 

[Astronuc]

New evolution spat in schools goes to court

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (Reuters) -- A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian conservatives against educators and scientists in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Eleven parents of students at a Pennsylvania high school are suing over the school district's decision to include "intelligent design" -- an alternative to evolution that involves a God-like creator -- in the curriculum of ninth-grade biology classes.

The parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) say the policy of the Dover Area School District in south-central Pennsylvania violates the constitutional separation of church and state, which forbids teaching religion in public schools.

They also argue that intelligent design is unscientific and has no place in a science curriculum.

Intelligent design holds that nature is so complex it must have been the work of an God-like creator rather than the result of natural selection, as argued by Charles Darwin in his 1859 Theory of Evolution.

- http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/23/life.evolution.reut/index.html

 

[Moonbear]

It seems it's just time to do away with the pledge altogether. If a kid or his/her parents think it's important to say it daily, they can do so in front of the flag in their own front yard. Let's face it, the only real reason it's said in class anymore is that it's a routine that makes it easy for a teacher to quickly gather the students to order before beginning lessons. Do kids even know what it means? I think I made up half the words when I was in school. I think I said "invisible" instead of "indivisible," and sure didn't know what "indivisible" meant. It's a pointless exercise and since we're over 50 years past the Cold War fears that inspired pledges and oaths of allegiance, I think it's time we simply recognize it's something that can be done away with.

One thing that concerned me though was that I read that the most recent ruling forbids people from saying it in schools. That's too far to the other extreme. It should neither be compulsory nor forbidden. The teachers should not require it, but if a student or group of students wants to gather in the morning and recite it anyway, they still have the right to do so.

 

[Skyhunter]

It seems it's just time to do away with the pledge altogether. If a kid or his/her parents think it's important to say it daily, they can do so in front of the flag in their own front yard. Let's face it, the only real reason it's said in class anymore is that it's a routine that makes it easy for a teacher to quickly gather the students to order before beginning lessons. Do kids even know what it means? I think I made up half the words when I was in school. I think I said "invisible" instead of "indivisible," and sure didn't know what "indivisible" meant. It's a pointless exercise and since we're over 50 years past the Cold War fears that inspired pledges and oaths of allegiance, I think it's time we simply recognize it's something that can be done away with.

One thing that concerned me though was that I read that the most recent ruling forbids people from saying it in schools. That's too far to the other extreme. It should neither be compulsory nor forbidden. The teachers should not require it, but if a student or group of students wants to gather in the morning and recite it anyway, they still have the right to do so.

Nicely said Moonbear.

I gree with you completely.

 

[Astronuc]

Nicely said Moonbear.

I gree with you completely.

I'll second that!

As for -

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

I am sure the school administration uses it to instill pride in (or patriotism for) one's country (or flag, as a symbol of the nation). Reciting the pledge is common at civic events, e.g. meetings of the local Chamber of Commerce, and in the Boy Scouts - part of 'good citizenship'. There is a similar purpose when the National Anthem is sung at a sports event - it's part of the indoctrination process (group think).

The goal is 'CONFORMITY'.

and this is a big problem for me.