Slashdot Mirror
Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional
VUSE g-EE-k and entirely too many other people wrote in about an Appeals Court decision holding that the Pledge of Allegiance, as recited in its current form in various public schools (often by law), is unconstitutional. The court's decision (PDF) is available.
That subordinate clause was added by Congress in 1954, so removing it would be just going back to the original version. :-)
There is no 'i' in team, but there is in fiasco...
The court has struck down the specific 1954 act of congress inserting "Under God" into the pledge.
"Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out."
It was Eisenhower who added the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance. You can read about it here.
Background on the Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands
one nation, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Christian Socialist activist in 1892. Heavily promoted by the magazine The Youth's Companion, at the time one of the largest weekly magazines in the United States (it was eventually merged into the magazine American Boy, which was owned by the Atlantic Monthly), which was also involved in a movement to place American flags over every schoolhouse in the country. By 1905, a majority of the non-southern states had passed laws requiring schools to fly the flag, and it was already customary at that time to require students to recite the pledge daily. Eventually, most states passed laws requiring the daily recitation of the pledge of allegiance. (In some states, students are also required to sing the national anthem).
The wording of the pledge was codified into US law by Congress in 1942; in 1954, the wording of the pledge was changed by Congress, which added the phrase 'under God', making the line 'one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." This modified phrasing was adopted by schools across the country, and has remained intact to this day.
Background on the case
Michael Newdow, an atheist living in the state of California, sued the state on the ground that the California Education Code requirement that each school day begin with appropriate patriotic exercises including but not limited to the giving of the pledge of allegiance, and the school district's requirement that each elementary school class recite the pledge of allegiance daily compels his daughter to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God," and therefore constituted a state establishment of religion, prohibited by the first amendment (and, by extension through the fourteenth amendment, to states and school districts, which are sub-units of the states). His petition asked the court to order the President to modify the pledge to delete the offending section.
The decision
The 9th circuit analyzed the law establishing the pledge of allegiance using three legal tests used in establishment cases. (The Lemon test, which has mostly fallen into disfavor but has not been explicitly repudiated, requires government conduct to have a secular purpose, neither advance nor inhibit religion, and must not foster government entanglement with religion. The "coercion test" requires that government conduct not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise. The "endorsement test" requires that government not endorse a religion and "send a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders".). The court ruled that:
- The inclusion of the phrase under God in the pledge is an endorsement of religious belief.
- Reciting the pledge as it is currently codified is to swear allegiance to monotheism.
- The pledge as currently codified fails the coercion test.
- The inclusion of the phrase under God was *explicitly* done to promote a religious purpose, and therefore the pledge as currently codified fails the Lemon test.
The court concluded that the 1954 act adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional, and that the school district policy requiring daily recital is as well.Future steps
The decision is only binding in the area covered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii - but would require school districts in that area to cease reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. It is expected that the school district will appeal, in which case the decision will most likely be heard by the US Supreme Court sometime next year. A copy of the opinion is here.
No, this is a FEDERAL court, that was LOCATED in San Fransisco. It DOES have national implications.
Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back!
http://www.moneyfactory.com/document.cfm/18/107
I imagine the legislations to add these were made in the same spirit as attempts to put the Ten Commandments in schools and courtrooms.
in all likelihood, if it makes it to the supreme court level, the court will just refuse to hear it. they've made comments in previous rulings that said the actual text of the pledge wasn't unconstitutional...only coercing people to speak it (i.e. requiring it).
werd to yo motha, muh nizzle.
The ruling was not put forth by the entire court, just by a three judge panel, with one of the panel members noting that the supreme court already found the pledge constitutional. The government will most likely ask that the entire court hear the case, where, according to NPR, the panel will probably be overturned.
Earthlink have a bandwidth cap, so...
not the entire document is here, just the important stuff Eisenhower 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.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
For those non-Americans reading this thread, the pledge of allegiance goes like this:
I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
Of the United States of America
And to the Republic
For which it stands
One Nation, Under God
Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All.
Interestingly enough, one of the early drafts went something like
...And to the Republic
For Which it Stands,
One Nation, Indivisible,
With Liberty, Equality, And Justice for all.
However, at the time (early 20th century), that version was rejected because of pressure from the pro-segregationists. Interestingly it wasn't only the fear of racial equality that was cited as a reason for rejecting that particular draft, but the appalling possiblity that it could be construed to imply the women should be considered equal to men as well. God forbid.
Frankly, rulings like this restore some of my faith in the judicial process. As currently written, the plege should be ruled unconstitutional, as (to refer to another post) should the engraving of the words "In God We Trust" on our currency.
Neither reference to God in either context serves to enhance freedom of religion, and both serve to undermine the fundamental separation of church and state upon which the republic was founded, revisionist Christian rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Actually, they would have to hear it in order to overturn the ruling. If they refused to hear the appeal, the ruling by the Ninth Circuit would stand. Meaning children in the states that the Ninth Circuit oversees would be prohibited saying the pledge in school. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
This is now uncostitutional as well.
Oh my.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
The Federalist Papers is a book that contains the letters of our founding fathers during the writing of the constitution. In it there are many concerns of what "Seperation of Church and State" actually means.
Sep of Church & State was included, because at the time there were many countries that were actually ruled by the church elders, our founding fathers did not want this, so they added it to the constitiution. It was in no way meant to take all religion out of the government, it was included to ensure that the heads of the church would not rule the government.
I don't know when the press or lawyers or whoever construed it into what it is today. Anyway, don't take my word for it, actually read the book at Project Gutenberg
"The next thing you know it will be illegial or unlawful to utter the word 'God' in public"
The same law that prohibits the government from promoting any religion, prohibits the government from censoring any particular religion
"So much for the founding fathers with their Christian beliefs"
The founding fathers were not Christian:The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians
The Faith of our Founding Fathers
Is America founded on a Christian Tradition?
The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians
Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State
The CNN article says:
" The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state. "
Which is false.
First Amendment ("Article the Third):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If you read the brief, the court's findings were based more on "free exercise thereof" part of the first amendment, and not so much on the "law respecting an establishment" part.
According to the brief:
"Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter. The mere enactment of the 1954 Act in its particular context constitutes a religious recitation policy that interferes with Newdow's right to direct the religious education of his daughter. Accordingly, we hold that Newdow has standing to challenge the 1954 Act."
Of course this finding enforces an individuals right to practice religion as he/she sees fit... and not so much so this "anti-Christian" slant that CNN printed:
"I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government," he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."
Ironically, the court found that Newdow's ability to religiously educate his daughter in the ways of Atheism were being infringed by the pledge.
Okay just so everyone knows.
The original pledge as in, the one pledge went just like the one we recite today just without the 'under God' part.
One Nation, Indivisible, with liberty.... blah blah blah
It wasn't until I wanna say 1954 during Dwight D. Eisenhower's run as president that it changed. He legislated a bill to add the words 'Under God' after the words 'One Nation'.
One cause of this was the McCarthy Communism search and destroy action that was taking place. Everyone was all up in arms about communists and it was during this time that Dwight changed our pledge.
I have to say that I totally support the seperation of church and state. We cannot have a government that has over-tones of God written in it. It is the beauty of our system. Religous Freedom. We can choose to ignore or accept the existence of a diety. We can worship whomever we want. That is why America, the USA, has been called the melting pot of society. We have everything here. I am for it completely. After all I am about tradition too.
~Char Lander
Brothers and sisters I have none, but this mans father is my fathers son
"Our freakin' country's motto" was "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) when it was founded. "In God We Trust" was substituted for it on currency in 1955, during the McCarthy era, at the same time "under God" was inserted into the pledge of allegiance. The reasoning behind both was to distance ourselves from the Godless Commies.
What about religions that beleive in multiple gods? What about atheists?
Regarding the girl in your example, did you read exerpts of the decision? The court ruled that the current precedent prsented an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting". The Cold War was a whole lot of no fun for everyone, and those two phrases are artifacts from it that need to go.
-- Fester
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
I'll probably get modded down for this because I'm sure it's already been said but here it is:
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "Article [I.] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." A little history on the pledge:The pledge was first written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. He was a baptist minister and a christian socialist. Orginally it wasn't a law, just a tradition, the first pledge didn't include the words "under god". Those words were added in 1954 by the U.S. Congress after protests to add "under god" by a christian group called Knights of Columbus. At this point it became not only a prayer but also a patriotic oath.
Up until 1954 when Congress got involved the pledge wasn't supported by the government at all, it was a tradition spread by the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution. But when Congress got involved then it became a constitutional issue but was passed with out conflict.
Although it did "pass" the Congress as in they did vote on it, it became a "public oath" not a law therefore excluding it from the constitutional question because the First Amendment specifies making a "law" for official state religion.
It was passed in an effort to stop communism because as per marxist doctrine communist states are officially atheist, as in, any religion is outlawed.
But the key questions, does it support christian beliefs? Yes, of couse, it is a christian prayer written by a christian and passed by a government largely made up of people who claim to be christians elected by a christian majority of citizens. Is is unconstitutional? It depends. The supreme court will probably say no when it is appealed to them just as to not create controversy and divide within the people.
It's really a matter of choice though, I personally see nothing wrong with it because it isn't a law and no one is making you say it. But's it's always going to be straight down the middle, atheists will say one thing christians will say another, jews another, buddists another. Doesn't matter which group you pick everyone will say something different.
No matter what you do you won't make everyone happy, and someone will just say that taking "under god" out of the pledge is also unconstitutional because the First amendment also says that the government can make no law "prohibiting the free exercise of a religion".
So it all comes down to what a individual chooses but this is true to nearly every issue I can think of.
For note, I am a christian although I can't stand organized religion, it disgusts me. Mainly because of the division between catholics and protestants etc... Each group trys to say that your way or christianity is wrong becaus it's not their way.
I think everyone should have the right to chose to have a religion or not have a religion and then chose to practice their religion any way they see fit. Also they shouldn't pressure their belief's on anyone else who doesn't want it. Have I always followed this guidelines? No. Should I have? Yes.
That's what I think at the moment, if you disagree that's your right and I hope you will post in this forum with your side of the issue.
There is plenty more online.
-Hope
He isn't seeking any compensation, if you took some time to read about the case you would have found that out.
Here is the original version
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian Socialist, in 1892.
The Church of England had been established as the official religion of England, and, seeing how that adversely affected both the church and the government, the founding fathers wanted to insure that no religion got some official governmental seal of approval. They did not want an established state religion. We do not have one. Creating a voluntary time to say the Pledge of Allegiance does not force anyone to align themselves with any religion that believes in a Supreme Being. Omit the phrase, or don't say the whole thing. That's freedom of religion.
By the way, Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase "seperation of church and state" was out of the country when the debate over the First Amendment took place. He used that phrase in a (very short) letter, and used it in a very limited sense. The Danbury, CT Baptists wanted assurances that government would not interfere with religion, and TJ was reassuring them that it wouldn't. That's all he meant by it in the letter. Others, of course, have projected their own definitions.
The term "under God" simply recognizes that the vast majority of those who founded this country did so with this guiding prinicipal; that this new country would only prosper and remain free if it was "under God". That's why any other "under X" is meaningless.
http://www.xenodochy.org/ex/lists/moraldev.html
People who don't understand how to reach morality without codification by religion should be introduced to kohlberg's stages of moral development.
It is usually a good shock to the system for religious addicts to find themselves (most of them anyway) very logically ranked at 4 of 6 (or 5 of 7 depending on which reading you find) while athiests (again most, not all) are ranked one or two levels higher.
The sad thing is that without better education for the masses, religion has in fact gotten a lot of people to level 4 who otherwise might be stuck at an even lower level, and be a greater danger to the rest of us.
The best solution to our current problem with widespread religious mass murder (IMO) is education.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking