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.
... remove that one pesky subordinate clause, and everything's cool.
(Feel free to substitute 'Islam' and 'Allah' with any appropriate pairing).
I, for one, am completely for this ruling, speaking as a person who always felt uncomfortable mumbling those 2 words in grade school.
Panic, Hell! I'm celebrating! I'm an atheist who almost got kicked out of High School during the Vietnam War for refusing to recite the pledge. I've been waiting for a ruling like this for 30 years. Hooray!
If you think about it, the entire idea of pledging allegiance to a FLAG, a piece of cloth, is pretty darn creepy. It's things like that that give people the idea to create a constitutional amendment to prevent burning a flag - as if that act somehow takes away freedom - it's the amendment that would be taking away freedom.
Repeating the pledge, every day in school, over and over, seems an awfully lot like an attempt to indoctrinate children, instead of educating them.
I harbor no special feelings for the flag, or toward the name of this county. My feelings are for the liberty and freedom themselves, as they're what is important, not some design on cloth.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
There never has been, nor will there ever be, a decent seperation of church and state. If you think about it, how many different tax breaks are given to churches and religious organizations? These were set up to help churches spread their word. It has only been in the last century that other eastern and middle eastern religions started to prosper in the US. I wonder how hard it is for these groups to be declared tax-free religions? Personally, I wish they would seperate religion from government more. I don't think it's going to happen soon or quickly though.
Ever since the "liberation" of the people in the twenties this country has had an incredible exponential increase in social problems.
Yeah, because look at how Al Capone runs everything . . . oops, that was the 1920's. Well, look at how cocaine is openly sold in stores . . . oops, that was the late 1800's. What about the way our kids are forced to work at hard labor under dangerous conditions . . . oops, that before the 1920's too. Look at how blacks are held in slavery - um, how women can't vote? What, exactly, are you talking about?
disease [has] [...] increased dramatically
Huh? I don't remember anyone near to me getting smallpox, nor do I remember any flu epedemic wiping out millions. Life expectancy has consistently gone upwards.
Arent they all gods? I mean, a form of god. Its not like the pledge says under THE god. Or worse, Under the ONE and ONLY god. God people lighten up!
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
One of his quotes was:
The logic here is that either way, someone will be offended -- if you don't include "under God", believers will be offended, and if you DO include "under God", atheists (or believers in other faiths) will be offended. The problem with this is that a vast majority of government laws, texts, and other actions contain nothing referring to God. He fails to address the fact that the phrase's presence in the Pledge is not about "feeling good" -- the Pledge, as an instrument of Congress, may not say anything EITHER WAY about religion or God. Omitting "under God" from the PoA no more denigrates religion than does omitting references to God from the Telecommuncations Act of 1996.His main point is that the harm caused by "under God" is de minimis, meaning so insignificant as to have no measurable effect. I disagree on this point, although it is difficult to prove one way or the other, but I see it thus: The "under God" reference has been a part of the national zeitgeist for coming on 50 years. An overwhelming majority of Americans know the Pledge of Allegiance, and even if most never contemplate its meaning beyond reciting it occasionally, its values and meaning creep their way into our minds every time we hear it. This is not a bad thing in itself; anything repeated to you often enough will be ingrained into your consciousness.
But I don't think anyone can seriously deny that the majority of Americans see religion as something patriotic and necessary -- atheists are often seen as unpatriotic or un-American, even though such a comparison is, on its face, contrary to the definition of those words. Even former President Bush (the elder) said that he doesn't think atheists should be considered citizens, let alone patriots. "under God"'s presence in the government-backed Pledge of Allegiance has, for the last 50 years, undoubtedly left a mark on the beliefs and minds of Americans, and I would argue that it has at the very least contributed to our country's tendency toward credulous trust in the Almighty rather than reason and logic.
I've given away my bias here; I'm an atheist, and I agree with the court's decision. I also believe that "In God We Trust" should be removed from our currency, for similar reasons. Nonetheless, Justice Goodwin has acted properly in considering the case in a manner similar to what the Supreme Court has done on similar cases. Justice Fernandez's protestations seem to be based on nothing more than his own personal opinion, rather than relevant precedent.
[1] Justice Fernandez also appeals to emotion by suggesting that popular songs such as "God Bless America" or "America the Beautiful" may be taken away from us. He even mentions the third stanza of "The Star-Spangled Banner", our national anthem. Ignoring the fact that it is the fourth stanza that contains a reference to God (the version of the SSB that you hear at baseball games contains only the first stanza), I agree that he has a point -- however the point is not in what he says, but the fact that he says it at all. There will be loud opposition to anything preventing the government from referencing God (the First Amendment? what's that?), and attempts to do so will be met with emotional resistance. On the other hand, even IF the SSB is, by law, our national anthem, there is no law that I know of which requires it to be recited or sung on any government-sponsored occasion. (If there is such a law, then it should rightly be struck down, following the same logic.) Hence the SSB's being law (if it is) would quite possibly not fail the Establishment Clause tests so commonly used by the SCOTUS.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
No, it is a constitutional democratic republic, wherein what the majority can do (via their elected representatives) to the minority is strictly limited. One thing the majority can't do is push a religious point of view on the minority via the mechanisms of the state. Doesn't (in theory, anyway) matter if it's a minority of one.
:)
True enough, the constitution is there to protect the minority. However, officials are elected by the majority (where the electoral college isn't involved!) and they tend to elect people who are religious. And as proved by the fact that "under god" and "in god we trust" were inserted inserted, they will try to push it.
What irks me is that (a) it was allowed at all and (b) it took this long to come under fire. It either speaks to the fact that people who opposed it were not vocal, were afraid to speak up, or just plain didn't care. To me, the phrases had become so ubiquitous I didn't even consider them a testament to religion.
Pleding alliegence to a piece of cloth is a dumb thing to do, but the state is permitted to encourage it. Pushing statements about metaphysics, however, is clearly out of its bailiwick.
I agree... Here's an interesting piece outlining separation of church and state issues. (It specifically mentions the pledge and currency)
It doesn't stop parents, of course. 13 years (k-12) of catholic school were torture.
Evolution is just that a theory. So are black holes. Does this mean that a discussion of black holes and the possiblity that they are real is also a bad idea? Learnig about the theory of evolution is not evil, unles you consider having knowledge evil. Noone is telling you you must believe it.
The problem that you fail to realize is that the the bible that you read today in 'us english' has been transulated from Ancient Hebrew, to many other languages, like Latin and Greek and Roman, and interpreted, books have been dropped and added to it and then misinterpreted. There are many words that do not transulate or have been transulated with questionable transulations. Also before it was ever written down it was passed down by word of mouth for thousands of years. Do you think Abraham wrote about himself? Did Adam have a paper and pencil? Probably not. Ever play the telephone game? Things get misconstrued.
In the original text of Hebrew there are beliefs by people who spend their lives studing the bible that the words Nature and God are actually interchangable. Thus Nature is God and God is Nature. If this is true then evolution was both by God (as Nature) and creation was by Nature (as God) and BOTH Creation and Evolution are true! It does not matter which one then you believe becase they are the same.
open your mind and realize the possibilities....
Only 'flamers' flame!
Therefore, the Constitution does NOTHING to prevent the state of California from requiring the recitation of the pledge
Except for a minor thing called the 14th amendment, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states (in practice and intent, if not in the plain text of the law.)
I was born Jewish, broght up athiest, then on my own began following the teachings of Buddha, and yet through all that, "one nation under God" and "in God we trust" never really bothered me.
Would someone please explain, in plain cause-and-effect, end-results, bottom-line, what would happen if kids continued to say that? Can't parent's just tell their children "Well Billy, when you start school today you're going to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and part of it says 'under God,' because the people who wrote that believed something we don't, and they aren't wrong, and we aren't wrong, and..." blah blah blah..
_______
2B1ASK1
What the hell is wrong with you people?
I'm an immigrant and I look at many things in USA and say "ahh! here is where they got it right". Pledge of Allegiance is such a thing. So it's got a politically 'incorrect' word in it, modify it or improve it or something. But don't simply abandon it as in dropping a hot cake. Patriotism is like a value that must be instilled like good values must be instilled in a child, not to make one blind with great pride but to learn to care for one's country and people. And some sentences as in 'I love you' or 'I miss you' reinforce good habits.
Is that why women couldn't vote until the 1920s?
Because of 144 years of infallible brilliance?
Please.
-Kevin
I'm waiting for the day when someone brings a lawsuit on the grounds that they worship neither the flag nor the republic for which it stands.
As a matter of interest, do non-US-citizens who attend US public schools have to recite the pledge?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Not to defend Jefferson and Madison as people, but their insistence on codifying the principal of religious toleration (which is what this whole kerfuffle is about) is, I think, one of the things that made America great.
America is not a free country in many respects, but one area where freedom is absolute is in religious belief, and we have Madison (especially) to thank for that. It was a huge intellectual leap, gotta love the Enlightenment!
Of course, some (like George II, who was saved from his coke-snorting and boozing by Baby Jesus apparently) would disagree.
Wish I had more time to write on the subject, maybe I'll post a followup later. Until then, I'll just say "Ecrasez l'infame!"
- Have a picture
Word. My father seems to think that religion is necessary for morality as well. I try to tell him you can have one without the other, and one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other, but he never agrees. Of course, given that there are a whole bunch of religions that disagree with one another on several very important points, there is just no way to say that religion is the answer -- Especially when religions contradict themselves.
Organized religion is not, repeat not a moral code. Sure, sometimes they try to sell you a moral code, but they will assert that (of course) there is a higher power, and (naturally) there are some people directly in touch with them, therefore you should listen to what these people have to say to you (Q.E.D.) This is naturally a bunch of poppycock. If God is everywhere, and God is listening to you, then you don't need a church to tell you shit. This is what Jesus preached, assuming of course that you see him as a historical figure. I don't see any reason to assume he didn't exist.
Most of the great religions are founded upon words of love, tolerance, and respect. Then these religious beliefs are used to excuse all kinds of terrible things. If you believe in God, and you believe that the bible is the word of God, you're a sucker -- That thing's been edited so many times it makes the OED look static. But furthermore, you cannot say that it excuses violence on anyone's part other than God's; he's the man with the plan and the golden gun. You are a peon, and you toe the line or you get struck down with the rest of the heathens and unbelievers and so on.
Let's face it, the reason people say the pledge of Allegiance in school is because of government, not God. You say "under god" because it's part of the pledge of allegiance. I agree that it's wrong to say it, because while truth is one, paths are many, and your path to truth might lead through God, but mine sure doesn't. Luckily, I am able to think for myself, and I even managed to go through a christian day camp for several years without being indoctrinated into a cult of people who believe that angels came down from heaven and rolled a rock away from a cave so they could take the empty shell which once contained the lift of Jesus of Nazareth up to heaven. What do you need a body for up there anyway?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The point is that what she's hearing is the government telling her that there is a God. It's not telling her that there are people who believe in God or gods; it's telling her that the U.S. government supports the idea that there is a God, and that we are somehow beneath him. This is harmful because it violates Newdow's right to direct his daughter's religious education: the government is teaching her about religion, and that is not its place. That's WHY we have the Establishment Clause.
Nobody's complaining (well, nobody sane anyway) that private individuals don't have a right to preach their religion to people they run into. They have as much right to preach at me as I do to ignore them or preach right back at them. Newdow's daughter will, undoubtedly, encounter myriad religious symbols in her life, but there is no law saying that private individuals cannot wear religious symbols or promote religious belief. There IS, however, a law saying that the GOVERNMENT can't do it.
Whether you believe in God or not, whether you believe that we really are "one nation under God", it is inappropriate for the government to take that stance.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I know you feel the need to demonstrate how positively furious you are at this ruling, and even now, are contemplating constutional amendments. Perhaps your legislative energies can be better spent dealing with more pressing matters, to wit: Al-Qaeda, executive branch attacks on the rights of American citizens, our spiraling budget deficit, and the middle east crisis. Thank you.
Concerned Citizen
Funny enough, that is completely wrong. Many of the writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were "freethinkers" like Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, John Adams, John Hancock etc. who created the United States specifically to avoid the Christian hegemony in Europe. Three of the first 5 presidents were Unitarians, not orthodox Christians.
The most important influence on early American political though was the anti-clerical Enlightment of Europe and the writings of such atheists as Thomas Paine and Voltaire.
The Virginia Acts of Toleration that Jefferson fought so hard for, were advocated by a coalition of Unitarians and Baptists, neither of whom wanted the the colonial Episcopalian church to become sanctioned by the government and to forbid their own. In those days, fundementalist Christianity was persecuted badly and it was the atheists who fought hardest to give Baptists and Evangelicals (Non-conformists) the right to exist and to worship as they chose.
Note the picture. That picture is not from September 11, 2001, but from June 26, 2002. The third day of infamy.
...maybe I've gotten a wrong picture, but from what I've read quite a few over in the US have a problem with evolution and teaches creationism (or scientific creationism, a contradiction in terms) as fact, or as a scientific theory.
Frankly, it falls flat on it's face at the first test of scientificness, can it be *falsified*? You set up some assumptions, some consequences of it, and some things that would falsify it.
But whatever "evidence" appears that the world didn't begin in 4000BC, it wasn't made in 7 days, man evolved from apes, it doesn't matter, because Creationism is always "right". It's like the story of the paranoid: Everywhere he sees somebody following him. When he doesn't see anyone watching, they're just pretending not to watch. There's no way to falsify it, and thus it's not a scientific theory.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It is easy. I did it. Refused to say the pledge in junior high and high school and thereafter, because what it really is, is a form of worship - saying the pledge is worshipping the flag, and my beliefs precluded that. Got some weird looks, and some contempt, and then people quit giving a damn about it. I didn't sue anyone, I didn't even get offended that others were saying it. It's just not that big a deal.
Face it, if you can't even stand up for what you believe in, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously later on when you start bitching about being infringed upon.
All you angry types need to consider not just what the guv'mint might be teaching your kids, but also what your children are learning from *your* reaction to stuff like this - they're learning that everything can be solved with harsh words and lawsuits and hatefulness. Is that what you want?
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see all the hate and intolerance against Christianity here.
The liberals don't support vouchers so parents can send their children to the schools that support patriotism and religion, then they do all they can to remove such things from public schools.
Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
Face it. This country was founded by Christians. There's no way this was their intention when writing the constitution. These kinds of rulings are just a perversion. The founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves.
Blow up the world!
EXACTLY. In fact, I find that people who are dogmatically religious to be LESS MORAL. Because they are guaranteed that if they follow a few rules set in stone that no matter what they do they will be righteous and will be rewarded in heaven. To that effect, religion removes human conscience. Now, if you are a Hobbesian, and think that humans in the "natural state" are some awful, dispicable creates who just randomly murder and commit atrocities against each other for no reason, I guess I can see why you feel in need to write down some "absolute rules" that people follow. I happen not to think that (and I believe science, as well as the history of many indigenous peoples and civilizations prove), but instead that on balance humans are generally "good" (if we were not "good", we'd just end up killing each other and we'd be extinct). If humans are generally good, the effect of religion (well, "religion" can be interpreted broady, let's say "organized religions with fixed absolute moral system"), is to erase human conscience, and replace it with some arbitrary absolute rules. If your religion has the misfortune of decreeing that it is the only "true" religion, you have instant strife because now it is your "duty" to convert the unwashed masses. Enter most crimes against humanity.
On the other hand, although an atheist *may* be amoral, in fact, an atheist is probably MORE moral, because an atheist has to consciously determine, manage and control their own set of values and morals and interactions with other human beings. They take responsibility. They can't defer to some "god" which says it is just naturally OK to do this but not that. In fact, I think short of one religion "winning" and converting the entire population, we will have to rely on humanism, our consciences, and rational thought. We will do a great disservice to humanity (and everything else involved, e.g. the environment) if we refuse to take responsibility for our own actions.
And if you don't like this post, well, it's not my fault, God made me do it (or was it the Devil? They are so similar, I always forget).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Actualy it was the republican process that got us here. Old and tired fact, the US is not a democracy, it is a republic. We are set up in such a fashion that government is encouraged to pander to the natural human desire to get something for nothing. Politicians constantly make promises and often follow through on those promises to bring home the ham for their constiuency. Because of the nature of taxation, the cost of the pork is disassociated from receiving of the pork. (As an aside, this happens with income tax in general, since most people have their income tax taken out of their paycheck by their employer before they ever see it, the psychological connection between the huge amount of income tax people pay and the services they get from the government is fairly tenuous).
Anyway, it is my belief as a highly exaulted A.C. that if the system were re-organized such that our representatives in this republic were not so clearly motivated to bring home the bacon for their constituency we would not be pickle we are now. An overnight conversion to libertarianism would probably be sufficient to remove this motivation, but it would be extremely painful too. I am sure there are other approaches that would be less painful, more likely to actually happen and reasonably effective too.