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.
(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.
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."
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.
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
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
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
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
While this would be a great idea from a personal responsibility standpoint, ie., forcing people to take responsibility for their spawn, there's not a chance that this would go through.
Our society requires that middle-class parents maintain jobs, both fathers and mothers, in order to survive. Our entire culture is now centered around this idea. The fallout of the radical change that you suggest would destabilize our society well into the next century.
It would be simpler to shift to a university system for all grades above the sixth (or some other arbitrary level), wherein parents would enroll their children in a particular set of courses depending on the child's interest or (more likely) on parental desires (no escaping that). Furthermore, base all teaching certification not on an Education degree, but on a degree within the field being taught.
This proposal settles several issues: 1) employment for recent graduates within a field, 2) special interests would be better represented, 3) children would not be subjected to courses that their parents did not feel necessary.
Core courses could still be required for all levels of education, by concentrating state funding on those areas, since the State definitely has an interest in having an educated population. A combination of public/private funding could be used for all other areas - thereby allowing parents to put their money where their values are.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
I'll be in a minority with this comment, and that's okay ...
...
...and every year we have to have the FBI come out and sweep the place for bombs.
... But keep it out of our government and allow others the same "respect" you would ask when dealing with the government.
...One Nation Under Satan? How about One Nation Under Shiva? ...
I've been a person of an "other" faith just about all of my life. I've taken offense every day to things like: the house and senate chaplin
Now I'm not saying that our senators don't need some moral guidence (I know several that do!) -- but I strongly resent 110,000 a year for his salary, plus another couple hundred grand for his office.
I similarly resent the chaplin for my state legislature.
I also resent "In God We Trust" written on our money.
...and I have since the age of 5 always resented the words they added to the pledge of allegence in *1953* "Under God".
Seperation of church & state is the one thing I have going here that they haven't completely taken away in the Bill of Rights. Every day my faith IS under attack from right wing extremist christians. The very freedom which allows minds to explore other ideas is under attack in Overland Missouri. Every year for the past 10 years there has been a bomb threat (from the same right wing wackos who pass ordinances like the one in Overland) when we get together for our new years festival
So, Yes, I do mind. I do take offense. I don't want to live in "Pat Robertsons America" any more than I want to live under the Taliban. You want to worship? Fine. Do it in your home, our and about, do it in your church, your cicle, your temple, what have you
Christians would take just as much offense to the words "In Goddess We Trust" being on the dollar. Or how about "In The Gods We Trust".. Or better yet
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
...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
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?