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.

Comments

$$, too

[gralem]

I'm filing a suit against all US currency! It's unconstitutional!!!

Re:$$, too

[Anonymous Coward]

How are we going to pay you if you win?

Re:$$, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, there's a difference between saying something every day before schoolchildren-- highly impressionable people whose beliefs and views of the world are not fully formed-- and making them feel all wierd, like they're not doing something they're supposed to do, if they don't say it along, and making them feel like outcasts, like everyone is different from them and there's something wrong with them, if they don't agree with the words
-- and printing a mention of God on some publicly distributed government items.

The first has an undeniable aspect of coersion. The latter, less so.

If a child sees "in god we trust" on currency, they walk away with the impression "i live in a nation more or less full of christians", which is more or less accurate. If a child has the pledge of allegience drilled into them every single day in their place of learning, they walk away with the impression "i am expected to be christian", which is wrong and a signal the government should not be sending.

I would expect 90% of the people who are upset over this decision are upset because they want the government to send the signal to children that they are expected to be christian.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[dejaffa]

That subordinate clause was added by Congress in 1954, so removing it would be just going back to the original version. :-)

Eisenhower's Fault

[e1en0r]

It was Eisenhower who added the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance. You can read about it here.

Simmer down

[Torgo's Pizza]

Before the comments start to get out of hand, I'd like to point out that this will almost certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has pulled this stunt many a time before, only to have it overturned or reverse itself later.

Re:Simmer down

[Zeinfeld]

Before the comments start to get out of hand, I'd like to point out that this will almost certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has pulled this stunt many a time before, only to have it overturned or reverse itself later.

I don't see how that is so certain. In the first place the current supreme court has rulled several times against school prayer.

The principal objection raised by the government was that the courts should not be concerned with trivial infractions. It would be very hard for the Supreme Court to claim that a case was important enough to consider and then rule that it was too insignificant to bother with.

The rest of the world finds the fetish the US makes over its flag somewhat peculiar. The scenes of schoolchildren making loyalty oaths to the flag every day remind Europeans such as myself more of the types of society that Stalin and Hitler tried to impose than the values of liberal democracy.

Finally the main objection to the pledge historically has been from religious groups, in particular the Quakers. For us the pledge of allegiance to a physical object is tantamount to idol worship which we have rather strong view against. Furthermore we don't make oaths by heaven for that is of God, nor by earth as that is his footstool.

As reported on the better site...

[Anonymous Coward]

Millions of American schoolchildren --- including almost all adults who grew up in the US --- have for two generations recited a daily pledge of allegiance in schools. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that pledge to be a violation of the US Constitution. Social conservatives are outraged, liberals are smirking, and many of us are just stunned.

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.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Stonehead]

Thanks for your lengthy explanation. I'm European, and I had not ever heard of such a thing. I think I get the context a bit. To be honest, this 'pledge' sounds very conservative and a bit like an old patriotic communist system. I mean, to indoctrinate children on schools with political and religious shit like this - I'm very happy that I've never been drilled like that! One cynic note: Saddam Hussein recently made it compulsory for all Iraqi children to know his nationalist novels..

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Dirtside]

Pardon my potential ignorance, but wouldn't this simply cause the 1954 legislation to be struck down, meaning that the Pledge in its old form (i.e. without "under God") could still legally be recited? The case was challenging both (separately) the 1954 legislation and the school district's rule that it must be recited. The district's rule is only unconstitutional IF the law it references is active -- if the 1954 law is struck down, then the district's behavior is not unconstitutional.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[MAXOMENOS]

I suspect that if the Pledge were changed to remove "under God," this whole issue would go away, at least as far as the courts are concerned.

Odds of that happening are within epsilon of zero. I guarantee you that the Family Values crowd is going to use this to hammer massive invasions of religious liberties down our throats, with Joe Lieberman (yes, the so-called Liberal) leading the way. Rationality and common sense can barely stand up for themselves against either nationalism or religious belief. Against both combined, they're practically criminal offenses.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Dirtside]

I'm not sure why you call Lieberman a "so-called Liberal". Nobody calls him that -- he's more or less a religious zealot fascist. Just because he's a Democrat doesn't mean he's a liberal. I'm more or less a liberal, and used to be a Democrat, but when the Democratic National Committee declared something about glorifying God, I determined that they weren't representing my interests particularly well. I re-registered as a different party thereafter, though I won't say which, to try to keep people from making judgments about me based on my political party. :)

Re:As reported on the better site...

[dvdeug]

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.)

Re:As reported on the better site...

[evilpenguin]

It is particularly ironic, since one of the events that drove the first wave of British colonials to the "New World" was the Catholic/Protestant civil wars in England and the resulting requirement of "loyalty oaths."

I guess the theory was that it was okay to require a Pledge of Allegience to a "flag" and to "the Republic for which it stands." That's not the same as requiring a pledge to a specific sovereign. As an American, I still never liked it. I hold the superiority of a system of civil liberty "to be self-evident." If your freedom doesn't sell itself, maybe it isn;t freedom.

I think we have a pretty good system, but like any soceity, we have teetered between liberty and authority. From the J. Edgar Hoover era to Joe McCarthy, we had some very repressive and scary times. The main reason I have hope (and still very much love the system in my country) is that we have a terribly inefficient government. I hear conservatives saying we need efficient government. I disagree. An efficient government is a repressive government. The separation of powers does a pretty good job of bringing our system back into line.

Not that both liberal forces and conservative forces haven't messed with it. From Democrat F.D.Roosevelt attempting to pack the Supreme Court to Republican R.M.Nixon covering up a felony commited to further his reelection, we've had plenty of attempts to tilt the scales, but somehow it comes back.

Right now, I think we are heading into a rough patch. Between the pressure of big money getting legislation passed for wealthy special interests (Hollywood, anyone?) and the understandable but lamentable reverses to liberty and privacy in the name of security following 9/11, we are going to have plenty to wrangle with in the system. That the system will bring us back to equilibrium, however, I am confident.

I think this was a very good decision and almost clears the bad taste in my mouth from the attempts to get a flag burning amendment passed.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Wrong emphasis. Let's try it this way:

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.

Like much of the Constitution, this is a masterpiece of balance. The establishment clause prevents the creation of a state church, or official government endorsement or imposition of specific religious views; the prohibition clause prevents laws banning certain religions or religious practices. The long, sad history of religious warfare and oppression in Europe is a solid argument that both clauses are needed.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Chemical]

Communists didn't believe in God so if we made everybody pledge "under God" then communism would go away.

And it worked!

Thank you Jebus!

Re:As reported on the better site...

[evilpenguin]

This is not meant as a flame, but has the possibility occurred to you that the majority does not agree with Libertarianism? I know that I do not. I've never met a single Libertarian willing to concede the possibility, however. As a rule, Libertarians are the most certain people I meet. The Libertarians have a famous "questionnaire" which has questions couched in such a manner that Karl Marx would probably come out a Libertarian.

I will tell you how I sympathize with Libertarians, however. One of the fundmental beliefs of Libertarianism is a fairly strict Adam Smith economic view coupled with a pretty hardline John Locke view of property. Minimum law, minimum government, minimum taxation, etc. In theory, the modern Republican party espouses the same line. At the same time, Republicans seem to want to pass the most legislation controlling behavior and government exploded in size under the Reagan and Bush adminsitrations. A Libertarian's theoretical alignment with the Republican party doesn't work out that way.

Believe me, I have similar problems with the Democrats.

Oh, and the media didn't exclude your party (at least from the Pres. & V.P. debates). The two parties did. This began when the "debate comission" was set up instead of debates sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Since that time, debates have become a pathetic joke.

That aside, kudos to you for being active. These things take time. Republicanism took forty years to get anywhere (longer, if you count the rise of abolitionism as the beginning of Republican philosophy), and it took a Civil War to get them established as a permanent political force (the Republican party would probably not have become so thoroughly entrenched in the postwar North had not the South rebelled at the election of a Republican President). You have to make a committment to change that might not even come in your lifetime. The question is are you in it for the life of the nation and the betterment of the future, or are you in it because you want something now?

I'd say you're on the right track. Keep going. No offense, but I hope you don't make it! ;-)

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Danse]

I agree with most of the social thinking of libertarians, but I'm pretty well convinced that if they ever get any kind of control, we'll all be well and truly fucked. It's not that I don't think that a lot of it is worth a shot, it's just that in reading the writings of libertarian candidates, I don't trust them to make the transition in such a way that it doesn't create serious havoc and hardship.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[evilpenguin]

Yes, I would say you are spouting Libertarian certainty. I fundamentally disagree withe every single one of your positions. I'm even happy to pay my income tax (well, maybe not happy, but I understand that it is good for the economy to have excess savings spent on capital investment, and that sometimes the private sector fails to to this, leading to economic contraction).

I'm not Libertarian at all. I believe that we have "unalienable rights" and that to "secure these rights, governments are instituted among men" and that such governments "derive their just powers from the consent of governed."

I think our instutions are doing just fine at requiring the consent of the governed. I think Libertarians delude themselves that the unpopularity of taxes equals support for the gutting of government. I think they are wrong. Ask anyone "Do you like to pay taxes?" and of course almost everyone will say "No." Ask them if they would rather pay taxes and have public roads, or would they rather all roads were built privately and privately owned and you had to pay a toll to use each separate private road, and they might not say yes. You might, but I would not.

Roads are, in fact, one of the ways we got to the present size of government. Roads were highly in demand, but private enterprise was building very few of them. We talked about third parties? Are you aware that the largest 3rd party movement in 20th century history was the "Good Roads Party?" Yep. The people demanded that government get into the road building business. The construction of such roads has had immense secondary economic effects. You can argue that the roads would have been built eventually. I do not agree, and I have no way to prove such an assertion. But I would contest the notion that the expansion of government was done by "the government" for selfish or nefarious reasons. It was, in each case, responding to the democratic will.

I, for one, believe that it is vital to have a major economic actor that views each citizen equally, rather than in proportion to his wallet (no, I'm not naieve enough to believe that the wallet doesn't still get in there and pervert things a bit).

Perhaps some of the "selfish and shallow" are just not completely ignorant of macroeconomics.

I would argue that your claim "most people are basically Libertarian, but only as far as it benefits them" means that most people are simply not Libertarian. I don't know why Libertarians refuse to see this. This is precisely what I was talking about.

All that said, certainly there is plenty of room for debate about the limits of government power, about what amount of government involvement in the economy is the "right" amount, about which sorts of infrastructure are appropriate government functions. I just plain don't agree with you that the answers are "total, none, and none."

I also think there's plenty of room for talking about how we are and how we should be taxed. I'm very much in favor of moving to fees for service and consumption taxes and away from income taxes and property taxes. I'm also in favor of more spending on roads and education. I'm in favor of subsidies for broadband expansion into rural areas (similar to the rural elctrification act), and other "big government, tax and spend" programs.

And I don't mind paying taxes to do it.

Re:As reported on the better site...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Dude - you do not understand the H1-B visa issue (the fact that you didn't spell it right is also a pretty clear indication that you have not studied it in depth). H1-B visas are all about using government power to manipulate the labor market in favor of the big corps.

Here is why: H1-B visas effectively indenture their holders to their employers. The law as written requires that employers pay a prevailing wage, but there is little to no enforcement mechanism and plenty of loopholes if enforcement ever actually is attempted.

Despite H1-B being designated a non-immigrant visa most holders use it as stepping stone for a Green card because, unlike other non-immigrant visas, you are allowed to hold an H1-B while your application for a green card is in process. Those applications often take 3-4 years and are solely the domain of the employer - the green card applicant has no standing in the process - which is just messed up right there.

Thus any H1-B holder who wants a green card (and that is at least 95% of them) must not leave their current employer for fear of having to restart their green card application process from scratch. Thus, as an employee becomes more experienced and familiar with a company's processes and systems (and thus more valuable as an employee) there is less and less incentive for the H1-B holder to seek a better paying job because they would be throwing away years spend in the application process if they were to find new, better paying, employment.

That all makes for one messed up labor market, and one that is far, far from the ideals of a free market system. And don't think this situation is an accident. The megalocorps who are the employers of the majority of H1-B holders knew exactly what they were doing when they lobbied for this set of rules regarding H1-B and green cards.

Many people who oppose H1-B are also protectionist in general. But the people who do have a strong belief in the free market understand that the sword cuts two ways -- possibly hurting their own economic prospects but at the same time enabling more efficient production the stuff they consume. These people, with true libertarian beliefs are just as much opposed to the H1-B visa program as they are in favor of totally open borders without any government-imposted restrictionon on the flow of labor.

Please note that . . . Re:$$, too

[StefanJ]

"In God We Trust" was added to US currency in the 1950s, a few years after the Pledge of Allegiance was amended.

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.

Re:Please note that . . . Re:$$, too

[Pig Hogger]

"In God We Trust" was added to US currency in the 1950s, a few years after the Pledge of Allegiance was amended.

Actually, it's a typo. The real phrase is "In gold we trust".

Re:Please note that . . . Re:$$, too

[grytpype]

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!"

For any who are angry...

[admiral2001]

... I ask you to consider a simple scenario. What if this gets repealed, then in 30-40 years, the major religion in the country changes to something else, like Islam. What if there would then be a successful lobby to change 'under God' and 'In God We Trust' to 'under Allah' and 'In Allah We Trust'. How would you react to that?
(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.

Good.

[MisterBlister]

Actually I wish the entire idea of a forced Pledge of Allegiance would be done away with.

The separation of church and state is one thing (which I agree with)...But the whole concept of the pledge of allegiance smacks of propaganda and indoctrination.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no commie-hippe-whatever. Hell, I don't even use Linux... But forcing kids to pledge their allegiance to flag/country/god/whatever every day just smacks of so much wrongness. Let these ideas stand on their own merits, not be points of indoctrination.

And lastly, I think if anything a forced pledge of allegiance is self-harming in that, due to having to say it each day kids view it as some form of rote punishment. The words behind the pledge are lost because they learn to recite them like robots long before they can really understand the implications of the words. Why do this?

Excellent

[Deagol]

As an atheist myself, I always felt uncomfortable with The Pledge. I still find a mandatory recitation of it too close to the 2 Minutes of Hate (or whatever), but just in the other extreme.

My 7-year-old daughter, who attends public school in Utah, is always coming home with little sayings and tidbits about Jesus and god. I haven't jumped on the school or her teacher just yet, but I may if it continues.

Thers's nothing wrong with religion, in terms of personal choice. However, children are too young to contemplate the philosophical and metaphysical consequences of a religiouos faith. Hell, even many seemingly intelligent adults can't give a good reason for their faith (or for their denouncement of my lack of it).

I wish religious followers would leave children alone and let informed adults come to them when they reach an age appropraite to do so.

Re:Excellent

[Pig Hogger]

As an atheist myself, I always felt uncomfortable with The Pledge.

Use Mr Clean, then.

I can see it now...

[phraktyl]

...one Nation, under your choice of a single diety, a pantheon of dieties, or no dieties at all, indivisible...

Re:I can see it now...

[mshomphe]

...one Nation, under your choice of a single diety, a pantheon of dieties, or no dieties at all, indivisible...

Or how about just "One nation, indivisible"?

The founding fathers were Deists

[Zen Mastuh]

Besides, how can a 48-year-old amendment be "The foundation and tradition of our country"? Stop hyperventilating for a moment and re-read the decision. The amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance favors monotheism, the Semitic religions specifically. This is not the end of the world by any means, just a return to the Constitution.

Pushing monotheism

[totallygeek]

This can be fixed by changing it to

One nation, under G[g]od(s)*, indivisible...

* or under no devine rule

I don't see what the fuss is. I doubt seriously that all Christians or even monotheistic theologists agree on all tenants of what God is. So, what Eisenhower thought God was and what he expected "his" nation to envision shouldn't be any different than our money mentioning "In God We Trust". I don't see too many people giving up money because of the statement on the bills and coins.

An atheist's point of view.

[fmaxwell]

As an atheist, all I can say about this ruling is "Thank God!"

;)

The Pledge has an intersting history

[FreeUser]

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.

Not a problem...

[sterno]

US currency says "In God We Trust". Now, if that means you don't believe in God, it simply translated to, "Trust No One". Perhaps an even better motto when dealing with large piles of cash :)

Re:Not a problem...

[jafac]

ok - you'll shortly be receiving dozens of emails with the subject "Make money at home fast!"

The pledge is creepy...

[Saige]

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.

Re:The pledge is creepy...

[Chasuk]

I serve proudly in the US military.

So did I, for a decade. We have at least that much in common.

...(except the Persian Gulf -- I was too young by about 3 years).

Our first difference. I served in the Persian Gulf.

That flag is a symbol of what we've fought for since 1776.

True enough. However, note the word symbol in that sentence.

When you burn it you spit in our faces and stomp on our graves.

Our first major difference. When you burn the flag, you destroy by fire a piece of muli-hued fabric. Nothing less, nothing more.

Fuckers like you piss me off. You have no comprehension of what freedom means. Yeah, you're free to burn an american flag -- but only because people like me are willing to die to protect that freedom. Doesn't that strike you as a little odd? Maybe just a bit insulting to us?

Dumbasses like you piss me off. You, and everyone like you who seem unable to distinguish between a symbol and the real liberty and freedom which that symbol represents.

Ban the burning of the flag today. Ban the burning of the Bible tomorrow. Ban the burning of the Koran next week. Then let's ban the burning of the Book of Mormon, Scientology's various copyrighted works, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy and Ellen G. White and Edgar Cayce and the Bab and Karl Marx and Martin Luther King Jr. and John F.Kennedy.

I say that those who are offended easily deserve to be offended.

That's my motto, but it still pisses me off to hear dumbasses like you spout.

Re:The pledge is creepy...

[Yunzil]

Almost every man in my entire extended family has served in the military, in just about every military action since WW1 (except the Persian Gulf -- I was too young by about 3 years). That flag is a symbol of what we've fought for since 1776. When you burn it you spit in our faces and stomp on our graves.

I think you need to ask those men in your family exactly WHAT they were fighting for. What they should have been fighting for is our freedom of expression, and that expression includes burning the flag if you see fit.

When you burn our flag, you revile the very "freedom" that you profess to value so highly.

Nope, just the opposite in fact; you are *exercising* that freedom.

Good.

[Skyshadow]

Beyond the phrasing issue, I don't think we should try to install patriotism by forcing people to recite a paragraph over and over again.

I would much prefer that our citizens be educated in what's good about America and what's unique about being a citizen so they can fight to keep it a place they should be willing to defend. I'm talking about things like civil rights -- due process, free speech, etc. Our children should be educated in why these things are important even when they're inconvenient (there are a lot of seemingly educated people who don't get this at all).

Again, something that makes America worth the effort is the fact that we don't have to put up with the government telling us what to believe. The Pledge is just hot air, but our *rights*, the ability to exercise those rights and the defense of those rights is critical to our continuing existance as something special and worthwhile. Without those, we're just another despotic country masquerading as a republic. The world has quite enough of those.

Again, some people think this country is special because of symbols like the flag or the pledge or the anthem. Personally, what I love and fear the loss of are the rights which those things represent.

Re:Atheists are worse then Fundies

[elmegil]

This guy should have just told his daughter that she didn't have to say it and go on with life

Because we all know how easy it is in grade school & high school to do something that clearly makes you stand out (like refusing to stand and recite the pledge). Especially in the current atmosphere of you must be patriotic or you are a terrorist.

Has anyone read the Federalist Papers !

[mgpeter]

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

Re:Has anyone read the Federalist Papers !

[Zeinfeld]

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.

Actually it was as much determined the other way. In England at the time the Bishops sat in the House of Lords and the Monarch was 'supreme govenor' of the Church of England. The pilgrim fathers were mainly non-conformists who had come to the Americas to escape the established church which they saw as making God's church subject to the will of the state.

Re:What is this country coming to?

[ZeroConcept]

"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

It's not the "under God" part that's offensive

[cartman]

State-sponsored pledges of allegiance are propagandistic, and exist to inspire collective feeling. That's not what America is about. It's not the "under God" part that bothers me, but rather the conscious attempt to instill loyalty in the young.

State-sponsored pledges are attempts to form state-sponsored beliefs. The pledge of alleigance is not essentially different from the mandatory pledges of loyalty that are taken by the soldiers of various totalitarian regimes. We decry their pledges as propaganda, yet we require our own.

I would rather see the pledge go by the wayside. The only expression of patriotism that is inspiring to me is one that is genuine and spontaneous.

You can still say it

[guanxi]

I'm sure nobody will stop you from saying "under God" if you want. The point is, the government has no business coercing people to say it who don't want to.

OTOH, the point someone made about currency is interesting. Maybe we should change it to, "In Greenspan We Trust", or more perhaps more accurately "On Friedman We Rely" or "From Soros We Beg Mercifulness", or "We Sure Don't Trust Those Guys at Andersen Anymore".

Re:It is such a very sad day...

[dvdeug]

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.

Re:it's kinda strange

[Amazing Quantum Man]

and yet you would think that atheists wouldn't care about that "under god" clause because they believe in no higher being.

Hardly. I'm Jewish. Now imagine how I'd feel if "under Jesus" was in the PoA. I don't believe in Jesus as the messiah, but I'd be pissed as hell. Same thing.

One nation, under Satan

[cpeterso]

What if the phrase was changed to "one nation, under Satan"? Would anyone be offended? just maybe..

Re:One nation, under Satan

[tshak]

It'd probably be a more accurate clause.

Re:Majority rules.....

[jmv]

Most people in this country are monotheistic, and since majority rules we have "In God we Trust". If you want to be in a Ahtiest country, go to China.

I thought the majority had ruled that there was going to be a separation of the state and the church. (note, I am not an Athiest) I too live in a country (Canada) where the majority is monotheistic yet kids don't have to say prayers (or "In God We Trust"-like plegde) at school anymore. Religion is back where it belongs: at home.

Re:Majority rules.....

[dvdeug]

majority rules

Read the Constitution again. Pre-Amendments, it didn't provide for people to elect senators or the president. The first amendements were added to prevent the majority from taking certain actions detrimental to the rights of minorities. If you want to live in a country where majorities rule, I suggest you move, because the US isn't it.

thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[lingqi]

I like what Eisenhower said. I think it made a lot of sense -- and it is true -- America has grown to be very arrogant over the years, in many ways that i will not be listing here.

At the mean time -- the pledge of allegiance, added with such a phrase, really does put stress on, i am sure, many people's minds. I, for one, dreaded those occations while in middle school. However, what is more worrisome is not necessarily the people who are made to say it when they do not want to -- they can just "watermelon" under their breath after all; it is, rather, the minds of children coaxed into the belief of God that way -- without ever knowing what it is like to be free to choose one's own religion(s).

side note -- this will have some serious consequences -- all of the bills we've got have "in god we trust" written on them. i highly doubt the new rainbow series (discussed before under "Greenbacks no more") will do without them.

But back to the Eisenhower thing. I think it is implemented in the wrong way. His intentions are good, but since then, the phrase has all but lost its meaning, because if it did not, my thread's parent will not be modded to 5:informative. In this vein of thought, i support taking "under God" out of the pledge. put somethig more... abstract in there, if they really wanted (words like "president", "dignity", "humility", "cheeseburgers", etc). maybe run a contest or something, like Maxim's caption contest. Winner gets a chance to go in a ring for a one on one to beat up Bin Laden whenever we capture him (or designate somebody like The Rock, for example. you guys figure it out).

Last piece of ramble: The most demoralizing aspect of this whole ordeal isn't really about what goes into a pledge, whatever. it's rather the fact that we have so little tolerance for eachother. For "land of the free," it is really hard to be "free" now-a-days without somebody complaining that you doing what you wanna do is violating their freedom in some fringe ways. maybe it should read ... one nation under the principle of tolerance and forgiveness ... ?

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[jcr]

Actually you just sparked something in my mind. Isn't our going after Bin Laden and Al Quaida an infringement on Muslims religios freedom?

No, not at all. OBL isn't in trouble for being a religious whacko, he's in trouble for instigating the murder of several thousand innocent people.

It doesn't matter whether he did it because he actually believes any of the tripe he spews to his cannon-fodder, or if he did it just for the financial gains from shorting airline stocks. We need him dead, simply because he deserves it.

The point is that when we remove God from our society we remove the need for morals, because a moral code is basically what religion is, and what God represents to many people, therefore government can impose no morals on anyone, this means that there can be no laws at all, because laws are just an enforcement of morals.

Your assertion that morality can only be supported by appeal to superstition is patently ridiculous. I don't have to believe in your creation myth to know that killing people is unacceptable.

-jcr

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[roystgnr]

The point is that when we remove God from our society we remove the need for morals,

Obviously we don't; else the millions of athiests in this country would be raping and pillaging as we speak. The need for morals derives from the fact that ethical behavior is required for us to survive as a society. God can be an incentive toward promoting such behavior, but is not a requirement for defining it or the only possible motivation for enforcing it.

because a moral code is basically what religion is, and what God represents to many people,

Exactly the problem. To too many people, God is the only definition of morality, which precludes any morality being "above God". If God orders you to kill your son Isaac or to slaughter everything that breathes in a Canaanite city, no morality can stand in the way of the murder or genocide, because all morality comes from God. In such a state, the only way to be sure that Bin Laden is really doing wrong is to have faith that God wouldn't give such orders to him without checking in with us first.

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Hard_Code]

my assertion is that atheism does not preclude morality. I am moral simply because I think I can live a fuller life in the here and now, not because I'm having my eternal afterlife dangled before me as a prize or punishment

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).

Re:thoughts On Eisenhower's "fault"

[Surt]

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.

Farfetched but very true...

[JaredOfEuropa]

I remember when the Euro was in the "design" phase, and Dutch people wondered what was going to happen to the words "God is with us", etched in the rim of the old Guilder coins. Some were upset over losing those words on our currency. (Side note: the Dutch 1 and 2 Euro coins still carry those words, but who cares?).

Those were fun discussions! Arguments about our multicultural society, and separation of state and church, were all swept aside with counterarguments about cultural heritage and such. But those in favour of those four words would look quite shocked when one would suggest to replace the word God with Allah. Funny how such things work two ways...

Anyway... is this even worth being upset about? As someone rightly said, the children in school mostly cannot grasp the significance of these words, so them saying "under God" isn't a big deal. If you're not religious, you can deal with saying God, right? If you are religious, will God suddenly smite the US in wrath because the two words are removed? If you are of another persuation, will you go to hell for saying this?

get a real issue to concern yourself with, people.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[dbrutus]

That would occur only if this wasn't appealed. Since this has been adjudicated before and found to be perfectly constitutional, it's clearly going to be accepted by the supreme court and slam dunked down this appeals court's throat.

The phrase 'under God' is no more unconstitutional than the prayers that start off the SC, Senate, and House of Representative daily sessions. I doubt that a majority of SC justices have been guilty of unconstitutional action by publicly paid for prayer for so long.

Re:It is such a very sad day...

[MAXOMENOS]

Before the "liberation" you talk about, women couldn't vote, own things, have an education, go out after dark, have a career, say no to their husbands, or generally live how they wanted. Before the "good old days" minorities couldn't buy things, get an education, be taught to read, choose their own religion, vote, co-exisit with whites, marry or date whites, walk down the street without fear of being killed for no reason. Sexual minorities were as a matter of policy imprisoned, beaten, labotimized, institutionalized, killed, executed, and generally treated like subhumans.

Watch your step .. you might get the Family Values folks sexually aroused.

Re:You missed the point......

[dvdeug]

The first thing most Atheists tell you when you meet them is they don't belive in God.

Really? That doesn't accord with the atheists I've met, or what I know about atheist's beliefs. (It's not generally an evangelical belief system.) How do you know - do you take an interview of everyone you meet to find out their religion? Furthermore, I never seen an atheist wear a piece of clothing to proclaim to the world their religion, but I've seen many cross or Star of David necklaces and FROG/WWJD (Fooley rely on God / What would Jesus do) wristbands and other pieces of clothing.

Dissenting judge is bad at logic

[Dirtside]

Justice Ferdinand F. Fernandez (enough F's? quick! get this man a stage name) partially dissented with the decision, and puts forth quite a bit of poor argumentation [1].

One of his quotes was:

I recognize that some people may not feel good about hearing the phrases recited in their presence, but, then, others might not feel good if they are omitted.

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.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[Golias]

Not really. The court did not find it unconstitutional to include the words "Under God" in the Pledge. They simply found it unconstitutional to ask students in a public school to recite an oath that mentions duty to God.

Personally, I happen to believe the court is right on this one. A school is a government institution, and government ought not establish religion. Therefore, all religious expression, including study of religious texts (beyond examinations of comparative religions for history and sociology purposes) should be banned from the public school.

It therefore follows that public (re: government-run) schools are not suitable institutions for education, because forces external to educators (and families of students) are restricting freedom of speech and expression. The time has come to do away with the public education system. The education of children, like the feeding of children, should be 100% the responsibility of the parents anyway. Parents who fail to provide an education for their children should be found guilty of neglect. Education funding for impoverished families should be handled via AFDC and charity, rather than through a department of education. Quality control of schools could be handled just like the universities are regulated today, only acredited schools could award valid diplomas.

Under the alternative I'm suggesting, all parents would be able to decide for themselves whether to send their kids to a school that insists on the Pledge or not.

Re:Majority rules.....

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

And why isn't school where it belongs: at home? Why do you trust the education of your children to your government?

(a) Because the typical parent lacks the time, energy, will, and training to successfully educate his/her child;

(b) Because your children will live in society and should learn to move in it;

(c) Because schools help us find common values and respect for values not held in common.

Disclaimer: I am a schoolteacher (high school Physics) and you're darn-tooting that I feel my profession and I contribute to the general good.

As an athiest, I disagree.

[brad.hill]

As much as I agree in spirit (ha ha) with the ruling, I am pretty disappointed by it.

Why? Because it throws gasoline on the fire of the paranoid delusions of many Christians in this country that they are somehow a persecuted minority squaring off with an evil govenrment committed to state-enforced atheism.

The Pledge of Allegiance has such enormous emotional and social weight behind it, especially post 9/11, that it makes a perfect rallying point for "the lengths to which the atheists will go." This decision is just begging for a major political backlash and reeastablishment of the Christian Right's morality in our national political dialogue.

It will contribute to the alienation of atheists and other non-Christians as "unpatriotic" in a time when that equates to "terrorist enemy" and constitutional protections are weaker than they have been in 60 years.

ARRRGH. What HORRIBLE timing.

Re:As an athiest, I disagree.

[n-baxley]

... the paranoid delusions of many Christians in this country that they are somehow a persecuted minority squaring off with an evil govenrment committed to state-enforced atheism.

First off, I don't think /.ers should point and laugh at paranoid delusionists. Second, it seems to me very easy to make the argument that there is definetly a feeling of state-enforced agnosticism. This legal judegment is a perfect example of that. Third, why do you expect religious people who feel the pledge should not be changed to stand back and not fight over this. You can't say on one hand "We don't like this and we won't stop until it's changed because it's our right to gripe!" and with the other hand tell those "crazy Christians" that they have to shut up and take it. Religious people have just as much right to fight for what they believe in as do the atheists.

Re:As an athiest, I disagree.

[brad.hill]

I do not think that being a Christian is, by itself, any sign of being crazy or irrational.

I do think that many groups thrive on creating feelings of persecution and minority status, as if we were somehow in the first century, not a modern state that has EXPLICIT PROTECTION for their (and everyone's) religous practice and in which they (Christians in general) constitute a large and politically powerful majority. Repeat after me: This decision is not a threat to Christianity. This decision does not force you to say you don't believe in God. It just says you can't be forced or coerced to say that you do.

The "enforced agnosticism" you talk about is only in the functions of government and what it requires of its citizens. This is a distinction that many, unfortunately, fail to make, and actually is a good thing for religion.

The seperation of church and state protects both ways. I think that only someone ignorant or delusional would actually WANT our political system, with all it's day-to-day vaguaries, corruption, etc., to be dictating their religious practice to them.

A sensible Christian, as much as a sensible atheist, should want the coercive power of the state to be kept well away from matters of their heart, conscience and soul.

In God We Trust. All others pay cash.

[sjbe]

Sums it up pretty well I think...

Re:Declaration of Independance

[eddeye]

The Declaration of Independence can't be unconstitutional: it's not a legal document. All it does is inform the world that we are free of English rule, with a long list of grievances against the king.

The DoI establishes no form of government. It defines no laws. The body of the DoI can't be used as evidence or precedent in a court case. Further the DoI predates the Constitution by 13 years, so the Continental Congress that produced the DoI can't be subject to it. Constitutionality simply doesn't apply.

You might as well declare the Articles of Confederation unconstitutional.

brief historical note

[RestiffBard]

the pledge was invented in the 1890s I believe. Originally it did not contain the "under god" part. that was added at the request of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic Fraternal Organization around the 1950s. Before some of you fly off the handle might I suggest reading up on this. One excellent source (you don't even have to read) is www.th-jefferson.org I'm not even going to rant at this point beyond saying that its nice to see that for once we're getting back to the actual constitution as opposed to these phony "traditions". Oaths and pledges have never been a tradition in a country founded by men who detested the very idea of an oath or pledge of allegiance. Its refreshing that in this time when so many of our rights are in jeopardy and the constitution is being contorted to meet the needs of national security that there is a moment of sanity. Ok, so its a little ranty.

my letter to my senators

[macsox]

i'm in california -- but if anyone wants to use the verbiage:

As someone who cares passionately about issues involving the separation of church and state, and a member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (au.org), I was overjoyed to see that the 9th District Court today upheld the intentions of the Constitution in declaring the addition of 'under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance, a pledge many schools force children to say, as unconstitutional.

My joy was quickly soured when I heard reports of the reactionary and nasty resolution passed by the Senate today, chastising the District Court which made the ruling.

I don't know what your personal religious beliefs are, but I hope that you can recognize that making children declare that the United States is a nation under God is an infringement of their free exercise of religion if they are not religious, or do not believe in God. Such an infringement is inherently contrary to the letter and spirit of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

I am incredibly thankful that there exist checks and balances within our government, so that wrongs perpetrated by one branch of the government can be righted by another. As a Democratic Senator in a time of a Republican administration, I am sure you see this value everyday. It was therefore doubly distressing that the resolution passed should have been personal argumentative as well as constitutionally indefensible.

In these days of increasing governmental restriction of personal liberty at the hands of an Executive branch that dreams of a dictatorship, even the most minor victory against improper legislation and decisions should be resoundingly celebrated. That the Senate failed to celebrate this decision is saddening and a reflection that it is easier to go with the majority than to stand for what is right.

Hoping you can convince me that I'm wrong,

Yours, etc.

Big deal

[eyeball]

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..

What sort of lesson is Newdow's daughter learning?

[hyacinthus]

Now, I'm a sort of atheist-agnostic myself, certainly not a religious man. And I've always seethed over the way that "...under God..." was crammed into the Pledge of Allegiance during the 50's. So I wouldn't be too displeased to see it go, yet, all the same...

I heard this story in a news item on NPR this afternoon, and a quote from the plaintiff Newdow, the man who filed suit because his daughter had to recite the Pledge in school, caught my attention: he claimed that it "hurt" (his word) his daughter to have to listen to those words. (Note: to _listen_ to them. Not to say them--as has been pointed out in this discussion, it has long been established that a child cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge.)

What the f**k? I mean, this kid, all her life, is going to have to hear expressions of belief that she has been trained not to approve of. (Note, _trained_. She's a second-grader; she's not old enough to have a truly independent opinion on this or anything, except maybe whether she likes broccoli or not.) She's gonna see people wearing crucifixes (and Stars of David, and pentacles, and whatever), she's gonna read and hear and see people talking about God and Jesus and Allah _wherever she goes_. What kind of lesson is it for her to learn, that a federal court has decided that she doesn't even have to _hear_ something she doesn't like, or that her father doesn't like?

I'm reminded of the imbroglio in San Diego a few years ago, when some atheist group or other tried to get the Mt. Soledad cross torn down. I could respect their arguments, and yet still think, "What a bunch of yahoos! It's a cross. There are lots of crosses around. Deal with it."

It's one reason that, even though I don't believe in God, I often can't stand the company of some atheists; they walk through life with a giant chip on their shoulders, ready to jump down the throat of anyone who so much as whispers the G-word.

hyacinthus.

Declaration Of Independence and The Pledge...

[ellem]

The DOI is really a rant about not wanting to be governed by a King who lives across an Ocean. It is in fact a Declaration Of Independence. So for all of you folks who are worried that its references to Divine this or that will render it Unconstitutional, stop worrying. In truth, it is mere a very nice thing that we have that has no power. It's like a family Heirloom.

The Pledge Of Allegiance is, in fact, a pledge. It probably _is_ unconstitutional to make children recite a Pledge Of Allegiance to anything or anyone. Of course if Saddam Hussien were forcing the children of his counrty to recite a Pledge Of Allegiance we'd all be very forthright in our disdain for such heiniousness.

Personally, I like the Pledge. I don't mind the God part; I simply replaced the phrase, or omitted it when I spoke it in the presense of Sister Mary Verylarge.

Of course the Media (/. included) will sensationalize this story.

If you want a story to sensationalize start talking about Flag Burning. Something every American should DO because we CAN. Nothing speaks of our Freedom more than the ability to BURN our FLAG.

Re:Brainwashing

[Skyshadow]

I can't believe that so-called freedom loving people submit their kids to this daily brainwashing.

Well, in their defense, small children aren't generally able to grasp the deeper concepts that are involved here, so starting them off with a simple "Like America because it's where we live" message is perfectly fine.

The problem is that so many Americans never seem to rise above this level of sophistication in their thinking about patriotism or what it means to be a US citizen, and they latch onto the symbols rather than the liberties which it represents.

It's sad, really. Consider it a good reason to spend time working on your kids' intellectual development -- read with them, talk to them, encourage them to understand not just what but why.

okay, let's hope the money is next!

[Tumbleweed]

Now all they gotta do is remove that offensive "In God We Trust" from the money, and I'll be much happier. They're about to redesign the $20 (to add more colour), so hopefully this will happen before that. I'm sure our money will still be ugly, but at least it'll be colourful, and hopefully, diety-free.

Re:The Declaration of Independance

[qslack]

How can the Declaration of Independence be unconstitutional when it isn't even a law or an action? It was not even written by our government, it was written by a private group of revolutionists.

What is scary is the quote by Sen. Charles Grassle

[ferrocene]

R-Iowa:
"This decision is so much out of the mainstream of thinking of Americans and the culture and values that we hold in America, that any Congressman that voted to take it out would be putting his tenure in Congress in jeopardy at the next election," Grassley said.

His quote describes exactly what should NOT happen in today's society. Doesn't anyone do what is right, and not what will get him re-elected? Collectively, we're still operating in the 17th century.

Re:please???

[khuber]

The idea that a 3 judge panel 200 years+ after the passing of the constitution know better than the writers and all the intervening legislators, presidents, and judges is laughable.

Is that why women couldn't vote until the 1920s?

Because of 144 years of infallible brilliance?

Please.

-Kevin

Re:Then conform......

[Skyshadow]

Last time I checked majority rules buddy.

Yup. I can't wait to hear what President Al Gore has to say on this.

Other changes

[calibanDNS]

Hopefully this will be the first step towards several similar changes such as removing "In God We Trust" from our currency and taking bibles out of swearing in ceremonies.

Not just "under god"

[Pseudonym]

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?

Pascal's Wager Sing 'Dis Song

[dmaxwell]

Dooo Daaa Dooo Daaa! Pascal's Wager sing 'dis song oh doo daa daaaaayy!

Inplicit in your posts is the idea that only your belief system contains the key to moral and ethical behaivor. Everybody else must be on a greased slicky slide to Hell. The dilemma you are posing is a form of Pascal's Wager.

The most common form of Pascal's Wager goes thusly: If you believe as I do then will reward you or least refrain from punishing you. If you don't believe as I do then you risk terrible consequences for being wrong. You have nothing lose and everything to gain by converting to my beliefs. It is a false dilemma because we might both be wrong. It may actually be the case that Zeus is pissed as Hades at losing all of his followers and that we all walk around in danger of being used for lightning bolt practice.

The key phrase is "Without a set of morals based on something" "Something" most certainly isn't limited to "be a Judeo Christian or else!!!" That isn't a basis for morality anymore than being conditioned with puke-up drugs strapped down in a movie theater is (Clockwork Orange). Come to think it, the character that saw through it was a hellfire and brimstone pastor. In both cases, the motivation for "good" behaivor is avoiding pain either gagging or hellfire. I've known plenty of ethical atheists and unethical theists (and vice versa to be fair). The more thoughtful theists tend to acknowledge non theists can be ethical or even "moral".

The problem here is an implicit assumption. That assumption is "Only God is fit to decide what is good." If God suddenly decided that it's your moral duty to commit a murder a month would you do it? This is not as silly as it sounds. God is commonly held to be omnipotent. This includes the ability to reverse the meanings of "good" and "evil". If God does not define what is good and evil then those meanings are accessible even to those who are not Judeo Christians. Again, most Christians seem to grok this. I've even sat in sermons that made the point that morality requires the exercise of judgement.

If I shared your viewpoint I could logically conclude that atheists/agnostics are all homicidal libertines who just haven't been caught yet. If you don't believe this then you're engaging in some rather confusing philosophizing. Since atheists are no more murderous or larcenous than anybody else then what do you suggest keeps them in check? I think they'll take some exception to "afraid of getting caught".

Re:What sort of lesson is Newdow's daughter learni

[Dirtside]

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.

I'd like to suggest

[Greyfox]

"One Nation Under Greyfox"

Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? I'll need the reins of power turned over to me by next tuesday, though...

Re:You missed the point......

[squiggleslash]

I'm an atheist. A humanist indeed. I think this is the first time I've mentioned that fact to anyone in two or more years, and mention it solely because it is necessary to defend the position.

I didn't mention this to my witness collegue at work until he started trying to probe my views (and, hence, try to convert me)

I do not have a car sticker promoting my beliefs. I live in an area where most cars have those flaming fish symbols or worse on them.

I have can receive no television channels organised by humanists promoting humanism. This is because there are no such channels. I do receive crystal clear TV channels from Christianists [I know many decent Christians which is why I use the word Christianists to distinguish those fanatical and poisonous individuals who use Christianity as a weapon against those who they do not understand] which promote, endlessly, their view of the world.

And I've never lobbied the government to insist that people be forced to acknowledge the non-existance of God. There is no speech that people must read stating that "In the absense of a God, we trust in ourselves to be wise." But Christianists in the 50s did indeed the same type of act by lobbying, successfully, for the government to try to force every schoolchild, no natter what their beliefs, to acknowledge the existance of a god - to make a statement that implies a god exists.

When atheists run TV channels specifically to promote their view of the world, when atheists lobby Congress to forcably promote atheistic views, when atheists cover themselves and their vehicles in stickers promoting their views, perhaps, perhaps, you might be able to claim, successfully, that atheists are as vocal as fundies.

So far I've seen Christianists attempt to get my taxes into churches. I've seen them attempt to force people to join in organized prayer. I've seen them slice and dice laws to try to get unwarranted and irrelevent references to God in them; and to through the legislative process attempt to have every school display a list of ten statements four of which promote the worship of a god. I've seen the FCC hand over chunks of the broadcasting spectrum to them, a spectrum usually described by the same institution as scarce, usually at the prodding of crackpot Christianist politicians. I've seen Christianists attempt to remove neutral and important subjects such as basic science teachings from school for fear that a rudementary understanding of science might, in some way, undermine their version of "Christian" faith.

And against all of this, I've seen one or two brave individuals stand up against the crowd and say "Enough". Sometimes they're Jewish, sometimes they're Catholic. And occasionally they're atheist. And every time someone stands, the Christianists go on the attack. They'll downright lie about what's being stood up against, they'll promote the idea of a sinister conspiracy by those who'd defend the constitution, they'll accuse, as George HW Bush did, those opposing the forcable support of religion of being unpatriotic, of being "unamerican". And of being extremists.

So be careful who you accuse of being more "vocal". It may be that the voices that sound the loudest are those that are not part of the babble, and the babble is the loudest of all.

Bzzzzt.

[HopeOS]

Neither Jefferson nor Franklin were Christians. Jefferson in particular had many choice and uncomplimentary things to say about Christians. I suggest you check your facts. What is known is that Jefferson had an appreciation for elements of the morality of Jesus Christ; however, he was particularly unimpressed by the mystic elements of the religion as practiced.

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

There is plenty more online.
-Hope

Thomas Jefferson wouldn't agree.

[copponex]

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

I think we should expect nothing less than absolute, complete, and without-a-doubt separation of church and state. If you want to leave the door open for someone as intolerant as Falwell to lead his sheep into the New World Order (which should be exceptional at making him boatloads of money), be my guest.

-Dean

Despots force loyalty oaths.

[uncoveror]

Many people are upset that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals has ruled that a California law requiring school children to recite the Pledge Of Allegiance is unconstitutional. It is a law that respects an establishment of religion. Most people who object to the pledge would be happy if the "Under God" line, added in 1954, were removed. When President Eisenhower signed the law adding that line, he wrote, "Millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." This was clearly respecting an establishment of religion, the court ruled. There are other problems with the pledge.

Adding "Under God" was a cold war reaction to the "godless communists" of the former Soviet Union. The pledge forced our children to make a political statement, as well as a religious one.

Here is the biggest problem with the Pledge Of Allegiance: it is a loyalty oath. A free nation should not force anyone to swear a loyalty oath. That is something despots do.

Some religious Americans might also have a problem with the pledge, on the grounds that it constitutes idolatry. Children are made to turn and face a symbol, put their hands over their hearts, and swear an oath to that symbol. To many, this is just as much an act of idolatry as it would be if the symbol were a golden calf.

I support this court ruling. No one should be forced to swear loyalty to a symbol. No one should be forced to swear loyalty in a free nation.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[zangdesign]

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.

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[SacredNaCl]

I'll be in a minority with this comment, and that's okay ...

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 ...and every year we have to have the FBI come out and sweep the place for bombs.

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 ... But keep it out of our government and allow others the same "respect" you would ask when dealing with the government.

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 ...One Nation Under Satan? How about One Nation Under Shiva? ...

The Court Was Right, and Didn't Go Far Enough

[markwelch]

On another list, someone wrote:
> In its ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 1954 act of Congress that inserted the phrase "under God" after the phrase "one nation" in the pledge. <

It is disappointing that so many of the TV news accounts this evening ignore the 1954 amendment, and falsely state that the pledge has contained the "Under God" wording for more than a century.

I have always been uncomfortable -- at least since the seventh grade -- saying those two words. More recently, as someone educated in the law (yes, I am a lawyer) and as someone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, I do not believe that our Constitution places our country "under God" but expressly separates church and state. There were earlier cases prohibiting schools from compelling students to recite the pledge or salute the flag if it conflicted with their religious beliefs (for example, some religious groups refuse to salute the flag because they view the flag as a "graven image" (false idol) prohibited by the Second Commandment).

This case, like the school prayer cases, revolved around the implied endorsement, pressure, and stigma involved when the pledge and its "under God" language are recited in public classrooms.

To be honest, I've never understood why anyone thinks it is appropriate to demand that school children (many of them non-citizens), pledge allegiance to the "flag," as this helps reinforce the belief that if someone is waving the flag, we must blindly follow them, and criticizing the flag-waver is somehow "un-American." Even in this "revolutionary" ruling, the court did not prohibit schools from having a flag-salute ceremony that includes reciting a "pledge of allegiance to the flag" without the "under God" language.

Unfortunately, there is little doubt among legal scholars, or in my mind, that an "en banc" panel of the 9th Circuit will reverse this ruling, or if they do not, then the U.S. Supreme Court will gladly reverse it. As my former Constitutional Law professor (Boalt Hall's Jesse Choper) said in several TV interviews today, the Supreme Court will certainly view this language as "too small" to be worth ruling invalid -- oddly enough, arguably consistent with the Court's repeated hints that in order for Congress to prohibit flag-burning, it must first decide if the flag will be the "one thing" that they will prohibit desecrating (and Congressmen have too many sacred cows that they won't sacrifice to that trivial issue).

The most disappointing thing about the "person on the street" interviews I saw on the news today, is that the questions posed by the newspersons were about "making it illegal for children to recite the pledge of allegiance," which is not what the ruling said. Why can't people understand the difference between censoring people who want to recite the pledge without state compulsion (free speech) and the state compelling someone to say something that they do not believe, in direct contradiction to the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the first amendment -- or regulating people's beliefs or speech (which is what Congress was really trying to do in 1954, to oppose the "Godless communists" and reinforce the widespread belief that you must believe in "the One God" to be a "real" American)?

Note that I have no objection that members of my local Rotary Club recite the pledge (including the "under God" language) and one of our members is asked to say a prayer each week -- I can respect the decision of the majority of a private club's members on these points, though that when we recited the pledge during a visit by two dozen guests from our Mexican "sister city," some of our guests were visibly uncomfortable. (For a year or more, our Rotary Club had a humorous running debate about how long the pause should be before "under God.") Some weeks, the prayer is expressly Christian, once it was explicitly Muslim, most weeks it is quite generic, and occasionally, it is a non-religious statement or "thought.")

On another list, someone wrote:
> The founders of this country -- or whoever -- were quite right not to include that phrase in the "Pledge of Allegiance" originally. <

The reference to "the founders" jarred me, because I had thought the Pledge of Allegiance was created after the civil war (hence the "indivisible" language).

Apparently, we were both wrong: according to "A Short History of the Pledge of Allegiance" ( http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.ht m ), the pledge was written (apparently by a Socialist, no less) in 1892. Of course, that's just what someone said on a web page. See also http://www.google.com/search?q=+history+%22pledge+ of+allegiance%22+under+God+indivisible

The whole pledge is problematic, in my opinion.

[quag7]

The first problem is why say this at all? Why make it a semi-compulsory ritual to begin with?

Kids say this pledge literally thousands of times throughout their life to the point that it becomes a meaningless string of phonemes. The Pledge reminds me of listening to fellow Catholics recite the Profession of Faith on Sundays when I was a kid. So repetitious was it that no one even consciously knew what it was they were saying anymore. You could tell by the emotionless drone; it made the several parishes I was a part of sound like some religious cult under deep mind control. (In reality of course it was a bunch of people trying to stay awake).

Its not just the "under God" part I object to. It's the whole thing.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Well, what if immoral, sadistic acts are being committed under the name of that flag? The Klan flies that flag. The flag was on the uniforms of soldiers during the My Lai massacre. I don't think that the flag is evil, but it certainly is subjective and few can agree on what the flag means. Flags, like bumper stickers, are blunt objects that can mean a multiplicity of things to different people. If you're talking about the principles of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so forth, well, yes, I have a personal allegiance to those moral and political principles. If you're talking about our corrupt Congress and increasingly spooky President and what he's doing supposedly in my name and yours as the figurehead of our Republic, then no. Americans in particular seem to have a weird fetish for these kinds of symbols, and it is something which seriously distracts from the very real principles we ought to be talking about.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

Someone pointed out that the the flag represents the Republic. Well, if so, then this is redundant. Strike the "pledge allegiance to the flag" part and just pledge allegiance to the Republic. But even this is problematic. What if you feel the Republic is corrupt? I often do (I often believe as a nation we do many good things, but it is certainly a mixed bag). I have no issue with the "as written" principles this country was founded on, nor even honest business and capitalism, but that this Republic honestly represents these principles consistently is more than questionable.

One Nation

Well, I believe that we are one nation, and that nations can and should be diverse and built around broad principles of civic morality. Tolerance, freedom, and standing up both for your own rights and those of your neighbor. Others may be into sedition. I don't know. I prefer to connect myself to the world and others in the contexts of honesty and mutually beneficial community, but I respect the rights of those who don't and want to live up a mountain in Montana somewhere.

Under God,

I don't think God has anything to do with it. For example, I seem to remember a passage in the Bible about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. We are a capitalist country, and frankly, I have no problem with the honest, productive accumulation of wealth through honest trade and productivity. But depending on which part of the Bible you conveniently choose to follow today, it's questionable that God has anything to do with this. As an agnostic myself, I am not offended at all by other people saying this pledge (or praying silently to themselves in public places - even government buildings, or putting up Christmas trees in parks), but why must it be institutionalized in this instance? It's not a matter of having a problem with the Pledge of Allegiance, it is the problem of forcing others to say it as well. That strikes me as very, very, unAmerican. I've said the Pledge thousands of times, and saying Under God doesn't freak me out, but it is wholly unnecessary. Those who support the compulsory pledge, should they consider themselves quote-unquote Real Americans, ought to have no objection to this being purged in a nation supposedly founded on freedom of - and from - religion. I don't understand psychologically what makes it so important to compel others to swear allegiance to their particular God. It sounds rather...Taliban...to me. Or suggests a kind of self-doubt and paranoia allayed only by consensus, the assuredness of hearing many others pledge allegiance to a God you have some kind of doubt about. I don't understand the motivation here.

Indivisible Well thank God this nation divides when our government is perpetrating one atrocity for another, whether it be slavery, institutionalized racism, immoral, meddling wars abroad, or blatant Nixonesque authoritarianism. Unity is only a value when it is attached to a kind of tolerance and moral consensus, not when compelled through the kind of propaganda we're dealing with right now where our own congress is afraid to do anything other than indulge any authoritarian whim our President has. Division, however much it lulls us out of our stupor and worries us enough that we can't be satisfied drooling at stupid sitcoms at night, is healthy. Division is cultural, moral, and political dissonance; it insists that we weigh our actions and values as a nation. What good is unity if it is under the auspices of jingoism, groupthink, and collectivism? Division ought not be a permanent state but I'm really thankful that people are willing to stand up and say, "I will not support this; not even in the context that we are both countrymen and this is being done in our collective name." How often did our founding fathers make statements about how a revolution every so often is a healthy thing? We ought to be able to sustain reasonable differences and remain united, but there must be a limit to this. Otherwise, there is nothing worthwhile about our freedom, or our Republic.

With liberty, and justice, for all

Well with tongue in cheek, it's kind of fun to say this line with a heavy dose of irony. As noble as this sentiment is - and it is perhaps, in its honest, untarnished form, the most noble part of the Pledge of Allegiance, it...well...doesn't apparently apply to many classes of people including foreigners, pot smokers, hackers on trumped-up charges, anyone serving a draconian mandatory minimum sentence for a petty crime, dozens of political criminals from the Nixon years still in jail and denied new hearings, trials, or parole. People in internment camps. And so on.

The justice part doesn't apply much to the wealthiest and most powerful who buy their way out of justice and wind up serving sentences at federal country clubs. Celebrities also don't seem to go to jail very often for the things the rest of us do. Victims of right-wing regimes we've propped up in the past are excluded here, obviously. And so on and so forth. The point is, if anyone should be forced to take this pledge, it is our *leaders* and people in the justice system. Justice applies not only to the poor and downtrodden who often get screwed by the System because they don't have the money to hire a decent lawyer, but also to the rich and powerful who rarely pay for their crimes.

I don't think anyone should be forced or compelled to take any pledge. It ought not be part of any compulsory institution like our public education system (itself arguably a huge waste of time and money). But if there must be a pledge, it should be something more along lines of:

I pledge to be honest, to criticize my government when commits crimes or supports those who do. I pledge to uphold and fight for the values enshrined in our Constitution. I pledge to protest and throw my own weight against the eternally grinding gears of authoritarianism wherever I may find them. I pledge to respect and protect the values, practices, and expression of those who are different from me, even though I may find them objectionable, provided that those practices do not infringe on the freedom of others. I pledge to question authority, recognizing its legitimacy only when it serves the rational values of of liberty and justice. I pledge honesty, honor, respect, and civility in ordinary discourse and human interaction (This of course would be problematic among most Usenet users, but that's a different rant.) I pledge loyalty only to principles, and not the symbols, individuals, and collectives by which those principles are corrupted. I stand in opposition to hypocrisy, dishonesty, and the use of violence except as a last resort in legitimate retaliation or self-defense to solve disputes.

To me, this is a far more American pledge.

I find the creationism in US schools to be crazier

[Kjella]

...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

Re:It'd be fairly easy to change

[killthiskid]

I'm quite sure that this current case will be overturned for the same reason: It has become a part of our culture and our society. I learned it as a child, as have many others, and taking something away from it would be like removing a stripe from the flag.

Kinda like how slaverly was part of the fabric of society in the South way back when? The argument that we should continue to do something today becuase it is what we did yesterday is totally lacking in thought, logic, or progress.

This decision will be overturned for the same reason that prayers are allowed at the opening of hte Supreme Court, House, etc.: It has become an accepted part of our culture.

I don't accept it as part of my culture and it is obvious, through the fact that this is in the courts at all, that someone else doesn't accept it as part of their culture. You are not everyone.

Intolerance from the left

[JackRipper]

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.

Pledge Unconstitutional, Talk Show Host Explodes

[tenzig_112]

The following came from a story at Ridiculopathy.com.

RUSSELL, KANSAS- On Wednesday, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the current form of the Pledge of Allegiance, with its "one nation under God" line, blurs the separation of church and state and is therefore Unconstitutional. According to authorities, this event lead radio talk show host John McJay to literally explode while on the air during his afternoon drive shift on KQWE 1280AM.

During the one o'clock hour, McJay ranted about the current situation in Israel and the West Bank. Later on, more news about the Worldcom debacle became more proof that "the world is going to hell, if it isn't there already." By the time news of the ruling broke, it was too late. McJay's faithful audience listened impotently as their host gasped for breath.

"9/11 ... Enron...Steroids in Baseball ... Tag outlawed ... Worldcom ... [explosive sound*]"

* While the exact sound of McJay's incendiary demise is a matter of debate among his fans, most described it as a something like a "wet thud."

McJay is survived by two ex-wives, three ex-children, half a dozen ex-program-directors, and several thousand avid fans.

In truth, the court decision is pretty much meaningless since it will not go into effect until it survives several rounds of appeals and the Supreme Court has already made it clear that it doesn't see a problem with the current Pledge. Of course, that wasn't enough to save poor John McJay.

Immediately after the ruling, several dozen members of Congress assembled on the Capital steps to denounce the decision. After the camera crews had settled into position, they loudly recited the unconstitutional Pledge, sang the national anthem, and beat their breasts until finally soiling their boxers with red, white, and blue ejaculate.

"It's a terrible kind of cynicism that would accuse us of grandstanding today," said Representative J.D. Hayworth of Arizona as he wrapped a replica of the 9/11 flag around his ample bosom. "While it may be true that we're all up for reelection this fall and this may seem like a softball issue, we're taking a taxpayer-funded break to pose for photos and issue soundbites for you, the American people. Oh, I almost forgot to mention 9/11. 9/11, everybody!"

After his court victory, renowned atheist Michael A. Newdow told reporters that the ruling was "a step forward for civil liberties in America."

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch admitted that the situation caught him off guard. "Civil liberties? I thought we got rid of that crap when we passed the Patriot Act."

Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee reminded his constituents that Constitutional rights work both ways. "Freedom of religion gives me the right to force my faith on anyone I choose, so long as my faith is popular enough to lend weight to my point of view."

If the words "under god" feel tacked on, that's because they were, in 1954 to be exact. A proposal to replace the offending line with "One nation under C'Thulhu" has been rejected.

Already citizens groups and civil libertarians are sitting down at the negotiating table in an attempt to work out a new compromise edition of the Pledge:

"I pledge my tentative support

to the woven nationalistic symbol

of the United States of America.

One nation, made up of diverse but equally valid groups

under some sort of Supreme Being- or not, depending on your particular view

with liberty and justice for most.

I also preemptively apologize if this offended anyone.