Supreme Court Will Hear Pledge of Allegiance Case

Decaffeinated Jedi writes "As reported in this CNN.com article, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case next year (most likely in June) involving whether public schools can lead students in a 'voluntary' recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. At issue in this case is whether the inclusion of the phrase 'under God' in the pledge constitutes an establishment of religion on the part of the state and an infringement on students' religious liberty when it is recited in the public school setting. This case comes to the Supreme Court as an appeal of the June 2002 ruling made by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals--a decision that led to one of the most active stories in Slashdot history." The CNN article's emphasis on voluntariness -- "whether schoolchildren can be allowed to recite the Pledge voluntarily" -- is grossly misleading, almost propagandistic. Most states have laws requiring the pledge to be recited every day as a class activity, and these are the laws in question. In theory students shouldn't be punished for failing to recite along with the rest of the class (due to a previous Supreme Court decision). No state has a law prohibiting anyone from reciting the pledge voluntarily, whenever they want to.

Comments

I Pledge...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

In school, we recited the following for years without detection or rebuke:

I pledge annoyance to the rag

And the divided fates of America

As to the republican rubber-band:

One nation, a plundered mob

With visible injustice for all.

Thank you very much. I'll be here all week, tell your friends.

Freedom *of* religion.

[Atzanteol]

Before people start throwing around 'separation of church and state' and freedom of religion, remember that it's freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion. Some groups want the pledge outlawed because it mentions God (heaven forbid!), others want it madatory for the same reason.

Personally, as a heathen (unbaptised agnostic if you will), I don't care. I said it as a child, and it hasn't ruined my life. Nor have I felt the government was forcing religion on me. The pledge is to the US, and our way of life. Not to God. I think the pledge should be said. Perhaps the bit about God removed though (I never understood it myself).

Re:It's a matter of timing

[randyest]

I agree with your point, but I'm afraid it's irrelevant. That is, the Pledge of Allegiance will (and should always) continue to include the phrase "under god." NO matter what you do, the original is sitll the original -- you can't change it. But the point is that no one should be forced to say it that way.

If there are situations where someone must say the pledge, such as when becoming a naturalized citizen, then there should be an alternate, godless version. Not unlike the way "Do you swear before god to tell the truth, the whole truth . . . so help you god" became "Do you promise or affirm . . . . " with no god reference. We need people to take an oath promising not to lie when testifying in court, but we shouldn't make them swear to God for that. In fact, if they don't believe in God, it sort of invalidates the whole schmeal, to some. So, it's proper to provide a godless option.

That said, the question is whether or not kids needs to say the pledge every day (or ever) in school. I think the answer to that is "yes", and therefore, I think we need to have a godless pledge option for those who do want to "promise or affirm" their allegiance to this country, without making them involve a god in which they don't believe. Some may argue that kids don't have to say the pledge, but in practice, that's just not true in many (most? all?) cases.

Tradition is fine if taken in moderation. Now is the time for some moderation. Note that slavery was a firmly-held tradition in the South for a long time; few lament its demise.

Re:Typical michael

[Cutriss]

Shut up.

What exactly do you expect the editors around here to do, anyway? You people bitch when they post stories, and you bitch when they don't...You bitch when they don't provide pertinent details, and then you bitch when they do.

Michael just provided a counterpoint to the CNN story which was, if you actually read it, quite biased (it's CNN after all...DUH). Since nobody here reads the damn articles anyway, I think it was quite useful of him to do so. I didn't know that state laws existed mandating the Pledge in classrooms, and I'm glad he pointed that out.

This isn't some big Michael-hates-you conspiracy. Grow up.