Slashdot Mirror
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.
This is the typical argument given by groups that argue that placing the Ten Commandments in the judicial building rotunda that the first amendment isn't about separation of church and state. They also misquote James Madison who was architect of the Constitution and a strong opponent of separation of church and state. He was also a proponent of freedom FROM religion:
Quoted from "James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments":
"Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? Can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure."
But as always, don't let the facts get in the way of your "history."
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
That's a fine theory, if not for the fact that that's not the original. The phrase "under God" was added during the 50s as part of McCarthyism's attack on godless communism. So, given that fact, I assume that you will be supporting the return of the Pledge to it's "original" godless version?
America was formed on Christian principles, not Buddhist principles. It is a Christian country and it is defined and based on those assumptions.
... Jefferson, who as a careful historian had made a study of the origin of the maxim [that the common law is inextricably linked with Christianity], challenged such an assertion. He noted that "the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or that such a character existed .... What a conspiracy this, between Church and State."
Care to know who disagrees with you?
From Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, unanamously approved by the U.S. Senate June 7, 1797: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
In his book Religion, State, and the Burger Court, Leo Pfeffer writes about (and quotes) Jefferson:
Separation of church and state was taken seriously by our founding fathers. Gordon S, Wood in The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 writes, "Many of the states [in the period between the Revolution and the adoption of the U. S. Constitution], in order to obviate any suggestion of a religious establishment, prohibited all clergymen from sitting in the legislation." He cites the state constitutions of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, New York, South Carolina, and New Hampshire.
===
I'm the urban spaceman babe, but here comes the twist... I don't exist
A nation founded by people seeking to worship God free from persecution.
Nope, the pilgrims came late to the party. Many of the people who came before them were godless heathens. Even some of the founders weren't to fond of all the god sillyness. Ironically, it was those god worshiping Quakers that fought to make our constitution a secular one. They had been persecuted in New York by Peter Stuyvesant, in part for harboring Jews and Muslims when Stuy went on his witchhunt. When his bosses learned of the episode they told him they established the colony to make money and if he couldn't leave his religion at the door they would replace him. If you told Franklin that a pledge of allegiance was now done in public schools he would spin furiously in his grave.
BTW I don't like the pledge in schools, but religion isn't even near the main reason. When I came to this country and was told to "pledge allegiance" I didn't even speak the language. That's even more meaningless than your standard enforced pledge. But it's not that either. We live in a democracy, and a pledge of allegiance has no place in a democracy. This is my country and I have a moral duty to help my countrymen destroy the flag and it's government if it does not follow our wishes. The pledge undermines the teaching of that duty. Teaching our children to rule their government is the most important function of our schools.
The CNN article's emphasis on voluntariness... is grossly misleading, almost propagandistic... Most states have laws requiring the pledge to be recited every day as a class activity
More Slashdot FUD. Did any of you editors actually go to public school in the US?
Pledging allegiance was voluntary when I went, thirty years ago. Many students did not pledge. Some were Jehovah Witnesses. Others weren't US citizens. Still others simply chose not to. This wasn't in some "enlightened" urban school, but down in deep rural America.
The schools may be required in some states to have this activity. But it is not required for any of them to coerce any students into participating.
No state has a law prohibiting anyone from reciting the pledge voluntarily, whenever they want to.
And no state has a law requiring anyone from reciting it either. If you don't want to say, don't say it. Duh!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
not too mention his statements from the article are totally wrong.
No state has a law prohibiting anyone from reciting the pledge voluntarily, whenever they want to.
Uhmm, except that a simple google search on "voluntary school prayer" immediately showed a third result of This case. From the article:
A 22 word prayer, crafted by the New York State Board of Regents, was read aloud daily in public school classrooms. Student participation was voluntary. On June 25, 1962, the Court ruled the Regents' prayer unconstitutional.
In a public school, I cannot lead a group prayer, even voluntarily. Prayer must be seperate from the school. Then, following the page a whole three links down, there is full text of a bill urging congress to pass a "voluntary prayer" ammendment to the constitution. From the house resolution:
32 WHEREAS, voluntary student prayer formed a part of American public schools [33] from their origination in 1642 for over three hundred years afterward, until [34] the U. S. Supreme Court, in a 1962 ruling, which the court said was "without [35] precedent," struck down what it described as "voluntary, nondenominational [36] school prayer";[]=line numbers
Despite what the all-knowing michael says, evidently after 0 minutes of research, there ARE LAWS AGAINST VOLUNTARY PRAYER. Of course, he says "no state," and since it was ruled unconstitutional, it would actual be the federal government prohibiting it. Yeah, thats what you must have meant, right michael? "no state has a rule against it, just the federal government." sure... how about doing some research before embarassing youreself. Oh, and you ended your sentence with a preposition.
the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" -John Adams
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -John Adams
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." -Thomas Jefferson
"No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself, and the least and last of all should I undertake to criticize works on the Apocalypse (Revelations). It was between fifty and sixty years since I read it and then I considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams." -Thomas Jefferson
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." -James Madison
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." -James Madison
"That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." -Ethan Allen
"denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." -Ethan Allen
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." -Benjamin Franklin
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
Quoting the words of others carries a big responsibility. Misquoting misrepresents the ideas of others. Here's a classic example of a misquote:
John Adams has often been quoted as having said: "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it."
John Adams did, in fact, write the above words. But if you see those words in context, the meaning changes entirely. Here's the rest of the quotation:
Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!!' But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in public company-I mean hell.
As you can see from this example, context matters!
Example from: Paul F. Boller, Jr. and John George, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions. Oxford University Press, 198
----- I hate sigs.