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.
What I don't understand is why christians in general would get so upset when we want to take one line out to include all. Simply put I'm sure they would be as offended if we were to begin saying something like "under Bhudda" or "under no god" as some ppl are about saying "under god" in the first place. Times have changed, with them go the rules
The original generic sig.
Gee michael.
I guess there's nothing left to comment on, since the story was more of a long editorial rant than a newspiece.
Made compulsory, such a pledge is worthless, meaningless and a supression of intellectual activity. It represents a repudiation of Jeffersonian ideals, as embodied in the Declaration of Independance and U.S. Constitution.
Do we get to wear armbands, too?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
What does this have to do with online rights?
What does it have to do with anything Nerds are interested in?
It seems more like a topic for a civil libertarian blog.
I'm not saying the government is right or wrong. I'm just asserting this is off topic. Michael, can't you find another website to pound your drums on?
A Good Intro to NetBS
one interesting development already: Justice Scalia will take no part in the decision of the case. Apparently he recused himself following a request by the anti-pledge side in the case. Scalia has vocally defended the right to religious activity, and I guess he recognized that this might come across as having a predisposition to the outcome of the case.
I think at some point, the seperation of church and state goes a bit too far. Take the pledge as a whole, not word by word. It's not religious in nature; it's about the country and what it stands for. And what it stands are isn't forcing religion on people, but about freedom, liberty, and justice. Sometimes it gets a big silly, just like forcing the Ten Commandments out of the courtroom. Remember, the Ten Commandments is a very early and almost universally understood code of laws. Nobody would object if Hammurabi's Code was in the courtroom. Just because it mentions religion or God doesn't mean it's forcing religion on people. And remember, saying the pledge is voluntary, and after the first grade, I don't ever remember reciting it in class.
Help me. I've been modbombed by a few people with entirely too much time on their hands.
Given the sometimes cruel nature of peer pressure and cliques in public schools, do students really have that much of a viable choice in this matter--or do they risk being labeled as "anti-American" and treated as a social outcast if they decide to sit out on the recitation of the pledge? I'd argue that there's more to it from a social standpoint than students just not saying the pledge if they don't want to.
DecafJedi
my weblog: apropos of something
The current laws on the books state the no student is required to recite the pledge. It does not state that the schools cannot set aside time to recite the pledge. Please be careful to not add any more spin to an already charged issue.
It is unfortunate that zealots (on any side) have made such an issue out of what should be a non-issue. I recited the Pledge daily as a child and recall no misgivings. I am not an especially patriotic fellow nor anti-government. I am not an especially religious fellow nor anti-religion. It seems that it might be a good thing to give schoolchildren a few moments to think about potentially more important things for a few moments a day. In reality, it becomes routine, and virtually no thought is probably given by a child. But in retrospect, I rather miss those days. Be it God, Allah, or whatever name one chooses to use, it is ALL under a greater mind than ours.
StyleChief
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! -M. Python
MSNBC (Yes I know, I'm too lazy to change my default home page...score one for MS) has this article with a little interesting tidbit at the end:
The phrase "under God" was not part of the original pledge adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress inserted the phrase more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.
Interesting that these contraversial two words where just an addition to seperate us from those "godless commies", no? Sounds on the whole rather silly now :-/
-Chris
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
...and let the kids recite the Gettysburg Address. It's more stirring, it has a better pedigree, and it's not a Loyalty Oath. Oh, it's still got that "nation under God" phrase? Darn. How about just reciting the national motto, "In God we trust"? No good? Sing the national anthem? Well, the first verse is okay, since it's mostly about stuff getting blowed up, but suppose somebody notices that the later verses invoke the Almighty? Can't have that, can we? I know! Let's teach our kids what's really important in today's America, and have them recite the Microsft EULA. They should be able to get through it in time for lunch.
It's always amazing to me how much people think that God needs defending.
Your relationship with God is the only important thing in the universe, and you don't need a government to tell you how to have a good relationship with your deity.
And I don't need the government telling me how to have a good relationship with your deity. And you don't need the government telling you how to have a good relationship with my deity.
Our country is also strong enough to not have to declare that it exists through God's will. We made it, not God. The prophet George Washington didn't see a burning bush that implored him to lead his soldiers across the Delaware.
Our nation, like every human institution, is fallible. The more we bring God into it, the less we respect him, our nation, and ourselves.
God might help you make your personal choices, but you make bad decisions, too. Giving God the credit for your successes, and taking personal blame for your failures is dehumanizing to you and everyone else, and it leads to both a sense of false security (in your bad decisions), and false insecurity (questioning your relationship with God, just because you messed up.)
P.S. - if this comment pissed you off, then contemplate living in a country that forces you to worship a God that you don't believe in. Now, recognize that's exactly what you're asking other people to do in America. It's not YOUR country - it's OUR country. And the only way we can all get along, is to keep separate our personal and political worlds.
You have your personal relationship with your God, I have my personal relationship with my God - and the laws of this land should not give either one of us preferential treatment.
God != America
Education is the silver bullet.
Hold on a sec. If it was put in in the 50's, that would mean that it wasn't there longer than it has been there. If they changed it then, why not put it back? That would be the real culture and tradition that we need to worry about messing with. Then again, why are we trying to keep these entirely human ideas set in stone? People change, times change, our ideas change. Since we are the ones following the traditions, why should they not change as well?
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
and
You do realize that up until said 50's, the culture and traditions did not include the 'under God' bit, right ?
Which means that back then culture/traditions were already messed with.
Why do you oppose any notion of the same sort of thing happening now ?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What everyone must keep in mind is the First Amendment:
I as an individual can profess my religious (non-)affiliations as much as I want. However, agents of the state cannot endorse or reject a religion while acting as said agents. Using school property to communicate a message with a distinctly theistic slant ("one nation, under God") is unconstitutional (again, see the Santa Fe v. Doe ruling). The state can't say one way or another about god (much in the way that Science should remain agnostic barring distinct evidence one way or another) unless it's in discussing religion in a neutral context. This doesn't mean that teachers can't pray, be religious, nor students; rather, you can't use public property or act on behalf of the government in a coercive way when doing it.
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
The guy who wrote the pledge back in the 19th century was very religious, but after considering the issue, he decided to leave God out of it. Congress added God in the 1950's. Altering the text of an author's work without permission is an offense against IP law. And, although it is legal after the author's rights are expired, as they were for the pledge in the 1950's, it is very contrary to the current utmost respect in which copyright owners are held under the American system. Restore the old-time values. Restore the author's intent. Get the God out.
I didn't know the Pilgrims founded the U.S. Silly me! I thought it was colonists who wanted to be free of England. Wow! All this time I hadn't realized that the Boston Tea Party was really about freedom from religious persecution. Thanks for shedding light on those misconceptions, brother!
And what did those pilgrims do after the Revolutionary War broke us free from our English masters? Slavery! Yep, nothing like having God bless the practice of slavery.
I'll stop frothing now.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
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 was enacted into law by Congress in 1954, with one small addition: The words 'under God' were added between 'one nation' and 'indivisible.'
When I say "enacted into law", I mean they officially wrote it out as "this is our official pledge, endourced by the governemnt." - not "law" in the sense that you could get into trouble if you said it differenctly. (Like running a red light is against the law)
So whlie it's still not a clear case by any means, I am inclined to say that this teases the borders of the first ammendment - namely, that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion. I read "establishment" as any kind of religion, even atheism would count... and "respecting" as officially recognizing said "establishment".
That's why this issue still lingers - Congress made a real law that recognized religion. Perhaps no specific religion, and perhaps not an endorsement persay, but definately recognition.
As for the treasury, there's no law saying that "In God We Trust" should appear on the bill. In fact I doubt there's really any official document requiring it - it's just something they've always done. And as the parent mentioned, the Treasury isn't Congress, or even a part of the government persay, so the first ammendment doesn't apply.
=Smidge=
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?
1. Your opinion is not right, even if it is shared by millions of Americans.
2. This country was not founded "under God." It was founded by a group of capitalists, industrialists, farmers, and soldiers seeking political and financial freedom from England.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
3) Clearly, the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from "respecting and establishment of religion"; hence, the government (including all persons acting on behalf of the government) cannot influence a person's religious choice, nor is the government allowed to promote any one religion over any other.
4) It's not "some Buddha." It's just Buddha. And we don't worship him. We are guided by his teachings and his life; in a very similar fashion that Christians are guiding by Christ's teachings and life.
You should take the time to learn about other faiths, so that when you speak of alternate beliefs you a) know more about what you're talking and b) you don't come off sounding condescending and disrespectful.
It's not the original. The original pledge had no reference to god, as has been said several times already, it was added in the 1950s.
I'm not a pledge expert -- that info came in while I was posting. Thank you for the info.
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?
Again, I didn't know that, and yes, I do absolutely support the return of the pledge to its original godless version. More importantly, though (and this was my original point, and it stands), whether or not the "official" pledge becomes godless or not, there needs to be a godless version available for whatever purposes require a pledge today.
everything in moderation
Either you didn't pay attention in US History in high school, or you didn't have it. I could grace you with a well written essay on the true causes of the Revolutionary War, but I'm not going to, because you obviously don't care enough to read it if you advise people to return the history class you were snoring in.
Your assertion that the founding of the country was religious in nature is ludicrous. I don't care whether you intend that to mean that in reference to the Revolutionary War or the colonization of the eastern seaboard, you're just wrong.
If you want to talk about a portion of the colonists, this is true. Some of them came over for religious reasons.
Don't preach in such an authoritative tone without some fucking history next time, asshole.
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.
When I moved to Connecticut from England when I was about ten, I was constantly threatened with suspension for refusing to recite the pledge. Even at that age, it felt like brainwashing. Indeed during a great deal of the Social Studies courses I attended, there was what seemed a constant stream of "America the great" propaganda, with little(if any) contrary examples to the goodness of the country.
Looking back, I don't have too many problems with that style of education, as each country I lived in had a fair amount of this form of patriotism. I just probably wasn't used to it after what was a broadly cynincal education in the UK(i.e being taught that conquering over half the globe, and colouring it pink, was NOT a good thing).
However at the time, and not too suprisingly, I encountered a fair amount of problems with class mates for my stance, with the usual(and expected) calls of "If you don't like it, then get the hell out of our country". Still it was nothing compared to the bashing I got when they found out I was a pomme with an American accent when I moved to Australia.
> Is there anything wrong with the Pledge? Is there
> anything wrong with saying it? Is there anything
> wrong with believing what you are saying?
Is there anything wrong with coercing a pledge from children? Is there anything wrong with forcing children of a variety of religious and non-religious backgrounds to make religious pledges involving someone else's religion? Don't know where you come from buddy, but I'd say it's wrong.
> Is there anything wrong with having pride in your
> country, even if you don't agree with its
> government sometimes?
No, blind patriotism is a fabulous tool for autocrats. It's great in fact. I think the Taliban would rate it really well.
But here's a question for you - exactly what do coerced pledges have to do with patriotism? The typical reason we see forced shows of patriotism is that some political party is trying to prove that it's more patriotic than another. How pathetic.
You probably have a flag on your car as well, don't you? That was the fashionable way to flaunt patriotism last year - but now they're mostly dirty and tattered. The folks who put them up were looking for a lazy way to show support for our country and have shown that they're often too lazy to even take them down when they're filthy and torn.
> Anti-Americanism within America is really annoying.
Not half as annoying as Americans that think free speach and critical thinking are unamerican. What does America mean to you? A totalitarian theocracy in which you're left alone as long as you never critize a conservative move in government?
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!
I, too, recited the "under God" part throughout grade school, even though I didn't believe in God*. It was one of many things that made me feel like I didn't belong, like I was some kind of freak or outcast.
Once I got to high school, I realized that there wasn't anything wrong with me or my (non-religious) beliefs -- but up until that time I had assumed, based in part on the pledge, that everyone else (outside of some immediate family members) believed in God, and that I must be really messed up.
So personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the "under God" part go away, although inserting a pause for other people to say "under God" if they want to seems like a reasonable thing to do.
- - -
*My mother raised me Lutheran, church every Sunday and Bible school and whatnot, until one day I said "I don't want to go to Bible school." She asked, "Why not?" and I replied, "All they talk about is God, and I don't believe in God." I was ten years old at the time. My mother told me that she felt it was her obligation to raise me as she was raised until I was old enough to make up my own mind, at which point my beliefs were my own business. Go Mom! Ultimately, my mother still goes to church, my father doesn't, one of my sisters doesn't, one of my sisters does, and I occasionally consider joining a Unitarian church for the snacks.
You can read the history of the Pledge of Allegiance at this page
MOD THE CHILD UP!
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
When I was a kid, I recited the pledge just like everyone else in my school every morning. I memorized it. I had no idea what it meant. Talk about brainwashing. They never once told me that I didn't have to do it if I didn't want to. We never once discussed what the pledge meant. Why do we make kids do this? Whats the point? Shouldn't we wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves before we have them make pledges?
By the way, as far as I know, America is the only country whose citzens pledge allegience to a FLAG.
As an atheist, I would be willing to leave the references to God in the pledge and on our money if we could put "We love our dark Lord Satan" on our coins.
That's all I ask, a little fairness.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
You only like the pledge the way it is because it promotes your religion. If it referenced "Allah" or "Satan" or "Zeus" or any of the other imaginary gods people have invented you'd be marching on Washington to get it changed.
Incidentally, what's your reference for your "90+%" claim? Not that it really matters whether or not a majority want the phrase in; this is not a Christian nation, never was and never will be.
Let's hope the USSC has the courage to recognize that.
Eric Bamberg
Atheist
First, atheism is a category, not a religion. Atheism has no dogmas, no creeds, no forms of worship, no heresies, and no principles. To be an atheist, you simply cannot believe that there is a God. Any principle you try to add to that (and it certainly does need more in order to become a belief system, much less a religion) requires a new word.
Atheism has no position on morality (except so far as an atheist cannot logically follow the "divine command" principle of morality). It has no opinion on abortion. It has no opinion on evolution. Atheism does not require belief in the Big Bang, or moral relativism, or the existence of the soul. Given non-belief in a God, some positions appear more likely than others, but none are required. I can be a pro-life, anti-evolution, moral objectivist who believes that he will be reincarnated as Steven Segal after he dies, and still be an atheist.
Glad that's cleared up.
Now, if "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" somehow supports the atheist "religion," what else is it implicitly endorsing through its silence? Well, it doesn't say anything against child-mulching machines, so it must be implying that they should be built and used to keep down the population. It doesn't say "one nation, with no nuclear strikes called in on Lindon, Utah," so the pledge is implicitly endorsing the annihilation of SCO's headquarters. To which I say, "Rock on!"
"Under God" doesn't belong in the pledge, and removing it simply remedies an inappropriate use of government power to promote a sectarian agenda.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Was the "voluntary" prayer organized read by the teachers? Is the fact the prayer was crafted by the New York State Board of Regents inconsequential? Most (if not all) prayer-in-school cases I've heard had voluntary student participation that was "voluntary" in the same way the boss selling candy bars for his kid is "voluntary."
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
This is a distinction that most people screw up. Of course senators and reps will be able to sing "God Bless America." Supreme Court justices will be able to mention God. Bush will be able to make his decisions based on his faith. however, the Constitution prohibits Congress from codifying "an establishment of religion" as part of this country's law, which is what they did when they added "...under God..." and "In God We Trust" to the pledge and currency. FYI, "In God We trust" was added right about the same time that the Pledge was modified, rather than having been there forever as most people seem to assume.
--- Usually, those that believe in absolutes are ignorant, fools, or both.
No state has a law prohibiting anyone from reciting the pledge voluntarily, whenever they want to.
What you said was
there ARE LAWS AGAINST VOLUNTARY PRAYER
That's 2 completly different things. He said there is no law keeping anyone from reciting the pledge. He said nothing about laws that keep you from leading prayer groups in school. So rather than accusing him of spending zero time researching his article you should spend a bit more than zero time reading it.
What say we just leave the kids alone, hmmmm?
Why not try pushing legislation to require (make available) the Pledge of Allegiance in the workplace at the start of every business day.
At least then, you're doing it to voters who have a chance to let you know whether or not they approve....
I agree with you about the danger of allegiance but let me also say it's a matter of what you ahve to allege to.
If you allege to a Queen, or to a Flag or even a country, that's a bit like a blank check. Unconditional support, right or wrong.
But if you allege to the Constitution of the United States of America, well there are ideas there that you can allege to or not, and that allegience might actually, if real, force you to stand up and criticice your country or flag or queen.
I say the correct answer is to change the pledge to one where it's the Constitution that is alleged to, because it really does express, for better or worse but mostly better, the real core meaning of being American.
-pyrrho
not all religions involve God, capital G. And too many protestants have tried to convince me that atheist is a religion to think that "under God" does not in fact establish a religion that is not ahtiesm. It might not be Baptist... maybe it's a whole new America Under God religion. Maybe the God is a whole new kind of god, like a giant dog that plays banjo and drinks Italian Soda, but whatever it is, it's not paganism, it's not atheism, it's not Zoroastrianism or a thousand other religions.
It DOES establish a religion, what on eath else could it be doing there. Is it a historical comment?
-pyrrho
Well, for starters, the set of laws objected to by the atheist whose objections to having his daughter recite the Pledge got this ball rolling in the first place say as much, according to the original court ruling:
That's the law there. According to some news coverage of the issue, there are similar laws in other localities.
Those that somehow bring slavery into this discussion lose site of the relative magnitude and importance of each of the issues--especially their impact on those "affected."
I never made any claims about the relative magnitude and importance of the issues; of course slavery had a worse effect than coerced recitation of the Pledge. That's not the point, though - the principles are the same. In both instances a minority is unjustly made to do something by the majority. I can't agree just because 51%, 99%, or any percentage of the people in between believes in God, gives them the right to make the schoolchildren of the remaining people recite a pledge making a (completely superfluous) reference to God and avowing His existence. Nobody is making Christian kids swear oaths avowing the existence of Zeus or Shiva; why should kids who don't believe in God be forced to make pledges acknowledging His existence? If yours were the minority belief system, woud you want your kids made to recite a pledge acknowledging some deity you don't recognize?
I decided not to give the pledge of allegiance for the better part of my high school career and caught hell for it early on. Kids are very pure in their actions and tend not to be as political, so if they think you're out of line they let you know. Middle and high school teaches conformity as much as knowledge, and even the teachers encourage the recitation of the pledge. Acting on principle or doing what is right, especially at that age, is neither easy or without reprecussions, and it is much easier to go with the crowd than voice your mind.
The way I got out of it was when one of my teachers saw me not pledging for years and brought the issue to a head. I told him that I truly love this nation and its ideals but that prostituting such for the notion of conformity both cheapens my humanity and belittles my respect of this country. Oddly enough most of the students agreed in principle and only a few of them continued giving me trouble after that.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Given the sometimes cruel nature of peer pressure and cliques in public schools, do students really have that much of a viable choice in this matter--or do they risk being labeled as "anti-American" and treated as a social outcast if they decide to sit out on the recitation of the pledge? I'd argue that there's more to it from a social standpoint than students just not saying the pledge if they don't want to.
I declined to say the pledge throughout high school, but I don't think it was that big of a deal. I was reasonably popular, and nobody ever raised the issue.
It's more of an issue for me now, because the pledge is recited at my kid's school assemblies. Out of a crowd of hundreds of adults (this is in a somewhat conservative town) I am always the only one standing silent with my hands by my side. It's beyond uncomfortable. Many other parents stare at me with looks of incredulity and often outright anger. Judging from the looks I've received, I expect to be physically confronted sooner or later.
Screw 'em, I say. I will not profess to a belief which I do not hold.
The crap motto "In God We Trust" has NOT always been on our money. That too was added VERY late, during the anti-commie hysteria. It should go if you want to keep to historic principals. Keep your god to yourself, it has no hold on me and attempts to enshrine her or codify her into laws invalidate those laws for me as the very basis for such laws is nonsensical bull poop.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
"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
Regardless of the United States Supreme Court's ruling, the words "under God" will be in the Pledge.
It really comes down to 2 options:
1. The SC rules that it is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
IRC, this has already happened not once, but twice. Life goes on until the next time it is challenged. *yawn*
2. The SC rules that the words "under God" ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
If this happens, then things get fun. I would not be suprised to see a Constitutional Amendment proposed that specifically states that the United States of America has a Pledge of Allegiance and specifically states what that pledge is. This pledge will include the words "under God" This proposal will be approved in the House and Senate with speed to match the " Oops, We Forgot to Give Authority to Implement the Do Not Call List Bill" (Not the real name) that was passed within days of the courts ruling that the previous bill passed wasn't done right. Within weeks, enough states will have ratified he new proposed Constitutional Amendment, making any claims that the pledge is unconstitional moot, since something specified in the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. (Did I just say that?) You see, that is how checks and balances work, congress passes a law, president vetoes it, congress overrides the veto, the courts rule it unconstutional, the congress amendmends the constitution, the states ratify the change. Like I said, it gets fun then.
Now, a real Conspericy Nut (IANACN, Figure it out) would go on to state that the whole process has been initated to get the American Voting Sheep used to congress messing with the Constitution, by floating out some softball issue like the Pledge, then propose something else, then something else, then what the heck, repeal one or two existing amendments, then add another one or two... Rinse, and repeat... If it goes in reeeeaaaalllly slowly, it dosen't hurt as much, I've been told.
Again IANACN, but I do love to play Devil's Advocate.
Then again, I could be wrong. It's be known to happen regularly.
I've seen polls showing 90%+ in favor of leaving the Pledge as-is.
Could you provide us with a link? I'd like to see who conducted these polls, the way the questions were worded, perhaps who was paying for the polls to be conducted. I'd hardly believe that a poll paid for by the Moral Majority, Inc. would be objective, and I'm relatively certain that there's damn little that 90% of Americans would agree on.
Is there anything wrong with the Pledge? Is there anything wrong with saying it? Is there anything wrong with believing what you are saying? Is there anything wrong with having pride in your country, even if you don't agree with its government sometimes?
Yes, no, no, and no. The point is that if a state is requiring the pledge be recited in school, you better pull that stupid line about god out of the otherwise harmless piece of idolitorous poetry. Requiring the pledge is requiring the students to declare belief in a religeous system that they might not hold. And that, my friend is anti-American.
This is to say nothing about the fact that the pledge is declaration of devotion to a piece of cloth (idolitory?), and a nation without any reference to the principles upon which this great nation was founded. Perhaps a pledge to the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be more apropriate, but then the religeous conservative lobby would hardly be in favor of that now, would they.
Anti-Americanism within America is really annoying.
I'd hardly call unflagging commitment to the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights "anti-Americanism", but then Joseph McCarthy probably would have disagreed with me. And apparently so would you. The whole loyalty oath issue really pisses me off, as it has been used in the past (and I'm sure it will be again in the near future) to paint loyal Americans as being anti-American for the simple crime of having commitment to thier beliefs and some grain of integrity.
One of the principle ideals that makes this country the great nation worth your (and my own) loyalty is that we have the right to dissent against our government, to dissagree with the authorities, and to hold differing beliefs (or no belief at all) about god, divinity and religeous expirience. If you throw these ideals to the wind in order to satisfy your nostalgia for a rather poorly written and misguided poem, you've just cheapened our basic national principles as a whole.
(I served my country to defend your right to burn it's flag. The piece of cloth fluttering above is rather pretty, but it doesn't mean shit if the paper this country is built upon is forgotten.)
Read, L
For fucks sake! your president talks about god all the time and half his voters and party think hes gods gift, do you not think this slightly more of an issue? Do you not think he might have a slight vested interest or biased opinion leading to violation of the bill of rights? Does this mean that if the court decides that 'under god' shouldnt be there then Bush should go? well i can
kill the suspense now and tell you that the mostly-friends-of-bush supreme court will be deciding in favour of god.
George Bush states that atheists are not citizens or patriots
Bush puts God on his side
George Bush Invites God to School
America Attacked Iraq, Because God Told George Bush To
President George "W" Bush: God's Man for This Hour
Is George W. Bush God?s President?
Bush announces war with plea for God's blessing
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
It's not just a tradition - it is a *pledge*. I really cannot understand how people like you can trivialize the importance of pledges. You are not supposed to pledge to other gods ("Thou shalt not put any other gods before me"), yet you expect others to pledge to your god.
When I have gotten into a discussion with people who are arguing for prayer in school, I ask them if they would be willing to have the prayers on some days be to Allah. It's amazing how quickly they backtrack when another faith is given the same consideration that they are asking for. Would you be as willing to say the pledge if it was changed to "under Allah"?
-MDL
Happy meals fund terrorism
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.
Nonetheless Washington was best described as a Deist. He rarely attended church and refused communion when he did. He declined ministerial attention on his death bed. After his death there was an active propaganda campaign, spearheaded by Rev. Mason Locke Weems, to portray his as a Christian. Many apocryphal (get it, apocryphal :-) ) story's and quotations resulted, including the ridiculous cherry tree business. Washington's religious tolerance was legendary. He banned anti-Catholic Pope Day celebrations in the Continental Army and appointed the Universalist John Murray Chaplain.
Umhh...not a founding father. But he was genocidal butcher. Chalk one up for the Christians. Not that Madison and Jefferson were much better, being hypocritical slave owners.
"My original convictions upon this subject have been confirmed by the course of events for several years, and experience is every day adding to their strength. That those tribes can not exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear." -- Andrew Jackson
Wow, that is totally irrelevant.
Madison didn't actually say that.
Hardly a founding father. He wasn't even born until 1805. By the time he arrived in the US in 1831 the movement to Christianize America was in full swing.
It is worth reading this in context. Adams was actually talking about the remarkable diversity of the founding fathers. He specifically includes atheists, anabaptists and agnostics. His reference is to the theoretical original principles of Christianity as distinct from church doctrine.
"Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty. Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No. The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young G
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
Damn, I knew I should have includeed citations. The first two are from John Adams' letters to Jefferson. As a poster pointed out the first Adams quote is fragmented and misleading. The full quote is supportive, if critical, of religion,
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." ! ! ! But in this exclamati[on] I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell. So far from believing in the total and universal depravity of human Nature; I believe there is no Individual totally depraved. The mos abandoned Scoundrel that ever existed, never Yet Wholly extinguished his Conscience, and while Conscience remains there is some Religion. Popes, Jesuits and Sorbonists and Inquisitors have some Conscience and some Religion. So had Marius and Sylla, Caesar Cataline and Anthony, an Augustus had not much more, let Virgil and Horace say what they will.
You can find both of those in The Adams Jefferson Letters, The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, Edited by Lester J. Cappon, University of North Carolina Press (1959, 1987)
Adams, although not a Christian (in the trinitarian sense of believing Jesus is God) was pretty religious. He vacillated between Deism and Unitarianism. He was adamant about seperation of church and state however, and was angry when the Massachusetts constitutional Convention modified his draft to include Christianity. Seven years later he was vidicated when the citizens of the Commonwealth voted (under referendum) to repeal the Christian clause by a 10-1 margin.
He later wrote, " "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" (The Great Quotations, ed. by George Seldes, (Citadel Press) quoting letter by J.A. to F.A. Van der Kamp Dec. 27, 1816 )
The Jefferson quote on the Gospel of St. John is from a letter to Alexander Smyth. (Thomas Jefferson, An Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 quoting letter by T.J. to Alexander Smyth Jan. 17, 1825)
The Jeferson quote on the corruption of Christian doctrine is from the Adams correspondence. (Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., p. 246, quoting letter by T.J. to John Adams July 5, 1814 )
The first Madison quote is from a letter, (The Madisons by Virginia Moore, p. 43 quoting letter by J.M. to William Bradford April 1, 1774) the other two are from his Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785.
You can find the Allen quotes in his treatise Reason, the Only Oracle of Man of 1784
The Franklin line comes from a 1790 letter to Ezra Stiles in which he frankly identifies himself as a Deist.
The Paine Quote is from his The Age of Reason
Priestly's quip on Franklin is on page 60 of his autobiography.
In 1831 prominent Episcopal minister Bird Wilson complained that "The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected not a one had professed a belief in Christianity.... "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." (sermon preached in October, 1831, first sentence quoted in John E. Remsberg, "Six Historic Americans," second sentence quoted in Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15)
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin