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.
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
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
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
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."
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.
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 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?
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
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.
> 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.
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.
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!
"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.