Pledge of Allegiance Case Takes Center Stage at SCOTUS

[Zkribbler]

The two problems with that position are that: (a) the Constitution provides no mechanism for revoking the citizenship of any person born in America and (b) Article I permits persons to hold any religious belief the wish.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Personally, I think anyone who refuses it on grounds like that should lose their citizenship - if your allegiance isn't to the US, then you have no right to be a citizen of it.

So, in order to ensure allegiance to the American republic and "liberty and justice", you'd violate the first Ammendment through a coercive rite that restricts liberty? How...interesting.

Nothing in the Constitution requires a U.S. citizen to have allegiance to the U.S. at any rate.

Secondly, what would be the point? As many have mentioned, the Pledge really doesn't have much effect on people one way or another. People recite it from rote, usually not thinking a thing about it. But if you were to do this, you'd be tacking on a meaning of totalitarian authoritarianism that is just going to piss people off, not inspire any patriotic senitment. You'd ultimately achieve the opposite of your goal--you'd just make more people, like the 7th Day adventists and such, resentful of the authoritarian reach of their government into their personal beliefs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That only works with helicopters.

[Ramo]

You're wrong.

I wasn't aware that you went to the same elementary school classes as I did.

Personally, I think anyone who refuses it on grounds like that should lose their citizenship - if your allegiance isn't to the US, then you have no right to be a citizen of it.

Maybe according to David Duke. I'm not "loyal" to this gov't, never have been. And I wouldn't want to be a citizen of a state that forces me to recite a loyalty oath.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So, in order to ensure allegiance to the American republic and "liberty and justice", you'd violate the first Ammendment through a coercive rite that restricts liberty? How...interesting.

Nothing in the Constitution requires a U.S. citizen to have allegiance to the U.S. at any rate.

It's no different than requiring people to take a loyalty oath to be naturalized.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo

I happen to have been in elementary school more recently than you

Maybe according to David Duke. I'm not "loyal" to this gov't, never have been. And I wouldn't want to be a citizen of a state that forces me to recite a loyalty oath.

People who emigrate here and want to become citizens have to.

[Q Classic]

So, if it has no meaning, it doesn't hurt to remove the various bits of references to a higher being, right?

sure, remove it, or keep it, i don't care.

I have always thought the US is a secular state?

yes. and you do realize i know that, seeing as i also point out that no matter what those fundies want you to think, america is not a xtian nation.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kucinich
[q] Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It's no different than requiring people to take a loyalty oath to be naturalized.

You don't think there's a big difference between a one-time oath of loyalty for a foreign-born person to earn citizenship vs. a repeated pledge of allegiance, the failure of which to recite would result in stripping anyone, even natural-born citizens, of their citizenship? I see a rather big difference.

You didn't answer the second point, however: Why? What purpose would it ultimately serve?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kucinich
[q] Originally posted by Ramo
People who emigrate here and want to become citizens have to.

They've previously been loyal to another state, so it makes sense there. The same does not apply to natural-born citizens or anyone who is a naturalized citizen, as the very fact of being a citizen is implication of allegiance and loyalty.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You don't think there's a big difference between a one-time oath of loyalty for a foreign-born person to earn citizenship vs. a repeated pledge of allegiance, the failure of which to recite would result in stripping anyone, even natural-born citizens, of their citizenship? I see a rather big difference.

I meant more to make it a one-time oath when you're 18.

You didn't answer the second point, however: Why? What purpose would it ultimately serve?

The same as the oath for naturalization - to weed out those who are blatantly and obviously not deserving of citizenship.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kucinich
The same as the oath for naturalization - to weed out those who are blatantly and obviously not deserving of citizenship.

That's a theory, but note how I addressed ultimately it would have no such effect:

Secondly, what would be the point? As many have mentioned, the Pledge really doesn't have much effect on people one way or another. People recite it from rote, usually not thinking a thing about it. But if you were to do this, you'd be tacking on a meaning of totalitarian authoritarianism that is just going to piss people off, not inspire any patriotic senitment. You'd ultimately achieve the opposite of your goal--you'd just make more people, like the 7th Day adventists and such, resentful of the authoritarian reach of their government into their personal beliefs.

Considering your above answer as well, I'd have to point out that nothing in the Constitution requires someone to be loyal to the U.S. above their god, families or such. So "not deserving of citizenship" is a bad reason, since the only thing that makes one "deserve" it is being natural-born or naturalized.

[Ramo]

I happen to have been in elementary school more recently than you

Not every elementary school is the same. As your own elementary school experience demonstrates. And things don't change very much in a few years.

People who emigrate here and want to become citizens have to.

As Boris has pointed out, immigrants are forced to do it only once (which is still once too many). And I very much doubt that we're forcing minors to recite loyalty oaths. You're suggesting forcing this nationalistic garbage down the throats of children every school day.