Pledge of Allegiance Case Takes Center Stage at SCOTUS

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


Just saying god doesn't exist doesn't prove anything either.

Perhaps Uganda wasn't such a good example.

I'll be back.

It is to my belief that god doesn't exist. I'm not trying to say my lack of religious beliefs is better than anything else.

What's the matter? Cat bite your tongue? Name me a good example of a christian nation. Speaking of theocratic government.. lets talk about Iran...

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by gamenaught
"Because of the prudent macro economic policies, Uganda has recorded an impressive economic performance over the last decade "

Well, since Christianity has sweeped through the country, the people there now have a much better sense of how to govern their country PROPERLY.

But enough about Uganda.

I'll be back. . .

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


Well, since Christianity has sweeped through the country, the people there now have a much better sense of how to govern their country PROPERLY.

Actually not true. The fastest growing religion in the country is Islam. And allowing the LRA to massacre a bunch of people because of an epdemic of army corruption is running a country properly? One million internally displaced people is running a country properly? Oh please.

[The Vagabond]

But what about legalizing two equal-right variants of the Pledge: the present one, and the one that omits the words "under God"? Just leave it up to each individual to decide which variant of the Pledge (s)he wants to pronounce. As simple as that.

[Mr. Harley]

Fine for adults - still coercive to children. You don't think it happens - in the 1980's I was in WV and the local middle school required parents to send a note to keep children out of the local fundamentalist Bible class. Yes, this was a PUBLIC school. Want to try to be a kid who does the "godless" version in that kind of community, especially when you are already one of the damned polytheist/animists sorts?

[Dis]

If I understand it right, Under god was not in the original. I don't see what the issue is.

Those words should go away. There is no issue here. Nothing more to discuss.

[Giancarlo]

Yup. Under God has been in the Pledge and in currency since the mid 1950s... it was either instated by the Truman or Eisenhower adminstration, I can't remember which.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Well, then. Which specific religion endorses this belief?

Judaism's offshoot called Christianity. It was Christians who put it in, and their religion is the dominant religion in this country. But does it matter? No, the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Not a specific religion, just religion. Furthermore, asking children to stand up and affirm a religious belief they or their parents disagree with violates their religious freedom.

Curious. One would think that earning your livelihood In God We Trust, would be a far greater affirmation of religious belief.

Why? I don't make any affirmation of religion when I make money. I make money and I spend it all without anyone asking me to stand before others and affirm their religious views...

That would be a specific endorsement of Satan, over other gods.

And the pledge is a specific endorsement of "God" over other gods. How about "one nation, under the gods"?

Hey, if a Mennonite wants to become a citizen from the US, he has to swear an oath of allegience to the state. Same with Jews, conflicting their oath with Israel.

If that oath includes a pledge of allegiance to someone else's god, it violates the establishment clause and their religious freedom. The pledge is not about allegiance to this nation, it's about pledging allegiance to this nation under God.

By this logic, any oath could be struck down as violating freedom of religion and the establishment clause.

Yup, that's true if the oath has a religious element. Even Jesus told his followers to avoid taking oaths. Strange we find Christians supporting this pledge. Of course he also warned against public prayer and that sure doesn't stop many Christians from...you guessed it...praying in public...

Instead, we have the rather more careful standard that prevents the oath from endorsing any one particular religion over another.

That isn't in the 1st Amendment.

Again, which religion are the selling. The establishment clause does not mean religion ought to be expunged from the public realm, but rather, that you do not have an establish church of America, as the Church of England would be in Britain.

Religion isn't being expunged from the public realm if the pledge is ruled unconstitutional, coercing children into affirming religious beliefs they or their parents reject is at issue. But I'm sure the Church of England required people to pledge allegiance to God too just as the Romans once required Christians to pledge allegiance to Rome and it's gods.

Is the child asked if she is an atheist? No. False analogy.

The analogy was to show the coercive nature of the pledge. If a Christian judge was asking people whose fate the judge has control over if they are Christians, those people would see the potential of negative consequences should they say they are not Christian just as children would see the potential negative consequences of refusing to take the pledge when asked by the teacher.

I pity the child caught up in the battle between her father and the government. She is being used as a pawn.

The father and child wouldn't be in that position if the state was staying out of the parent-child relationship. If we go down your path, then the state can interfere with religious folk who want to raise their children within that religion.

The constitution is rather clear on this matter.

Yes it is, too bad these judges have vision blurred by political expediency. The Constitution was, among other things, designed to prevent majority rule and the SCOTUS will ignore that design to appease the majority.

Then why were most of the Founders Christians? How did they reconcile this conflict? I would think my opinion is supported by numerous Supreme Court Justices.

What conflict? Does being a Christian require coercing other people's children into affirming Christian beliefs? Hell, the federal government didn't even get involved with education until recently. So why would the Founders need to resolve such a conflict? Well, they did have a similar conflict - and their solution? No religious test to hold office.

[Berzerker]

It is ironic that a socialist authored the original pledge.

[Mr. Harley]

Berzerker, excellent point by point refutation.

Note (threadjack warning!): It's not ironic that a socialist authored the pledge at all. Socialism is one of those things that comes under the "wonderful idea" category but it requires a consistant level of altruism that will never exist in anything except a select small population. That's why it has problems once you try applying it much past the village or religious community setting. In fact the pledge, with it's implied communal underpinnings, is very consistant with socialist beliefs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Parents aren't legal guardians? If there is a problem, it's that the kid's mother is the legal guardian, but frankly, that shouldn't prevent the court from ruling since he merely represents people who don't want the state indoctrinating their children into someone else's religion viewpoint.

Legal guardian means little for the purposes of standing in this case. There is no evidence that the child has a problem with the current pledge. Only the father has a problem with it and is using the child as a pawn. So, no, I don't think the father has any standing whatsoever.

--

And, of course, it seems 'under God' will be upheld (again) because you can always refuse to say it. After all, anyone that has ever been in a primary school knows that 90% of the kids standing to say the pledge are simply mumbling gibberish and aren't saying the words anyway.

[Mr. Harley]

Imran, the child may not be being used as a pawn. I got to hear some interveiw data with both the father and the mother, and the entire issue of religion may very well be central to why they broke up. It may even be why he lost custody. He is a devout aetheist, please note that a true aetheist has faith in a unprovable and in fact unknowable premise. The ex-girlfriend has become a fundamentalist Christian, to the point that she is not worried about legal bills because, roughly paraphrasing, "God has always provided, and he always will."

Even though they were very good on their interviews about not bringing the other one into it, their current paradigms are mutually unresolvable. It evidently evolved over time (she said she wasn't "walking with Christ" when they had a child out of wedlock) and they went from joint custody to sole custody. I have heard of very few parents who went to the trouble to get joint custody voluntarily surrendering it, so again via supposition she moved for sole custody.

Why did she get it? That we don't know. As I said, their differences on this are so irreconcilable that I am hardly surprised that she moved for sole custody, given his beliefs she MUST believe he is damned until he accepts Christ into his life. You had to hear her, she and BK could compare notes. Since this MUST be a central bone of contention between the parents, and one they obviously cannot agree on, then for him to see the state further indoctrinating his child, telling his child that his ex is correct, has to be especially galling. He wants a level playing field of some sort with his child. I may disagree with his faith, but I cannot blame him. This fight has drained off most of his finances/time also. Two people with unshakable, controdictory faiths should NEVER sleep with each other.

[Rogan Josh]

One implication I read from the article, is that there is no religious education in American public schools?

Is this true?

How do American kids learn the differences between Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Budhism, Hindi etc if it is not allowed to be taught in schools?

Perhaps we are seeing the root of the US's foreign policy problems...

[Mr. Harley]

Rogan Josh, unfortuately you have had a hideous convergence of the right and the left. The left in the interest of being PC (politically correct) has largely sanitized our history books, so things like the Crusades are dealt with in only three paragraphs in many Word Civilization History texts. They try to teach the Crusades without any discussion of religion.

Plus your conservative groups are now agressively vetting school books in Texas, which is one of the two largest school systems in the US. Nobody publishing school books wants to offend them, and that, combined with the PC police, means that you cannot say anything negative about anybody, you cannot say anything positive about non-Christians, and the whole fubar results in melba-toast history.

Add in a general lack of serious testing (for college entrance and/or hs graduation - there are a couple of exceptions) for History, Georgraphy, and anything serious about foreign cultures, and you have a largely ignorant population that is perfectly happy to stay that way. Plus you have the rich tradition of jingoism in the US, and until 9/11 Americans felt they were largely immune to what happens in the rest of the world. Unfortunately our executive branch is still reacting along the jingoism/America is best mode, instead of understanding may of the deep historical and sociological currents altering and stressing the world right now.

By the way, how bad is it? About 20 years ago one of our weekly news magazines reported that most Americans could not name all the coutries that made up NATO. That day a pair of air ambulance pilots were at the FAA facility I was at, and one was this REALLY cute girl I was interested in. Well, the only mistake I made in all of Europe was transposing Bulgaria and Romania. The captain got all of Nato except Greece, and couldn't identify any Soviet bloc countries except Poland. The girl could not even identify Portugal and Italy - I think the only ones she could identify were France, Germany, and England. My shocked expression totally queered what little chance I had.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And, of course, it seems 'under God' will be upheld (again) because you can always refuse to say it. After all, anyone that has ever been in a primary school knows that 90% of the kids standing to say the pledge are simply mumbling gibberish and aren't saying the words anyway.

I'm rather at a loss in seeing how the Pledge is less coercive than the graduation prayer that was struck down a decade ago.