Pledge of Allegiance Case Takes Center Stage at SCOTUS

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

Pledge ain't a prayer, as one Justice put it. And, personally, I think the courts have gone WAAAY too far in saying that individuals who have a graduation speech can't mention God.

[GePap]

Originally posted by 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...

Public schools do not do theology classes, which is really the only way they would know the differences between each of those religions. Anyone who speaks about religious education means teahcing biblical precepts in school, invariably in this country Christian.

The pledge in its original form sounds better. Simply for aesthetic reasons "under God" should be purged.

[Boris Godunov]

Just restore the Pledge to its original form, what's the problem? It's common knowledge that the "under God" bit was added in the 1950s during the anti-Communist hysteria. How could returning it to its original form hurt anyone?

[GePap]

You'll hurt God's feelings. That and those dirty aethists get to pledge their alliegence to the flag without having to lie..can't have that.

[DinoDoc]

This whole debate seems to be focusing on what is at worst a rather de minimis wrong.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This whole debate seems to be focusing on what is at worst a rather de minimis wrong.

Yeah, just let the original ruling stand and kick it out. and then remind students of the 1943 ruling, and poof, done.

[DinoDoc]

But that would mean accepting a legal arguement for the 9th. Something the Justices don't seem likely to do. Also I'm not even sure if the guy has standing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
But that would mean accepting a legal arguement for the 9th. Something the Justices don't seem likely to do. Also I'm not even sure if the guy has standing.

Well, the justices need to take a chill pill and go duck hunting with Cheney more-maybe Ginsburg will have a "missfire" and hit dick in the nuts.

[DinoDoc]

What's your opinion on the standing issue, GePap?

[GePap]

Don't care.

[DinoDoc]

It does have more than a little bearing on this case.

[GePap]

And? I still don't care. I think the arguement is correct to get rid of it-I don't expect this court to do it anyways.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This whole debate seems to be focusing on what is at worst a rather de minimis wrong.

Indeed. Tell the plaintiff/respondent to stuff it. Not only is it de minimis, but 'under God' has undertaken aspects of civic affirmation.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How could returning it to its original form hurt anyone?

Most first world countries manage to do quite nicely without tricking kids into swearing an oath every day. Bah.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not only is it de minimis, but 'under God' has undertaken aspects of civic affirmation.

Not to atheists, Imran.