Pledge of Alligiance - Unconstitutional?

[Imran Siddiqui]

IIRC, Virginia forces its schools to have the pledge (this occured fairly recently - i.e. within the past couple years). I wouldn't be surprised if a number of other states do as well.

Ok, but I guarentee you then, every challenge has been defeated in the courts. Why? Because saying 'under God' in a Pledge who's main object is non-religious is not in anyway an establishment of a state sanctioned religion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, another example. States that teach Creationism aren't violating the 1st Amendment, because that isn't an establishment of religion.

[Ramo]

The McCarthyists seemed to make a big deal about that addition.

[Ramo]

States that teach Creationism aren't violating the 1st Amendment, because that isn't an establishment of religion.

That's absurd, regardless of what SCOTUS thinks!

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Imran:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher

It's already been ruled.

It's the appeals to put it back in that will tie up the courts.

Besides, why can't we just change it to "Satan" so everyone is equally offended, da?

Say Asher, as a Canadian you're not in much of a position to pass judgement on another country's seperation of church and state. Doesn't your country give public funding to schools of just one religion but deny funding to schools run by any other religion?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Vlad, that's a District Court Decision in 1981. Can I see the Appeals ruling on that?

That's absurd, regardless of what SCOTUS thinks!

That's what you think. I don't think it is absurd at all. The 1st Amendment strictly prohibits 'establishment' of religion. Teaching creationism requires great streaching of the 1st Amendment to be called establishment of religion.

[Ramo]

Teaching creationism requires great streaching of the 1st Amendment to be called establishment of religion.

Why?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because teaching something has nothing to do with making it a state supported position. If that were the case then every university in the US would be guilty of trying to establish religion.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Couldn't find an appeals ruling, but I could find a SCOTUS ruling on creationism. It's regarding a different case (Louisiana's pro-creationism statute), though.

Here it is:

http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/edwards_v_aguillard.html

[DinoDoc]

I still haven't seen a satisfactory explination of how this violates either the Establishment or Free Exercise clauses given the fact that the child wasn't put under pressure to recite it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And Shinto.

Plus freedom of religion means the freedom not to have a religion...

In Shinto the Emporer is a god!

[Imran Siddiqui]

vlad:

(a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what they choose and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence." Forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education.

It doesn't say teaching creationism is unconstitutional. It says that this act did not do it right (because it bans teaching evolution until creationism is taught).

[Ramo]

Because teaching something has nothing to do with making it a state supported position.

If the state forces teachers to teach that position, it certainly does.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I disagree totally. It has nothing to do with establishing a state religion. You are still free to worship as you wish, since it is not forced upon you.