Pledge of Alligiance - Unconstitutional?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Despite Lincoln's assertion, an astute student of law such as yourself DinoDoc knows that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing whatsoever.

I was not refering to his contention regarding rights. He brought up the Declaration of Independence and under Newdow's theory it would seem like it would be illegal to post it in a public classroom. I could just as easily brought up the fact that the SCOTUS (and presumably other US Courts) begins its sessions with the words, "God save the United States and this honorable court!" or that Christmas is a federal holiday.

[Jack the Bodiless]

"The creator" could refer to abiogenesis/evolution.

More importantly, however, the Declaration is a historical document. It isn't something that modern people are expected to "swear".

The intent of this McCarthyite reform is clear. After the alteration, it became impossible to swear allegiance to the United States of America in the approved fashion without affirming a religious belief. To those who say otherwise: c'mon, who do you think you're kidding?

The intent was to make atheism "un-American". And that is clearly a violation of the intent of the First Amendment. The Senate's reason for not accepting it as such is that they want to get re-elected. It's this sort of democratic "tyranny of the majority" that the Constitution was designed to prevent.

And it has failed.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The intent of this McCarthyite reform is clear. After the alteration, it became impossible to swear allegiance to the United States of America in the approved fashion without affirming a religious belief. To those who say otherwise: c'mon, who do you think you're kidding?

McCarthy had nothing to do with it. The organization that pushed it was known for drinking, much like McCarthy, though.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The intent was to make atheism "un-American".

Let's be honest with ourselves here, Jack. No one is forced to say the pledge and ostracism of the girl didn't happen according to the father. So, where is the violation acording to previous case law?

[Guynemer]

Well Dino, it shouldn't surprise you that I don't think the Court should start with that declaration, or that Christimas should be a federal holiday.

I think people should be able to take whatever religious observance they so choose. Most people would take Christmas off. No problem. But it shouldn't be a government mandated thing. Jewish government employees should be able to take Yom Kippur off and work on Christmas. The government shouldn't say, "No one come into work today because this is the birthday of a man around whom revolves the biggest religion in the country."

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Let's be honest with ourselves here, Jack. No one is forced to say the pledge and ostracism of the girl didn't happen according to the father. So, where is the violation acording to previous case law?

This has already been proven to be wrong. Many students ARE forced to say the Pledge. Yes, that is illegal, but it happens all the time, and no one does anything about it.

Maybe this particular girl was not ostracized, but do you doubt that there aren't many such children in the country who ARE ostracized, but don't have the resources to bring this lawsuit?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Guynemer
The government shouldn't say, "No one come into work today because this is the birthday of a man around whom revolves the biggest religion in the country."

"Who may or may not have existed, anyway. And it's not really the day he was supposedly born, but rather a pagan Roman festival they adapted for the purpose..."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Guynemer
This has already been proven to be wrong.

No it hasn't. It is black letter Constitutional law that people can not be compeled to recite the pledge. IIRC, it was the Jehova's Witnesses that brought the case that stopped the practice.

Now if a student is being forced to recite the pledge, he/she has a valid cause of action for a lawsuit.

I'm half inclined to invoke a de minimus arguement and be done with it.

[Fitz]

Back to the topic at hand, you say you agree with Imran. Can I take it to mean, then, that while you don't think that it is unconstitutional, you acknowledge the fact that "under God" shouldn't be in Pledge anyway? (Which is Imran's stance.)

If that really is Imran's stance, even I may agree with him. Despite my arguing of semantics of a constitutional clause with him, I'm not really sure that specific clause (ie Congress shall pass no laws ...) really applies in this case. I was just jumping in because it seemed like no one had cared to correct his blatantly absurd interpretation of that clause.

I don't think including the phrase under God in the pledge is unconstitutional, but I certainly think it shouldn't be there, for precisely the same basic reason as those who are trying to argue it's unconstitutionality. It strongly implies monotheistic religion is what the U.S. stands for.

I don't think the pledge should exist at all either, but that's a completely different argument.

By the way, only the strongest minded children are going to refuse to take the pledge. Children are easily coerced, especially by peer preasure.

I refused to take the pledge for 8 years (1984 - 1992) in two different schools, both of which did the pledge over the P.A. system, in California. Every year I got into a raging argument with the teacher because I refused to take the pledge and they tried to tell me I had to stand up and say the pledge, despite the fact that the law in California (since 1982 I believe) says I didn't have to. I objected to doing it becuase: 1) of the phrase under God; and 2) because I was a British citizen not a U.S. Citizen.

For at least a month after the beginning of the school year every year, I was heckled by other children for this, and typically would get into 2-3 fights because of this specific issue.

I persevered anyway, and I wasn't even sure until recently that I actually had a right to refuse to say the pledge. No one ever told me that, and every teacher always implied that I had to do it, and had no choice in the matter.

I did finally start standing for the pledge (but not saying it) for the last four years of this experience after a teacher pointed out that it showed respect for the flag. And standing for the national anthem in public locations too.

So don't try to tell me about "the right not to say the pledge"! I experienced what happens to those who try to refuse, and I don't want anyone else to experience it. And this was in Los Angeles, California, supposedly one of the more "liberal" bastions.

BAN THE PLEDGE!

Edit: Lincoln, great picture, and all I can say to it is thank the lack of a God I won't be going to heaven if it really exists.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


No it hasn't. It is black letter Constitutional law that people can not be compeled to recite the pledge. IIRC, it was the Jehova's Witnesses that brought the case that stopped the practice.

Now if a student is being forced to recite the pledge, he/she has a valid cause of action for a lawsuit.

I think you misinterpreted me... cuz that's exactly what I said. Legally, kids can't be forced to say it, but many are forced anyway. They have no idea that they can't be forced to say it, and even if they did know that, many wouldn't know what to do about it.

I'm half inclined to invoke a de minimus arguement and be done with it.

I'm half inclined to look up what a de minimus arguement is, 'cuz I'm at sea with that one. (I'm med, not law, remember. )

[Guynemer]

Oh, and what Fitz said. It echoes back to my experience with the Christian choir.

I'm still waiting for the pro-"under God" response to the Eisenhower quote...

[DinoDoc]

I'm half inclined to look up what a de minimus arguement is

From the dissent in this case:

"Legal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that 'under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress somebody's beliefs is so minuscule as to be de minimis. The danger that phrase presents to our First Amendment freedoms is picayune at most"

[Guynemer]

Whatever happened to standing up for the principle of the thing? I don't think it's the be-all end-all of our religious freedom either, but surely people are allowed to argue that we should at least attempt to live up to our lofty freedoms?

[Fitz]

The danger that it will bring about a theocracy: None

The level of indication of some people's desire to move towards a theocracy: High

The danger that it will supress someone's beliefs: Low

The danger that it will unduely influence a child's beliefs in his formative years due to rote repetition: High

It's the same reason most people who go to church as children tend to have strong faith. They are bombarded by propaganda in their formative years. It's the same reason that I am a weak athiest and have faith in the scientific method. I was bombarded by the concepts (by my parents) during my formative years.

[Ramo]

It was guarenteed in the age of the Puritans too,

Not true. Laws were passed that decriminalized Catholicism (but still lots of Catholic persecution was going on), but religious freedom wasn't guaranteed. Hell, Jews were still banned from England until after Cromwell took power.

but the Official Church persecuted them just the same. You don't think the government persecuted the Puritans do you?

If England had freedom of religion, persecution would've been a non-issue. Period.

It's quite simple, really. Why fear religious persecution due to a state church if you already Constitutionally guarantee freedom of religion?

If freedom of religion could be usurped, so too could Constitutional protections against a state church.

No it hasn't. Many states have forbidden after-school prayer sessions

Source?

(which would be wrong, because it would be a law against religion, right?).

Yep.