Pledge of Alligiance - Unconstitutional?

[Dr Strangelove]

There was an interview of Newdon on the evening news. He candidly admitted that he intends to remove any mention of God from the money and public buildings (such as the US Senate, the Lincoln Memorial, etc.)

[civman2000]

! It's about time!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
There was an interview of Newdon on the evening news. He candidly admitted that he intends to remove any mention of God from the money and public buildings (such as the US Senate, the Lincoln Memorial, etc.)

Sounds like he needs to get a life.....even a low one.

[Guynemer]

For Civman2000:

[DinoDoc]

Ahem!

I smell an urban legend.

[Guynemer]

Dino, somehow I doubt this meets your request, but here's the source: http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/news/file004.html

[DinoDoc]

I was hoping for something more substantial than the American Atheist. I call BS especially given the fact that they are the only source for the quote.

[Guynemer]

Well, given that it was apparently a private exchange not overheard by anyone, we'll never know for sure. I don't think he made it up; the quote seems in character for Bush the Elder.

Regardless, it was sort of a non-sequitir reply to Lincoln's own non-sequitir with the cartoon. (sequitir? sequiter?)


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.)

[Sprayber]

Apparently the judge doesn't have much faith in his decision. I wonder if they ever get tired of being in the minority on an issue and being over turned?

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A day after he flabbergasted the nation by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a federal appeals court judge put his ruling on hold indefinitely Thursday. Meanwhile, Attorney General John Ashcroft ( news - web sites) said the government will seek a rehearing.

More below

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20020628/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance_31

[Guynemer]

I ran across an interesting quote today, from Eisenhower on the inclusion of "under God" into the Pledge. I'm just itching to find out what the pro-Pledge folks think of it. Here's what he said:

"...millions of our school children will daily proclaim... the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

Hopefully, DinoDoc, the Detroit Free Press qualifies as a "credible paper" in your view: http://www.freep.com/news/metro/dicker28_20020628.htm

I'm still interested in hearing whether you think the phrase belongs in the Pledge, regardless of its constitutionality.

[Lincoln]

The phrase "under God" is simply a generic affirmation of the declaration of independence. Our chief founding document and its signing is celebrated every year. The signing of the constitution is not. In the Declaration Of Independence we find that our rights are not granted by the governmen but that everyone is "endowed by their Creator" with certain rights. Take away this precept and you destory the foundation of this republic which is based not upon government granting rights but unaleinable rights that government cannot take away.

If atheists win this battle then they have destroyed the rights and put them into the hands of any fickle government that may arise. This is why both Democrats and Republicans and in fact almost the entire nation is outraged. This is touching the very foundation of freedom as John Locke so thouroughly explained.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Hopefully, DinoDoc, the Detroit Free Press qualifies as a "credible paper" in your view:

It rates higher that the American Atheist and Madalyn O'Hare.

I'm still interested in hearing whether you think the phrase belongs in the Pledge, regardless of its constitutionality.

Personally, I don't care if it is in there or not. I just feel that the legislative branch would be the proper place to seek redress. From the start I've been more concerned about the legal aspects of the decision.

Now could you tell me what makes the Star Spangled Banner substantively different from the Pledge, given that you feel that one is permissible and the other isn't?

[DinoDoc]

Lincoln does bring up an interesting point. Would you find a teacher posting a copy of the Declaration Of Independence in his/her classroom to be permissible under the legal theory espoused by this decision? Why/Why not?

[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. His belief that this will "destroy" are rights are, at best, hyperbolic and histrionic.

As for posting it in a classroom, it all depends on the context. In an American History class it would be absolutely ridiculous to not study it; putting it on the wall would be appropriate. (You might be interested to know that I have a copy of it on my wall too.) But in any other situation, it just seems unnecessary and not worth the trouble.

Surely you recognize how different the Pledge is from the Declaration; there really is no comparasion.


Re: the Star-Spangled Banner... as I said, I (like Boris) have never, EVER, heard any stanza but the first sung or spoken aloud. Apparently, some people (Dr. S.) have had a different experience (criminy, it must take 10 minutes to do all four stanzas). Yes, I find fourth stanza objectionable. There are millions of religious people in this country who don't believe in a big "G" God. There are millions more who don't believe in any god, period. What, pray tell, is wrong with removing these specific references to the Abrahamic God, so that our entire nation can be included?

I know you do not figure in their number, DinoDoc, but lots of folks think that those of us who take up this cause are un-American and unpatriotic, simply because we are not Christian. These government-approved references to God feed those prejudices, and thus weaken our country.

[Roland]

"Take away this precept and you destory the foundation of this republic which is based not upon government granting rights but unaleinable rights that government cannot take away."

You can have inalienable natural rights on an agnostic or atheist basis. I also doubt the effectiveness of the Declaration in limiting your government.