New twist to pledge case. Little girl wanted to say 'under God'. Dad used her.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Ok. So the next question is, is this custom somehow state-sponsored ?

IIRC, it was a Jehova's Witness brought a SCOTUS case that brought an end to State compulsion to say the Pledge. So, other than it being an offical pledge, I'd have to say no.

[Roland]

Absent legal compulsion, the government could still be seen sponsoring it through social compulsion or material support.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Aeson
Do you feel that the government should promote one form of religious expression in the classroom over others? If not, then how can the words 'under God' be officially promoted in the Pledge and not the words that would express other belief systems (not dealing with God) as well?

Over another?
Not believing in God is not a religion.

Not trying to preclude saying 'under God'. Just saying that official wording shouldn't favor one religious set of ideals over another.

Atheism isn't a religion, andthere fore you cannot say your right to religious expression is being infringed upon.

Well thanks for answering anyways.

I always answer when people are willing to talk.

The Pledge itself is a ritual.

It's a matter of degree.
Would you say that killing is the same as saying two words?

Again, not precluding them. Just not promoting them as official wording of the Pledge. There is a difference.

Worring about "offical' words to an unoffical pledge seems somewhat od, doesn't it?

Again, not disallowing you to say what you will. Just having official wording of the Pledge not favor one belief system over another.

Atheism is not a belief system, it is NOT a religion.

The official wording does show favoritism to those who believe in God though correct? They can recite the Pledge without having to deviate from it. Those who don't believe in God do not have a Pledge officially worded for them to say.

They need only say the pledge without the words.
Either way, one side will be disatisfied, there is no middle ground here.

The other side of the coin would be to change the official wording to express my beliefs (or any other belief system), and allow everyone else just drop that phrase. This is not what I am saying. Everyone would be equally treated by removing 'under God' and allowing each individual to express their views in that slot. Everyone is not equally treated as it is.

I disagree, by removing it you are forcing me to say that god plays no part, something that the theist side refuses to accept.

Neither the majority's rights, nor the minority's rights need to be stomped on here. Everyone can be treated equally (concerning this issue) by just dropping the words 'under God' and allowing everyone to say what they will in that slot.

It already is that way, the court ruling eliminated the freedom to say "under god" in several states, and therefore infringed the first amendment.

Aye, and in others it is not as simple.

Yet still not satisfactory.

It would be jumping to a conclusion to assume otherwise. I just took your statement literally. How else should it be taken until you explain otherwise?

That is obvious, usage of common sense.
If you go through life taking everything literally, you would live in a very strage world.

It would depend on the issue. The minority would have a very good case if the majority were trying to take away their rights to vote for instance. I'm not saying that would ever happen, just showing limitations of the will of the majority in our country.

Yet it is the only fair system availible.

Publicly funded schools are a part of our government. The Pledge is recited in those schools as a product of legislation. It's wording, specifically the 'under God' portion was dictated by our government, even though the Pledge itself was not a product of our government.

They most certainly ARE NOT.
Recieving funding and being part of the government are two VERY different matters.

Publicly funded schools are a part of our government. Alloting time for the recitation of oaths with religious phrases is a connection between our government and religion.

Again, they are not part of the government.
Teachers are not government employees, public schools are staffed and funded on the state and city level, NOT the federal government level.

But it is given credence by our government by alloting classtime in publicly funded schools to it's recital. The Pledge itself, without the phrase 'under God', is perfectly fine in the classroom (though I wouldn't say it myself). With the phrase 'under God' as official wording, allotting classroom time to it shows favoritism to those who believe in God. This is not something that our government should be involved in doing.

This IS NOT a discission that the federal government should be making.

And rightly so. This is about changing an area of policy that is unfair. It would be changed to something which serves the same purpose, but is evenhanded in it's approach.

Prohibiting freedom of religious expression is not evenhanded.

By removing 'under God' from the official wording, and allowing all people to add their prefered phrase in it's place (including 'under God') then everyone has the same rights concerning the issue. As it is now, the official wording does not allow everyone the same rights. Some can follow the official wording and maintain their beliefs, while others are forced to deviate from the official wording to do so. It's government dictated favoritism which could easily be done away with.

By prohibiting "under god", you are violating the first amendment rights of theists.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by JohnIII

Er, so? The fact that communists were atheists does not mean that atheists are communists, in the same way that although English people speak English, not every English-speaker is an Englishman.

To quote you Sean, Er, so?

This is relivent to the conversation in what way?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Absent legal compulsion, the government could still be seen sponsoring it through social compulsion or material support.

I can see the point regarding social compulsion. I never saw it or encounted it but a few other people on this site claim to have encountered it. But how does one provide material support to a pledge?

[Lincoln]

Roland,

Then if that were the case the president could be seen as sponsoring or supporting religion by saying "God bless America". There are two clauses in the first amendment that relate to religion. The 'free exercise' clause permits the public (including public officials) to excersie their religion in public. The limit is when that excersise becomes or supports a national church.

Religion in general has always been supported by the state by tax exemption. The idea behind that is that the geater power does not pay to the lesser. The assumption was that activities 'under God' do not need to support the state which is also subservient to God and a more or less equal partner in the government 'under God'. The entire legal system in America is based upon the authority from God and going down from there. The individual is given power because of his inherent human rights given to him by God.

Taking 'under God' from the pledge now is just silly as it is an attempt to pretend that the legal structure is not really under God. It does not have to be there of course but trying to remove it now only displays an ignorance of the legal system upon which the United States is based. So by removing the words we can have a 'don't ask, don't tell' approach to the problem.

[Roland]

"But how does one provide material support to a pledge?"

By paying for the teachers who lead it ?

"Establishment of religion" - even religion in general, is unconstitutional. The question is whether this kind of support amounts to an establishment. I wouldn't think so.

"Then if that were the case the president could be seen as sponsoring or supporting religion by saying "God bless America"."

If the President as a politician invokes god that is his problem.

If he signs official acts "in the name of god" or so, it would be another thing.

"The entire legal system in America is based upon the authority from God and going down from there. The individual is given power because of his inherent human rights given to him by God."

You can believe that, but naturally, you cannot prove that.

[Lincoln]

Read this Roland: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=397&invol=664

[Lincoln]

Here is a very brief excerpt:

Similarly, making textbooks available to pupils in parochial schools in common with public schools was surely an 'aid' to the sponsoring churches because it relieved those churches of an enormous aggregate cost [397 U.S. 664 , 672] for those books. Supplying of costly teaching materials was not seen either as manifesting a legislative purpose to aid or as having a primary effect of aid contravening the First Amendment. Board of Education of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 d 1060 (1968). In so holding the Court was heeding both its own prior decisions and our religious tradition. Mr. Justice Douglas, in Zorach v. Clauson, supra, after recalling that we 'are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being,' went on to say:

'We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. ... When the state encourages religious instruction ... it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.' 343 U.S., at 313 -314. (Emphasis added.)

This view is of course supported by Holy Trinity v. United States which was a prior decision. The latter one above was from a 1970 SC decision.

[Jack the Bodiless]

In other words, the pledge does NOT establish a religion, and by trying to prohibit the saying of "under god" your actually prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

And by requiring that atheists boil their grandmothers to make glue and grind their children into canned meat products, you are prohibiting the freedom not to HAVE a religion.

Pure silliness.
If you have a real argument, make, you still haven't.

So you've finally realized that we are NOT trying to prohibit the saying of "under God" by individuals who want to say it?

Good, maybe progress is possible.

I disagree, by removing it you are forcing me to say that god plays no part, something that the theist side refuses to accept.

...Uh, dude, nobody is forcing you to say that god plays no part. Oops.

It already is that way, the court ruling eliminated the freedom to say "under god" in several states, and therefore infringed the first amendment.

Ahem...

Prohibiting freedom of religious expression is not evenhanded.

...Hello? Anybody home?

By prohibiting "under god", you are violating the first amendment rights of theists.

...Nope, no intelligent life here.

[Chris 62]

You shouldn't have such a low opinion of yourself son.

Accept you were talking through your ass and try next time to come up with a relivent argument.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I think you guys need to coordinate a little more.

So "under God" doesn't really mean anything and isn't important, but it's important because of those nasty godless commies, and atheists have full freedom of expression and aren't un-American, but let's not forget that America is a Christian country therefore atheists can only live here because we're generous about it, and nobody has to say the pledge and anyone can invent their own words, but if we take out the 1954 addition then American civilization will collapse, and the Founding Fathers were Christian, but some were not, but they founded a Christian nation, but they said that the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion...

[Roland]

Lincoln: So ?

"You and other people can believe that, but naturally, you cannot prove that."

happy ?

[Jack the Bodiless]

You shouldn't have such a low opinion of yourself son.

Accept you were talking through your ass and try next time to come up with a relivent argument.

Uh, when was I talking through my ass?

When I said that Christians should be banned from saying "under God"?

Hmm, that must be it. Shame that I don't recall saying it, but I don't have any ears near my ass. What are your ears doing there?

Chris, believe me, you really need to get some shuteye.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I think you guys need to coordinate a little more.

So "under God" doesn't really mean anything and isn't important, but it's important because of those nasty godless commies, and atheists have full freedom of expression and aren't un-American, but let's not forget that America is a Christian country therefore atheists can only live here because we're generous about it, and nobody has to say the pledge and anyone can invent their own words, but if we take out the 1954 addition then American civilization will collapse, and the Founding Fathers were Christian, but some were not, but they founded a Christian nation, but they said that the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion...

Anything else you'd like to make up as you go along?
So far, all of this comes only form YOU.

Your a poor debater, and even worse, you attempt to create the opposing side and then decry it!

Simply amazing.