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

[Jack the Bodiless]

That research will lead to the fact that 'God' is not a forbidden word in public or private.

Of course it isn't. Nor are casual references to the sock-drawer goblin.

Reagan's astrologer springs to mind here.

[Roland]

"And that means what exactly?
In plain langauge, if you please."

That was plain for legalese standards.

Government shall not establish religion. Not just against people who believe something else, but also those who believe nothing.

Item for the freedom clause: Free exercise of religion means that I also have the right to exercise NO religion at all.

Same for free speech: If Congress passed a law that you have to say "I praise Jesse Helms", it violates your freedom NOT to say what you do NOT want to say.

[Lincoln]

No one "has" to say anything Roland.

[Jack the Bodiless]

No one "has" to say anything Roland.

I saw that one coming...

It was an analogy.

Freedom of speech means no one has to say anything.

Freedom of religion means no one has to be religious.

[Roland]

"No one "has" to say anything Roland."

Did I say someone "has" to say something ?

rule: "freedom NOT to say what you do NOT want to say."

If nobody is compelled, fine. If somebody is compelled, it's a violation. I haven't applied the rule to the "pledge" case, or have I ?

Just says that if there were a law that people have to say that pledge (with or without religious reference), it would be a violation of freedom of speech.

[Chris 62]

So Roland, let me put the question to you directly:

Is the pledge, with the phrase "under god", a violation of the first amendment, seeing that your not:

a) Compelled to say "undergod"
b) Compelled to say the pledge at all

[Roland]

IMO: no compulsion, no violation.

And as I said earlier, I do not think that the link between the government and the leading teacher (I assume the teacher leads the pledge?) amounts to "establishment".

[Chris 62]

This is all I was saying all along, your not compelled to say it, how can the first amendment be invoked?

Whether you believe in religion or not, to argue that "under god" is a constitutional violation simply isn't so, and here he see a neutral third party also subscribes to that interpretation, as long as it's clearly indicated that saying it is not compulsury.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Carver
The little girl is a minor. Thus, her opinions and religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are irrelevant. If the father doesn't want his child saying "under God" in school that is his right.

I agree.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Roland
IMO: no cumpulsion, no violation.

And as I said earlier, I do not think that the link between the government and the leading teacher (I assume the teacher leads the pledge?) amounts to "establishment".

No problem then. Next thread...

[Jack the Bodiless]

The mere existence of the words in the pledge causes the pledge to violate the principle of government neutrality towards religion, IF the pledge is deemed to be "official" (IIRC, that was a consequence of the 1954 intervention by Congress into its wording). Because it's a pledge, not a historical document.

Of course, this still leaves the issue of whether the conventional interpretation of the First Amendment as "government neutrality towards religion" is binding.

There is also the issue of compulsion. There is precedent for SCOTUS to rule that social pressure constitutes "compulsion", as they ruled for prayers before football matches.

[Jack the Bodiless]

...In fact, what use is a pledge without social compulsion? A pledge is a deliberate attempt to invoke social compulsion.

A pledge which nobody is even expected to make?

[Roland]

" There is also the issue of compulsion. There is precedent for SCOTUS to rule that social pressure constitutes "compulsion", as they ruled for prayers before football matches."

Well the conclusion then is to uphold the non-compulsion rule, not to deem the pledge as such unconstitutional.

"A pledge which nobody is even expected to make?"

I see that more like fashion trends.

[Ned]

I think this case needs to go immediately to the Supreme Court. We have God all over our Declaration of Independence, our money, our oaths of office, our oaths in court and in our Pledge of Allegience. The founding fathers could not have intended the interpretation currently given the First Amendment by the Supremes that we be free from religion, per se, or the Ninth Circuit's variation: Monotheism. There is something fundamentally flawed with Supreme Court jurisprudence on this issue - it has nothing to do with "compulsion."

[Jack the Bodiless]

Well, the Founding Fathers didn't put God on the money. Nor did they put it in the Presidential oath. Nor did they put it anywhere in the Constitution. Or the pledge.

But it keeps creeping in regardless.

So what's the basis for the assumption that they "could not have intended the interpretation currently given the First Amendment"? Especially as they DID make clear (albeit in a separate document) that "the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion"?

But I certainly agree that it should go immediately to the Supreme Court.