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

[Jack the Bodiless]

I have no problem with mentioning God, Lincoln.

God.

GOD.

GOD.

...Nope, not a twinge.

But a requirement, compulsion, expectation or inducement, on behalf of govenment, for citizens to pledge allegiance to a deity is another matter entirely.

It becomes a state religion at that point. A fuzzily-defined one, but everybody knows which God we're talking about here.

Of course, it's the majority one. The one that everybody "should" worship.

[Lincoln]

You again twist the truth. No one is pledging allegiance to any diety.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Pledging allegiance to "one nation under God".

Doesn't that suggest rather strongly that there's a national deity "up there"?

To make this pledge with honesty and integrity, you are required to believe that much.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Besisdes, the history of the pledge speaks against you, Lincoln.

That WAS the intent of the 1954 amendment. As admitted by those who made it.

[Lincoln]

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic
for which it stands (yes it really is a republic) ; one nation (yes it really is one nation) under God (yes it really is under God), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all (well I don’t know about this part).

So the pledge is a pledge to the flag (or the nation). The other statements are just statements of fact. One of those facts is that our founding documents were based upon the reasoning that there is a God (i.e. under God). Why would you want to censor history?

[Jac de Molay]

But a requirement, compulsion, expectation or inducement, on behalf of govenment, for citizens to pledge allegiance to a deity is another matter entirely.

Please take the time to understand the history and evolution of the Pledge. The only thing even remotely close to the pledge being a "requirement, compulsion, expection or inducement" is the fact that the Pledge was added to the United States Flag Code (tltle 36) in 1942. These are not a set of compulsory laws, but a set of etiquettes and protocols in regards to displaying the flag. The title itself stipulates that these are only a set of patriotic customs, and not enforceable laws.

Dave

[Jack the Bodiless]

Then it would say "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation believed by many to be under a God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".

That is undisputed FACT, Lincoln (except for your own reservations about the ending).

But you rather gave yourself away with "yes it really is under God". That is not a pledge that an atheist can honestly make.

In the pledge, it doesn't matter what anyone else believes (or believed). A pledge is a statement of what the pledger believes.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by DetroitDave Please take the time to understand the history and evolution of the Pledge. The only thing even remotely close to the pledge being a "requirement, compulsion, expection or inducement" is the fact that the Pledge was added to the United States Flag Code (tltle 36) in 1942. These are not a set of compulsory laws, but a set of etiquettes and protocols in regards to displaying the flag. The title itself stipulates that these are only a set of patriotic customs, and not enforceable laws.

Dave

The "law establishing religion" was the law that changed the pledge (though I agree that a LAW which changes a voluntary pledge is a somewhat odd concept).

The actual recitation of the pledge is theoretically voluntary, but with considerable "expection or inducement" at best.

[Lincoln]

Yes it is a nation under God in a philosophical sense. There is no compulsion to believe in God even in those who choose to say the pledge.

[Chris 62]

I keep reading the same things over and over.

Several people have pointed out it's not illeagal to say under god in the pledge, but the main crux of the other side continues to be "IT MUST GO BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT!

Sorry, that is not an acceptable proposition.

[Lincoln]

You cannot escape the fact that our nation was based upon the reasoning of theists who incorporated their views in the founding documents. One of their views was that there should be no established church. The phrase 'under God' recognizes that fact as well.

[Jac de Molay]

I keep reading the same things over and over.

Me too. Which is why I'm trying to say that the SCUSA will strike down the 9th's ruling on the basis that the Pledge was never established as a law enforceable by any penalty whatsoever. It is an oath that is buried within the United States Flag Code, which is nothing more than a set of guidelines on etiquette and handling of the US Flag.

This is the standard by which the court will judge.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Yes it is a nation under God in a philosophical sense. There is no compulsion to believe in God even in those who choose to say the pledge.

No, it is NOT "a nation under God in a philosophical sense".

There is no compulsion to believe in God even in those who choose to say the pledge.

No, if they choose to say the pledge, they can lie through their teeth.

It is a loyalty pledge, Lincoln!

Don't you think those who mangled it in 1954 knew exactly what they were doing, and why?

Do you prefer to believe that Eisenhower was lying about the motive?

You cannot escape the fact that our nation was based upon the reasoning of theists who incorporated their views in the founding documents. One of their views was that there should be no established church. The phrase 'under God' recognizes that fact as well.

Exactly: no established church. Actually, no establishment of religion: that is precisely what the First Amendment says.

"Establishment" has a specific meaning when applied to religions. It means official recognition, an association between the religion and the state. It says nothing about compulsion.

For instance, the UK has an "established" religion: Anglicanism. Some want to disestablish it. Religious conservatives are opposed to that: they are known as "antidisestablishmentarianists".

Establishment was considered dangerous by the Founding Fathers because it might lead to religious persecution, and would inevitably lead to favoritism at the very least. They wished to nip it in the bud.

The First Amendment prohibition is triggered by any attempt to "establish religion". Any attempt to give official recognition or approval to ANY form of religion. Any attempt to say "yes, that set of beliefs is American".

[Jack the Bodiless]

Let me try to break it down further:

"Congress shall pass no law"

(measure passed by Congress on June 14, 1954: a law)

"respecting"

(regarding, with respect to, in relation to)

"an establishment of religion"

(a state recognition of religion, such as a specific state-endorsed religious oath. Its stated purpose: "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.").

Now, how can this possibly NOT constitute a violation of the First Amendment?

I can see only one potential loophole: that the 1954 change not be deemed a "law". When is an Act of Congress not a law?

[DinoDoc]

Ahem.

Originally posted by Ned
Courts can only hear cases in which there is an injured party, and if there is no injury there is no grounds for a case, said Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor who follows the 9th Circuit.

Wasn't this obvious from the start given the fathers repeated statements that the girl never complained about the pledge? Why wasn't that an issue at trial or was it the reason that the case was thrown back in Newdow's face originally?