Appeals court: Pledge of Allegiance still unconstitutional

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by MRT144
whats the real harm in removing it though?

Because it's NOT a law, and it's not compulsory, despite what's been said here already. You have First amendment protection in not saying the pledge due to either religious or protest reasons. School systems are not forced to adapt it.

While were at it, we can talk about abolishing MLK day as well since it forces government offices, and some schools, to close in order to honor a religious figure. We can't have the federal government advancing the Baptist agenda now, can we?

[Sava]

Religion is and should be a private thing... and not present in any form in public schools. Go to Saudi Arabia if you want religion in your schools.

[Ned]

The US was founded in part by Europeans fleeing religious oppression at home. The oppression was impossed, not by atheists, but by state religions.

That is what the founders were trying avoid, state religion. They never intended to ban monotheism from from the state, IMHO. The founders were all monotheists.

I personally am an agnostic. However, I have no problem saying the pledge because I cannot say for certain that there is no God, or that there is no more than one God.

To say that there is no God is also a form of religion based on belief. IMO, that religion should not be imposed on the majority.

[Jack the Bodiless]

DetroitDave:

You still haven't explained why inciting religious hatred is a good thing, and removing it is a bad thing.

Where IS the harm in restoring the Pledge? Why, exactly, should this NOT be done?

Can anyone actually provide a reason?

Ned:

To say that there is no God is also a form of religion based on belief. IMO, that religion should not be imposed on the majority.

...Are we saying that the Pledge should read "one nation, under no God"?

No.

...So wouldn't it be a really good idea if the whole subject of religion wasn't brought up in this context?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
DetroitDave:

You still haven't explained why inciting religious hatred is a good thing, and removing it is a bad thing.

Where IS the harm in restoring the Pledge? Why, exactly, should this NOT be done?

Can anyone actually provide a reason?

Ned:

...Are we saying that the Pledge should read "one nation, under no God"?

No.

...So wouldn't it be a really good idea if the whole subject of religion wasn't brought up in this context?

I am saying that people who do not believe in God should not impose their views on the majority.

The jurisprudence on this issue has gone way to far. As I said, this case may create a tremendous backlash in the Supreme Court. If it does not, a constitutional amendment is almost a certainty.

[Jack the Bodiless]

From the context, I assume you mean that the majority "should" have the right to impose THEIR views on the minority, simply because they ARE the majority.

What is your usage of "should"? What moral, legal or constitutional principle makes this right?

If it's simply "might makes right", then "should" American atheists employ their constitutional right to bear arms, and use them against their oppressors? In principle, that's why they have them, right?

This way lies madness.

[Jac de Molay]

Jack-

You still haven't explained why inciting religious hatred is a good thing, and removing it is a bad thing.

I am agnostic as well, and look at it from a strict First Amendment interpretation.

- It's Not a law, like I said, and no one person, group, or school is mandated by the government to recite it. It's part of the Flag Code, which is not law.

-Anyone who is persecuted for refusing to partake in the pledge, for whatever reason, has legal recourse and protection; that's well in established in the courts. Neither can states themselves mandate that the pledge be recited: that has precedent as well though I don't have the case rule handy.

Contrary to what some people in this thread are asserting, there is no mass movement of coercing children to recite the Pledge. In the absence of this individual case, it's basically a non-issue. A lot of school systems don't use it at all.

Sava--

Religion is and should be a private thing... and not present in any form in public schools. Go to Saudi Arabia if you want religion in your schools.

I agree. That's why children of atheists/atheist students shouldn't be forced to lose a valuable day of school in order to honor someone who was, first and foremost, a religious figure. Namely, Dr. Martin King Jr.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I agree. That's why children of atheists/atheist students shouldn't be forced to lose a valuable day of school in order to honor someone who was, first and foremost, a religious figure. Namely, Dr. Martin King Jr.

Martin Luther King was not "first and foremost" a religious figure. He was, first and foremost, a civil rights campaigner. That's what he became famous for, and why the holiday exists.

And equality is the issue here also. Atheists had that, until 1954.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
Neither can states themselves mandate that the pledge be recited: that has precedent as well though I don't have the case rule handy.

The case is West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, IIRC.

[Jac de Molay]

Martin Luther King was not "first and foremost" a religious figure. He was, first and foremost, a civil rights campaigner. That's what he became famous for, and why the holiday exists.

Churches themselves were the center of the civil rights movement. Churches were gathering places for civil rights workers. Martin Luther King began his career, and the movement as a whole, from speaking behind a pulpit. Civil rights protesters sang church songs and hymns.

If that's not a religious-influenced movement, I don't know what is. I sure dont see why atheist children should miss school to honor such a religious-influenced figure and movement. I think that constitutes just as much undue interference as the two words in the pledge.

[Jack the Bodiless]

There is nothing remotely religious about civil rights! After all, the Bible endorses slavery.

Secular Humanists are into civil rights in a big way. So why shouldn't we celebrate?

But this raises the wider issue of why there should be a holiday at all. Most folks feel that the principle of equal rights is an important one: so important that they want the symbolism of a holiday in which everyone is forced to pay attention to the issue, even if only once per year.

Likewise, Christian extremists want the symbolism of a Pledge in which everyone is forced to pay attention to the issue of God's imagined "place" in what America stands for, and the message that atheists aren't welcome is reinforced.

MLK day exists to make racists feel uncomfortable: "under God" exists to make atheists feel uncomfortable.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
There is nothing remotely religious about civil rights! After all, the Bible endorses slavery.

Secular Humanists are into civil rights in a big way. So why shouldn't we celebrate?

But this raises the wider issue of why there should be a holiday at all. Most folks feel that the principle of equal rights is an important one: so important that they want the symbolism of a holiday in which everyone is forced to pay attention to the issue, even if only once per year.

Likewise, Christian extremists want the symbolism of a Pledge in which everyone is forced to pay attention to the issue of God's imagined "place" in what America stands for, and the message that atheists aren't welcome is reinforced.

MLK day exists to make racists feel uncomfortable: "under God" exists to make atheists feel uncomfortable.

Next you will ban chaplains from the army. Then you will outlaw Christmas. If Bush closes his speeches with "May God Bless America" you will sue.

The problem you have is that you do not recognize that the atheism is a religion as well.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Next you will ban chaplains from the army. Then you will outlaw Christmas. If Bush closes his speeches with "May God Bless America" you will sue.

...Good grief.

The 1954 change was a clear, deliberate attack upon atheists. We are oppressors because we are resisting attack?

Sure, and homeowners who defend themselves against burglars are fascist thugs who will next put on swastika armbands and march out to round up their enemies and stuff them into ovens.

The problem you have is that you do not recognize that the atheism is a religion as well.

How is this even remotely relevant?

We are NOT the ones who want schoolkids reciting a national oath which professes loyalty to our "religion"!

Why is this simple fact so difficult to grasp?

Why is it morally wrong to RESIST religious indoctrination?

[Arrian]

While I do not share his vehemence, I must agree with Jack on this.

The '54 change was McCarthyte BS, and I wouldn't at all mind it being reversed.

OTOH, I tend to see it like Vel does: aren't there more important issues to deal with?

-Arrian

[David Floyd]

Oooh, I have a solution to this issue:

Get rid of public education, and make everyone pay for their own! That way, parents can decide if they want religious overtones in education or not