Appeals court: Pledge of Allegiance still unconstitutional

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Does that mean you are now admitting persecution happens? Then you've just agreed the pledge is not voluntary.

Persecution happens because of relgion, being a certain religion isn't voluntary now!

Persecution happens because of religion, yes. Sad, but true.
But when the Pledge is requested by the teacher, to simpleton 2nd-graders (and the 2nd-graders raised up by Fundie parents! ) not saying the Pledge means you're not the same religion. Voila, instant persecution.

And as said many times by others in this thread, people are teased MUCH more for being a different religion than for not standing up and saying the pledge.

2nd-graders, Fundie-raised or not, in 98% of the time, will not "get" that not saying the pledge doesn't make you a good old American Christian.

(Sorry if that's poorly worded...before I proofread this it was even worse )

Where I was at school, it was 'cool' to get out of saying the pledge.

In the first, second grade? That's quite a different school than where I've been to.

But the teacher shouldn't be telling Jews to wear the star of David - that is analogous to telling children to stand and recite the pledge.

The proper analogy is the teacher giving Jews the CHOICE to wear the Star of David. After all, you did say it was a choice.

There is NO choice in the Pledge of Allegience business!

[Jac de Molay]

If someone is being persecuted by refusing to say the pledge in a public school or venue, that's a different matter in and of itself. Those who engage in such persecutions should be punished accordingly for violating someones 1st amendment in not saying pledge.

But there is NO official sanction for not the saying the pledge; the pledge isn't a law but just a guideline buried in the old flag code. That, to me, doesn't constitute 1 st amendment interference which proscribes that "no LAW shall be made....."

[loinburger]

The Pledge issue is one of those that I've never really concerned myself over too much. It's easy enough for me to lie about my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) if I think that I might be persecuted for being an atheist in a particular situation -- it's not as though I'm dedicated to spreading the Word of Disbelief wherever I go...

But I am confused about the justifications for keeping the pledge the same, and was hoping that somebody arguing from that side could clarify their position for me. From what I can gather, the reason to keep "under God" in the pledge is that "it doesn't really matter whether it's in or not" (which strikes me as being contradictory -- if it doesn't matter, then why try to keep it in?), that "it doesn't violate anybody's rights" (debateable, sure, but IMO irrelevant as a justification -- there are lots of actions that don't violate anybody's rights, but that's not a sufficient justification for us to actually do them), and that "the word God is already in a lot of other government documents and whatnot" (wouldn't this be an appeal to common practice or an appeal to tradition or one of those jobbies?). Is this the gist of it? What am I missing here?

[mactbone]

Everybody thought the two people in my elementary school classes that left during Easter and Christmas stuff were weird. Infact most kids didn't bother trying to be freinds with them - or people made fun of them. Wouldn't the same thing happen to people who didn't say the "Pledge"? I mean I know that when I was in elementary school we all said the pledge every morning. Everybody. Would you wanyt to be the odd man out in the kind of popular social situations that kids are in? Hell, it was traumatizing enough being picked last in sports, but at least I could say "I'm short" and be okay with it.

There's no reason not to change it back. What I don't understand is how Congress could condemn this. It just goes to show you how important relegion really is in our political system. When have you ever not heard about the relegious beliefs of the candidate? Or how about knowing that a candidate is not Christian (or one of the "Big Three")?

[BustaMike]

loinburger. EXACTLY! Since there's no reason to keep it as is, and there are obviously some good reasons (debatable yes) to change it back, shouldn't it be changed back?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The modern socialist attempts to purge the word God is an extreamist view point and like all extreamist view points it should be moderated.

As opposed to the socialist who originally wrote the Pledge of Alleigance and didn't include the phrase, "under God?"

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Why does the government feel it is proper for it to indoctrinate children with theism?? Religious education is the proper province of parents, guardians and religious institutions. If this country's political leaders believe this is a nation under God, fine. They can go to their church & I'll go to mine.

Any why are children pledging allegience to the flag? Isn't our allegience suppost to be to the Constitution?

I'm still waiting for somebody to answer either of my two questions.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Persecution happens because of relgion, being a certain religion isn't voluntary now!

Not surprised you avoided my question, but we all can see you did admit the pledge is coercive . Choosing a religion is hardly voluntary for many children, they are coerced into choosing their parent's religion, but that coercion is a parent's right just as it is a parent's right to raise their kid with no religion and not have the state try to coerce their kid into affirming religious beliefs as is done with the pledge. Aside from parents, choosing a religion is voluntary, but being asked by the teacher to stand up with your fellow classmates to recite the pledge is not voluntary because of the inherent coercion.

And as said many times by others in this thread, people are teased MUCH more for being a different religion than for not standing up and saying the pledge.

So what? Since when do 2 wrongs make a right? You keep arguing that the coercion of those who refuse to recite the pledge is justified because coercion exists elsewhere.

Where I was at school, it was 'cool' to get out of saying the pledge.

So what? It isn't so "cool" in many parts of the country.

How many Jews do you know?

Several, now what does that have to do with what I said? Are you now claiming all Jews would wear the star of David even if they were persecuted for doing so?

And so you say that wearing the Star of David is a Jew's choice, you ready to admit that saying the pledge is the kid's choice now?

No, children are being asked by their teachers to recite the pledge, teachers are not telling Jews to wear the star of David in front of their classmates.

The proper analogy is the teacher giving Jews the CHOICE to wear the Star of David. After all, you did say it was a choice.

You forgot to mention that I said many Jews would not wear the star of David if doing so could result in persecution, so having a choice to act doesn't mean coercion isn't involved.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
If someone is being persecuted by refusing to say the pledge in a public school or venue, that's a different matter in and of itself. Those who engage in such persecutions should be punished accordingly for violating someones 1st amendment in not saying pledge.

Your plan to capture and punish these thousands of schoolchildren and teachers is...

But there is NO official sanction for not the saying the pledge; the pledge isn't a law but just a guideline buried in the old flag code. That, to me, doesn't constitute 1 st amendment interference which proscribes that "no LAW shall be made....."

Dunno about that. Thought it was a law.

Well, whatever it was (a law, a code, a banana,) I'm sorry, but that's really just a loophole .

[St Leo]

Frequency of loyalty oaths in Canada: Once on assumption of citizenship
Frequency of loyalty oaths in US: Daily
Utility of loyalty oaths: Zero
Winner: Canada

[Ned]

I like Saddam's "loyalty oath." You cheer wildly when he drives by. Those who fail to cheer wildly enough are summarily executed.

My, how American kids are mistreated in comparison.

[Space05us]

when I was little, in about K-2, I looked at the pledge as an oath to my country and thought everyone who didnt say it was a traitor because they didnt love America. 3-6 I looked at the pledge as another daily routine, just like homework I dreaded it. In 7-9 I just stood there out of respect to whoever it may have offended should I sit down. Now I stand when I feel like it, its nice to stretch before class, or I sit when I feel like it. No one says anything about it either way. Sometimes kids even humor the pledge by saying it in a really proud tone then laughing about it with the person sitting next to them.
There are some teachers who force thier students to say it, or at least stand to it. They are usualy the ones who haved served in army/navy/af, if someone questions why they have to stand you usualy get to hear a long lecture afterwards about how people have died and blah blah blah.

honestly, if you get offended that your child has to hear the word god then pull them out of school and keep them away from other kids. Just about everyone of my peers up until 8th grade tried to get me to become some religion.

[Berzerker]

Space -

honestly, if you get offended that your child has to hear the word god then pull them out of school and keep them away from other kids. Just about everyone of my peers up until 8th grade tried to get me to become some religion.

It's not about hearing the word "God", it's about being coerced into affirming a belief in God. And as soon as people stop taking our money to pay for the public schools, then parents won't have a legitimate gripe about the pledge since the "public" school will cease being public. Private schools can have the pledge all they want and if a parent doesn't like it, they can send their kid to a private school that doesn't have the pledge. Many parents can't afford both the taxes for public schools and the tuition for a private school.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Choosing a religion is hardly voluntary for many children, they are coerced into choosing their parent's religion, but that coercion is a parent's right just as it is a parent's right to raise their kid with no religion and not have the state try to coerce their kid into affirming religious beliefs as is done with the pledge.

So, wait. Let me get this straight. It is OK for parents to coerce children, but not for society? Why do parents get coercive rights when society doesn't? Are kids SLAVES to parents?

And when did I say it wasn't coercive? EVERY social construction is coercive. Yet, I don't see you complain about the inherant coerciveness of the 'free' market (where people are coerced into working) or the law (where people are coerced into behaving a certain way. You treaty coerciveness like it is inherantly a bad thing, while supporting coercive institutions.

Are you now claiming all Jews would wear the star of David even if they were persecuted for doing so?

MOST would! Why do you think Jews were persecuted for so long? If you really understood religious people, you'd know that they will not hide their religion in order to be free from persecution. What do you think relgious martyrs do?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by St Leo
Frequency of loyalty oaths in Canada: Once on assumption of citizenship
Frequency of loyalty oaths in US: Daily
Utility of loyalty oaths: Zero
Winner: Canada

France wins even bigger. Never had to pledge loyalty to my country in my entire life