9th Circuit Court Rules "under God" in Pledge Unconstitutional

If the pledge had always had the phrase "under God" in it, then maybe you could argue that it should be constitutional. But since it was added in the 50's as a tool of conformity, the purpose of the phrase is clearly coercive and specific to one religion.

Given my own beliefs, I don't like it. I mean, my wife is Kenyan. When my son is old enough to start reciting this in school, is he going to get the idea that Kenya is a lesser nation because the US is "under God"? If he thinks it through like a typical 6 year old would, then yes, that's the message he'll get. When we try to teach him of Jesus' message of transcending nationalism, won't he realize that such beliefs are contrary to the pledge?

 

Unless it is pointed out to him, I doubt a 6 year old boy will take offense to the "Under God" part of the pledge. In grade school I had a classmate who was Muslim, a classmate who was Jewish, and a classmate who was Buddhist...each said the pledge every day. The pledge is meant as a "tribute" to the country in which we live, not as one to any specific religion. I believe that it should be the choice of the students whether or not they want to recite it, but unconstitutional...IMHO, it isn't.

 

I don't think it should have ever been put in the Pledge of Allegiance in the first place. I don't have any problem with children being given the option to say "Under God". However, the Pledge of Allegiance is often led by a teacher in class or a student over the intercom and I don't think the leader of Pledge should say "Under God". People should be free to spend their free time doing whatever religious activity they like. However, Agnostics and Atheists also pay taxes and they should be considered when making public policy.

 

What an idiotic thing to take to the Supreme Court. Real issues that should be heard by the Court will be pushed off the judicial calendar by this.

The 9th Circuit Court is correct in its ruling, and there is no reason this has to go any higher.

 

This is factually incorrect.

 

Prove the statement wrong.

 

"Under God" was added in the 1950s to define the USA as a religious nation, in contrast to the dreaded, godless Soviets. It's intent is bottomline religious.

 

I don't see the incorrectness of this statement.

I mentioned grade school friends of different religions who said the pledge every day along with everyone else...I asked one, when this issue came out last year, why he said it everyday back in grade school. His reply: "The pledge is a tribute to the country that I live in. It is a tribute to the freedom and opportunity that my family and I have here in the US that we would not have had in our home country (China in this case). I say the pledge everyday because I do 'pledge alliegence to flag of the United States of America.' It is my country now and I will pay tribute to it as I see fit. I know my religion and I don't see that repeating the pledge affirming it any other way."

 

I'm in the "BFD" camp.

Six year olds are probably not old enough to be insulted by the presence of "Under God" in the Pledge, but they're certainly not old enough to know what a "pledge" is, what "allegiance" means, what a "republic" means, or what it means to be "indivisible."

At least, I didn't know those words, and I had a preternaturally large vocabulary for a six year old.

By the time I was old enough to understand what I was saying, I was old enough to know that I didn't believe in God. And yet I recited it anyway, because I frankly didn't want to bother with it. Why? Because for me, like for essentially all of my peers, reciting the Pledge was an automatic ritual, a minor nuisance in a day full of minor nuisances. I'd be stunned if one in a hundred people who recited the Pledge every morning were actually pledging allegiance to the flag and/or to the republic for which it stands in any sort of meaningful way.

The way to drain a statement of all meaning is to compel people to recite it every day without ever inviting them to contemplate its implications.

In short, I think that reciting the Pledge in school is a small, but total, waste of time and energy, as is the legal wrangling over the legality of its wording. That having been said, it's already unconstitutional to require children who object to the Pledge to recite it. One of the unfortunate but true aspects of democracy is the fact that it's easy to pass a foolish but popular law and virtually impossible to repeal it. I think that nearly everyone knows in their heart of hearts that the Pledge in school is a waste of time, but who wants to be the first to admit it?

As for the court's reasoning that Congress's inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge constitutes an establishment of religion: while that may be more or less true (it's certainly indisputable that "under God" privileges theism over non-theism and it's really hard to argue that it doesn't also endorse monotheism over polytheism), it thumbs its nose at a lot of precedent which states that certain displays of this kind of milquetoast religiosity do not violate the first Amendment, and it arrogates to itself a duty which properly belongs to the state legislatures.

 

B U L L S H I T.

The pledge in its current state forces kids who don't believe in God to swear to him.

It should be done away with.

 

That's the lesson I got when I was 6 years old, between picking my nose and playing with legos....

 

Considering nobody isn't required to say it, and Jehovah's Witness weren't saying it before the words 'Under God' were added to it, how does it 'force' kids to do anything?

 

This ruling has no chance and will be overturned by the USSC. Plus you would have to add that the 9th Circuit Court is very liberal and decisions like these are not unexpected. I'm not saying whether I'm against it or in favor, I'm actually on the fence on this one.

 

The pledge does not suggest that only the U.S. is under God. Other nations may be "under God" if they like. Personally, I serve Satan.

He'll also, as a typical 6 year old, think that there's monsters under the bed, baths are pointless, and that you're always right. He'll outgrow it and move on. As far as the pledge and the ruling go, zzzzz...........

 

Mike, I get the sense you're agnostic or atheist, so I think you're missing a larger point.

It doesn't just force atheistic and agnostic parents to give up rights, as far as raising their children. The Supremes have been pretty squishy on that kind of generic promotion of religiosity. But this also forces parents who have a different conception of the relationship between God and governments to give up their rights. That makes its intent more specific, and less defensible.

Plus, to anyone who wants to explain away the notion that this is an establishment of religion, you have to explain away how and when it was added to the Pledge.

And you'll fail. Because you're wrong.

 

Yes, I agree, and it will be in the great tradition of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Dred Scott Decision, and Gore v. Bush.

 

You make it sound like the big bad heathen parents are trying to take away all the kids fun. Is that you feel? Damn, having to recognize other holidays. Damn, having to worry about racial equality. Damn for taking away my right to impose my spritual beliefs and universal views on children. Cascarino, I know it's a big, scary world out there but occasionally we really should go for a breath of fresh air.

 

Grew up Roman Catholic, and went to Catholic school from 1st to 12th grade. My parents and sisters still go to church every week. I "lost my faith" when I was about 19 or so, and consider myself agnostic. I have no problem whatsoever with people celebrating their faith though.

When I say it forces people who don't believe in God to swear allegiance to him, I meant the non-Judeo Christian concept of God.

 

Brief history and changes to the pledge over the years can be found here

Present text:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.”

As I read this and recite it in tune I see the pledge as words spoken more as a tribute or spoken allegiance to the nation, not the religion. Religion is a by-product of this pledge, but this is just my interpretation.

Here's a thought to consider: [maybe a poll to consider if G. Tex would allow it]

Would you support the changing of the pledge either to a new version without "Under God," or back to the version said before the most recent change in '54?

Robin Williams spoke of an alteration in his HBO special this summer that might work: "One nation under Canada, above Mexico."

 

Right, and my point is that it goes further than that. It forces children to swear allegiance to one particular Judeo-Christian concept of God. One I don't subscribe to.

Howzabout this...if it's a generic statement, there's no problem with saying "under Allah," right?

 

Sadly, that's not really possible, now is it. What am I supposed to do - hand out gold nuggets?