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

"Attorney General John Ashcroft indicated that the government would ask the Supreme Court to review the case. "The Justice Department," Mr. Ashcroft said in a statement, "will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag. We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge.""

I could live with this if we can add "and f. John Ashcroft" at the end of the pledge.

Sure, declaring your patriotism though reciting the pledge is great, but I'd be more impressed with self-immolation.

 

Do conspiracy theorists enjoy showing their allegiance to God and Country more than others?

Just curious.

 

Err. Is this before or after you chain yourself to Judge Reinhart?

 

That's because certain segments of the God-fearing majority are so intensely weak in their faith that even the slightest nod to this country's history of toleration turns their underwear yellow with fear. You would think that an almighty God wouldn't need to get His or Her validation from being put on coins, but apparently "render unto Caesar" was just a watermark on the Gospels.

 

I'm an atheist but I can't understand the legions of liberals out there who waste their time fighting battles like this.

If 90% of the people out there want to believe in a god, well I just have to get used to it. If they want to put it on a coin or a silly routine pledge in school, I couldn't care less. The first amendment was meant to prevent a Church-of-England kind of establishment, and I have absolutely no fear that we're in any danger of that kind of thing.

A federal appeal court wastes its time on issues like this, that is the bigger scandal. Let alone the supreme court, when they hear cases like this I have no sympathy for their claims of being overworked.

 

sound more agnostic than athiest to me.

 

Even if they change it back, i'll still say "under God"

 

Ghandi would be proud.

 

Low Hanging Fruit and a waste of our time.

Either words have meaning, or they don't. Either Constitutions have meaning, or they don't. This is low-hanging fruit, and has been since the pledge was modified.

BTW, if its meant to be voluntary, then why not ONE announcement about the pledge at the beginning of the year, directing students who are interested to recite it alone or together at their leisure, in their free time? Is school, or that part of school, voluntary or is it mandatory, at least until the age of 16? Is public school considered a public domain or semi-public?

Know your "tests," people, the ones applied by this Court and others before it regarding the classification of public schools as "semi-private spaces." Even wthout that declaration, there is NO QUESTION that the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge violates the Constitution.

There is also no question that the only Court the Constitution calls for pays selective attention to that document, demonstrating either the document's faults, or their own.

I believe wholehartedly in God. That has nothing to do with the set of decision-rules by which we live. Those rules do not allow for the establishment of a pledge that includes "God" in its language, period, end of discussion.

 

What legions are you referring to? A bunch of us enjoying the argument on an internet message board? Or the lone wolf who brought the lawsuit?

Why anyone would want to "rack" a take that is hopelessly off track within the first dozen words is beyond me. It's almost as if someone is sitting at their keyboard waiting for chances to be a smartass. (Not that I would ever do that.)

You, as an atheist, don't get it.

You're right, if your child has to recite the current pledge, it's probably not going to interfere much with your ability to raise him as a godless heathen. But if you want to raise your child to separate church and state, to distrust theocratic tendencies, if you want to raise your child to believe that all nations are equal in God's eyes, than this pledge puts the stamp of authority on a competing theology.

My child is going to be much more easily confused because the state is endorsing a different theology, than your child is going to be confused by the state endorsing any theology. That's the nature of a child's brain. As a practical matter, IMHO, the current pledge is a much bigger problem for the (also much larger number of) parents who don't want the state and the church getting mixed up with one another, than for atheist or agnostic parents.

Well, that's your opinion, but you should check out James Madison's view on some of the "banal" uses of religion in state ceremonies.

You know what would be cool? If people were allowed to send their children to religious schools, where they can have their children indoctrinated into any mindnumbing claptrap they desire.

 

There obviously is a question whether it violates the Constitution or not. What part of the Constitution does it violate? The first amendment? Here's what the first amendment states about religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I'm not sure how a voluntary recital of the pledge is a law about the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of it.

Just because you believe something to be so doesn't mean that's the way it is (yeah, I'm sure that comes as a big shock to you).

 

Because the teacher, a state agent, is leading the pledge.

Further, common sense tells you that in school, there's a coercive element of peer pressure at work. I don't know if that has any standing in the law, but it's reality.

 

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

Kind of like the "voluntary" Christian bible thumping at the White House?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/878520.asp?cp1=1

 

BTW, IIRC the guy who brought the lawsuit was a large-L Libertarian. 99.9% of those guys are anything but "liberal".

 

So, why would you be upset if it were changed back to it's pre-'54 form?

 

Too bad this isn't about "political correctness".

The 1954 decision was about "political correctness", but perhaps not quite in the same sense as the phrase means now.

 

bostonsoccermdl, why are you a NE revolution fan when you live in NYC?

I have no problem if the change it to "under Allah," God sounds so vague.

 

So, we're still not comfortable with the idea of atheists and agnostics being citizens?

Or can we be citizens as long as we conform to the outward rituals of a gooey-tapioca "faith" at the expense of turning a pledge of patriotism into a meaningless chant?

I love how we're forcing schoolchildren to mouth loyalty to something they don't believe, and it's the people who believe in freedom and privacy who get accused of having a thin skin. It would just kill people to respect the traditions of this country, wouldn't it. If McCarthy told people to wipe their asses with the Liberty Bell in the 1950's, there'd probably still be a line waiting today.

 

Once again, you get it wrong, Loney. Paul didn't even become popular until the 1960's.