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

McCarthy, not McCartney!

You know, Edgar Bergen's puppet!

Geez, the ignorance of some people.

 

Look who's talking!!!

Clearly, this McCarthy is Joe McCarthy, the great manager of the 30s for the Yankees.

 

My faith is like creme brule
When I am weak I fall upon it
And devour its sweet sweetness

My faith is like flan
It soothes my man-tripe,
Roughened by bad margarita sins

My faith is like chocolate pudding
Or mousse (what is the difference?)
It coateth my mouth, and leaveth me
Comforted.

-- Lake Highlands, Plano, Dallas 3/3/03.

 

Geez, talk about being thin-skinned. . .

I think this case may be worse than feared. Currently, the Supreme Court uses a three-part "Lemmon test" (named after the case, not the fruit) for evaluating Establishment Clause claims. One part of the tests asks whether the legislative intent in passing a law had a religious purpose. There's no doubt that the pledge fails that prong of the test.

However, Scalia has been criticizing the Lemmon test for years, and only because of O'Connor's devotion to stare decisis has the test survived. This may swing her vote. If so, a newer, harder to prove, standard will be adopted by 5 votes on this Court.

If you think this case is a no-brainer, you could be very sorry to see the result.

 

My two cents:

I don't care if "under God" is in the pledge or not. I tend to think its inclusion is theoretically unconstitutional. However, to those of you who feel your "rights" are violated by the "coercion" of the phrase, please note that your rights come from your creator, or at least that's what that nutcase Jefferson says:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration/declaration_transcription.html

 

Yes, my human rights.

But not my political rights.

 

You can't draw a comparison between Jefferson's genius and the demagoguery of a hysterical hell-bent witch hunt.

 

I understand the distinction, but to me it is a bit ludicrous to get all whipped up over a minor or de minimis infraction of the establishment clause when, in truth, the Declaration bases the political right of revolt in God-given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I believe most people that are insistent on excising the "under God" language would have a much bigger problem with the language in the Declaration, except that it has no Constitutional force, strictly speaking.

Really, the more important issue concerns devaluation of first amendment debate to the point where disputes over the Pledge are equal to whether or not the government can reestablish the Anglican church.

 

Nice try, but even if it were the law of the land, it would be a pretty squishy statement, metaphysically.

"Divine Providence," "Nature's God" and "Creator" are, well, not the same as "God." "Nature's God" comes the closest, but I doubt the right-wing wants to establish the cult of the great god Pan in our schools.

You could not make the case from the Declaration that the absence of God means the absence of rights.

"Under God," furthermore, is more definitive a statement. No deistic inclusionary language here.

Oh, please. It's pretty convenient that it's the pro-religious people who are asking the non-religious for toleration.

If it's truly a trivial dispute, then let's go back to the pre-Red Scare pledge. The fact that so many fundies are preparing the stakes argues that no, it's not trivial. I'm sure there's a good reason why Americans should put on the knee-pads for the freedom-hating Bible-thumpers, but I can't think what it would be right now.

 

I think you're right. There is a precedent for de minimis violations, but that precedent is based on "tradition" which does not exist in the Pledge case. A good result would be expansion of the de minimis violation theory, but more likely, the case will lead to a new test that will make it possible for more "religion-neutral, pro-deity" types of laws to be passed.

 

As a Christian, I have always been uncomfortable with the equation of Chrisitianity and America because it implies some sort of co-allegiance that diminishes the faith. So, I would actually prefer, on religious grounds, that "under God" be taken out of the Pledge.

I laugh however at the notion that a "Creator" is not a "god." I'm sure you wouldn't make this argument at a school board meeting in Kansas.

 

"One Nation, under Allah, indivisible..."

I wonder how the fundies would feel if the coins were changed to "In Allah We Trust". My bet is they'd all have aneurysms.

 

Re: "One Nation, under Allah, indivisible..."

As happens often, the Fire's Boy Toy is right on the money.

 

Allah being nothing more than an Islamic word for God, why not say "Debajo de Dios", "Sous Dieu" or "Unter Gott" and then blame it on the fundamentalists? This point is meaningless.

 

If it was meaningless then why do we need "under God" at all? If it doesn't mean anything to anyone, why would the Christian fundies here go into conniptions if the word "God" was changed to "Allah"? Or "the Buddha", even though Buddhists don't believe the Buddha was an Absolute Deity? Or "the Void"?

I'll tell you why. Because they unwritten, unspoken phrase bracketing the word "God" is "ours... not theirs".

"In our God we trust, not theirs.", whoever the "they" du jour happens to be.

Same thing with "...one Nation, under our God, not theirs.

And when you give a mindset like that divine sanction, it quickly moves from "Our God, not yours" to "Our country, not yours". Anyone who can't see this is hopelessly naive. "Under God" or "In God we trust" simply lets the fundies get away with their inaccurate claims that America is a "Christian nation" - "See? What does that say? That's right - GOD! Not Allah. Not Vishnu. Not the Void. God. It's right there on the money, you Buddhist heathen! It's our country, not yours."

 

joseph, settle down.

I think you're arguing about the practicality, while John is arguing the law. It's sort of like my point about peer pressure making it difficult for kids who opt out because their parents object. That's a practical concern, but I don't know if the Supremes would or could or should care about that.

 

But since it's voluntary, why does it matter whether a 'state agent' is leading the pledge or not? Even the 'state agent' has the option of not leading the pledge if the 'state agent' does not want to.

Sure, there might be an element of peer pressure at work, but welcome to society. If peer pressure is a valid concern at school, there should be more changes in the rules there, such as school uniforms, as there was an enormous amount of pressure for me to wear Nike's when I went to middle school.

 

Wow, we're focing children to do something that's voluntary. Amazing....

 

Usually things like this are argued based on "Original Intent". And the beliefs of the majority of the founders on the proper relation between Church (or Temple or Mosque or Monastery) and State were pretty clear. They wanted the one to have as little to do with the other as possible and greatly loathed anything that linked the state with God, Bhrama, the Void or any other religious concept. And they lived a country that was MUCH more nominally "Christian" than it is now, Indians excepted. Unfortunately, "freedom of religion" assumes a great deal of "freedom from religion", at least in official matters of the State.

I'm only one guy, but based on my readings of their writings, I firmly believe that if the Founders were alive today and could see how diverse Amercia is now and that we have plenty of people who are either polytheists (Hindus, for example) or atheists like many of them were, most of the would be even more opposed to using "God" in anything regarding the official State than they already were back in the 1780s.

 

Because it creates the impression in young minds that despite what Mommy and Daddy say, the Pledge is alright. Are you being serious here, or just taking the pi**? (As our British friends would say.) Do you seriously not see the difference in some voluntary action that each student takes on his/her own, vs. one led by the teacher??

If the teacher leads the students in voluntary prayer toward Mecca 5 times a day, is that a problem? Of course it is. The problem is the nature of the (quasi) religious act, not whether or not it's voluntary.

 

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

You just made a great argument for keeping "under god" in the pledge. Any heathens out there in barbarian lands who don't like it, they should stay put. Especially the ones who might miss Allah.

Now, about those catholics to the south....I suggest another modification to make it "under a protestant god." Do you think that might stem the tide of illegals?

 

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

He's here all week, folks! Be sure to tip your waitresses and bartenders.

 

yeah, you never see the Religious Right use any but the most shallow history, when trying to defend their point. This is one area where they're deathly afraid of "original intent."

 

This also points out the importance of teaching real Amercian history in schools. Right now, I think our grammar and high schools let our kids down by offering propagandized schmaltz. If the schools did their jobs, most people who decide to read the writings of the Founders, especially their private correspondence, wouldn't be so shocked at what they find there.

 

1. You posited a hypothetical and now assume it as fact, which is hardly fair play in a discussion.
2. Asking why we use the word "God" in an English-language pledge is just plain silly. If you want to argue that the term should be "god" instead of "God" your point might resonate. But criticizing the choice of the most appropriate English-language word as the problem is weak.