Appeals court: Pledge of Allegiance still unconstitutional

[Berzerker]

Imran -

So, wait. Let me get this straight. It is OK for parents to coerce children, but not for society?

"Society"? Don't you mean the Christian majority? That's right, a parent has the right to raise their child with their belief system, "society" doesn't have this right.

Why do parents get coercive rights when society doesn't? Are kids SLAVES to parents?

If I had said children who are coerced into reciting the pledge were slaves, would you consider that a serious argument? Me neither. Rights belong to individuals, not "society". Parents have this right because their children are under their care. The right ceases to exist once the child is no longer under the parent's care.

And when did I say it wasn't coercive? EVERY social construction is coercive.

You continually argued the pledge is voluntary, it isn't.

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.

I'm not coerced to work for an employer, nature requires me to eat food to survive, employment is just a means to obtain food. And where did I condemn all coercion? As for the law, if you want to call acts of self-defense "coercive", then obviously I support some forms of coercion - when it is used to preserve freedom. But since the definition of "coercion" includes, or at least implies, an attempt to nullify free will, a law that prohibits coercion is not coercive since free will belongs to us all and one cannot use coercion without violating someone else's free will.

You treaty coerciveness like it is inherantly a bad thing, while supporting coercive institutions.

How does that allegation stand up when I've already argued in favor of a parent's right to coerce their children?

MOST would!

How do you know? And how is that relevant when even by your argument, some wouldn't wear the star of David for fear of persecution?

Why do you think Jews were persecuted for so long?

Why is that relevant? You think Jews are more religious than everyone else?

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?

So you think all Jews willingly walked around wearing the star of David in Nazi occupied Europe? Anne Frank ring a bell? Some people would rather die than hide their religion, some would rather hide their religion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's right, a parent has the right to raise their child with their belief system, "society" doesn't have this right.

Why? I'd think society has a better claim to have a right to raise kids.

Parents have this right because their children are under their care. The right ceases to exist once the child is no longer under the parent's care.

Who decides when a child is under parent's care? You are being inconsistant. Why this exception for a parent? No one can 'own' someone else in the US, I think you'll say, so why can parents 'own' children.

You continually argued the pledge is voluntary, it isn't.

Who ever said voluntary and coercive are mutually exclusive?

You don't have to submit to the coercion if you don't want to.

I'm not coerced to work for an employer, nature requires me to eat food to survive, employment is just a means to obtain food.

How does that lessen the coercion? If you want food, you are forced to work. Look, it's coercion!

But since the definition of "coercion" includes, or at least implies, an attempt to nullify free will, a law that prohibits coercion is not coercive since free will belongs to us all and one cannot use coercion without violating someone else's free will.

What a bunch of circular bullshit! A law that prohibits coercion is coercive to those that want to indulge in that behavior. It is nullifying THEIR free will.

Coercion is simply forcing someone to do something.

You think Jews are more religious than everyone else?

No, the Jews were quite simply the minority. They didn't bow to the coercion of the majority.

So you think all Jews willingly walked around wearing the star of David in Nazi occupied Europe?

So teachers kill people that don't stand to pledge alliegance? Interesting schools you went to.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Why? I'd think society has a better claim to have a right to raise kids.

So what's the claim? "Society" didn't procreate your children, society didn't give birth to your children, and society wasn't there when your kid first walked or spoke. Nature has been designed with parents raising children, not society.

Who decides when a child is under parent's care?

Nature, and when the child is living in the parent's house.

You are being inconsistant. Why this exception for a parent?

How is that inconsistent? Why are you trying to equate parents with strangers and then using such an absurd equation to accuse me of inconsistency?

No one can 'own' someone else in the US, I think you'll say, so why can parents 'own' children.

It's not about a parent "owning" their children, it's about the task of raising children - a task assigned by nature. If a child grows up and leaves home, they are no longer subject to the will of their parent. Ever hear a parent say to their kid, "not in my house"?

Who ever said voluntary and coercive are mutually exclusive?

The dictionary.

You don't have to submit to the coercion if you don't want to.

That doesn't mean your choice was voluntary. If a school bully walks up and demands your lunch money, is your acquiescence "voluntary" or coerced. The same answer applies if you refuse the bully's demand. Resisting coercion doesn't mean the coercion doesn't exist.

How does that lessen the coercion? If you want food, you are forced to work. Look, it's coercion!

But the employer is not the source of the coercion, nature is the source.

What a bunch of circular bullshit! A law that prohibits coercion is coercive to those that want to indulge in that behavior. It is nullifying THEIR free will.

Does free will mean you can violate everyone else's free will? Of course not, we all have free will, therefore, since coercion violates free will, a law prohibiting coercion is not coercive in that no one's free will is violated by the law. Some people claim "absolute" freedom includes the "freedom" to run around murdering people and any law prohibiting murder violates their freedom. But freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, and murder is a constraint. So, how can murder be an act of freedom when freedom requires the absence of constraints? Just as with coercion, a law prohibiting murder is not a violation of our freedom because freedom, by definition, doesn't allow for the imposition of constraints. You call that circular BS, I call it logic based on what words mean.

Coercion is simply forcing someone to do something.

That isn't the entire definition, coercion is a means of subverting free will.

So teachers kill people that don't stand to pledge alliegance? Interesting schools you went to.

You said the Jews did not hide their religion from persecutors and I refuted that argument, if you find the debate too difficult to follow, you can take a breather.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Society" didn't procreate your children, society didn't give birth to your children, and society wasn't there when your kid first walked or spoke.

Actually it did. Without societal creations your parents likely would not have met.

It's not about a parent "owning" their children, it's about the task of raising children - a task assigned by nature.

Have you spoken to nature? Why does nature assign it to the parents rather than to the herd? Because you say so?

But the employer is not the source of the coercion, nature is the source.

No it isn't. Why can't someone just walk on land and take fruit? Because we like property. He is coerced to submit to the property interest and work for food.

If a school bully walks up and demands your lunch money, is your acquiescence "voluntary" or coerced.

Both, duh.

Does free will mean you can violate everyone else's free will?

Actually true free will means exactly that.

You said the Jews did not hide their religion from persecutors and I refuted that argument

When does persecution mean killing? You can be persecuted without death, and seeing that saying the pledge isn't done at the end of a sword, it is a invalid comparision.

[mrmitchell]

Why won't anyone respond to me?

[Jack the Bodiless]

The 1954 change was INTENDED to legitimize the persecution of atheists.

It has NO other purpose. That is its function: no "true American" should be an atheist: ""From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty". And this is an argument specifically used against atheists by religious fundamentalists today: because "this is one nation under God", unbelievers should leave. Both George Bush (senior) and Joe Lieberman have experessed a belief that atheists should not be considered citizens.

It is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Not just the letter of the Amendment, but the spirit of it also. It must go, and soon.

As for "other problems": what are those? This issue may sound trivial, but the forces behind it represent the greatest danger that America faces today. Al-Qaida can kill a few thousand people, but the steady dissolution of the Constitution represents a much greater threat to the survival of what America IS (or was).

We now have a situation in which GWB is attempting to hand-pick conservative Christians to the Supreme Court in open defiance of Article 6: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States".

America is sliding towards fascism. But that's "not important", as long as the trains run on time...

[TheStinger]

The only reason people want the phrase under God is to indicate a religious belief in God therefore it is trying to enforce their beliefs on others

No one has answered why is the phrase there if not for that.

Why would anyone in a country that has no state religion and has many people of all faiths and none want that phrase unless it is to imply religion is part of the state

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Berzerker
What's utterly amazing is that proponents of the pledge are claiming the religious freedom to coerce other people's children into affirming a religious belief and that not being allowed to use this coercion on children violates their religious freedom. Gee, does that mean vestal virgins who refuse to jump into a volcano are violating our religious freedom if we want them to jump?

A good quote!

I'm stealing it.

[Arrian]

Both George Bush (senior) and Joe Lieberman have experessed a belief that atheists should not be considered citizens.

*raises eyebrow*

Really? Link(s)?

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

I don't know about Lieberman but the source for the accusation for George Bush Senior saying something like that is a made up encounter with the American Atheist news journal. I'm somewhat shocked to see Jack still use it given the dubious credibility of its source.

[dudemanjack]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


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.


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 )

I doubt that second graders even have any idea what the pledge means when they say it.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Has there been a denial of the claim by Bush? The claim that he said this is pretty well-known, after all.

I haven't found Lieberman's similar comment, but I found this:

The Constitution promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. We are, after all not just another nation, but "one nation under God."

-- Joseph Lieberman, campaign speech at Notre Dame University on October 24, 2000

Lieberman wants a Constitutional amendment to enshrine "under God" in the Pledge. And, by declaring that we DON'T have freedom FROM religion, he's saying that religion should be mandatory. What else could that mean?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Has there been a denial of the claim by Bush?

Does Bush need to deny that he met with aliens as well?

[Zero]

Who gives a damn... Im still gonna be sleeping even if I was in H.S... I hated the stupid morning pledge by lame volunteer kids who did school announcements.

*shrug*

[Imran Siddiqui]

I found this

How does that quote in ANY way say that atheists should not be citizens? He is totally correct, btw. We have freedom of religion, but NOT freedom from religion.

[Jack the Bodiless]

DinoDoc: If there was a widely-held belief that Bush was a Raelian, yes, I would expect him to issue a denial.

But this sort of anti-atheist rhetoric is common among U.S. politicians. This is precisely the sort of comment that Bush MIGHT say, and that other politicians (including Bush junior) HAVE said.

So, yes, it is entirely believable. All the more reason why he should issue a denial, if he didn't actually say it.

Atheists don't really need to invent this stuff to support their case: there are plenty of other examples.

For instance, would you care to enlighten us as to what an atheist should make of the phrase "we are not free from religion"?

[Imran Siddiqui]

An atheist when hearing 'we are not free from religion' should just admit that other people will wish to celebrate their religions in the open.

[Arrian]

The Constitution promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. We are, after all not just another nation, but "one nation under God."

-- Joseph Lieberman, campaign speech at Notre Dame University on October 24, 2000

Blah. Not exactly the quote you were referring to, but notheless slightly disturbing to me.

I sure as hell would like freedom from religion.

-Arrian

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I found this

How does that quote in ANY way say that atheists should not be citizens? He is totally correct, btw. We have freedom of religion, but NOT freedom from religion.

Imran:

The quote from Bush senior is this one:

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

I said that I couldn't track down the Lieberman equivalent. I saw it shortly after the Newdow case, but it appears to have vanished into the ether since.

...But what do YOU mean by "We have freedom of religion, but NOT freedom from religion"? That is certainly not what Jefferson intended, despite Christian propaganda to the contrary:

They neither break my leg nor pick my pocket -- so long as they do not molest me in my belief or meddle with me in my conduct -- I care not what they believe. -- I may have my opinion that certain systems of belief have a better effect upon society than certain other systems. And I may try by persuasion and argument to make others believe as I do. But I can and will take no measures to force my belief upon them.

[MikeH]

As someone who grew up in a country without a pledge the idea of forcing kids to swear allegiance every day is pretty repellent. I know a couple of people who left the UK to go to the US for a time when they were at school because their parents were working there for a while. Both were bullied mercilessly for not saying the pledge. Both by pupils and teachers.

One of them was even put into remedial English class because he spelt words in the English way and refused to spell them in American. Which I think was all just a reaction to how badly he was treated in other areas.

Now I'm sure there are good schools and bad schools and that was a bad one but from what I've heard it seems like a really bad idea to have the pledge at all because it's so open to abuse and kids can feel so powerless about teacher's authority. If you do have to have it then the under God bit seems totally extraneous, and I went to a Church primary school so I had much more religion thrust upon me at school than just that.

If there is freedom of religion could a kid choose what they say at the end like

"under the quest for enlightenment"
or
"under the way of the kami"
or
"under my own non deity based belief system"

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
An atheist when hearing 'we are not free from religion' should just admit that other people will wish to celebrate their religions in the open.

Why do you imagine that we have a problem with that?

They actually want the "freedom" to coerce others (such as minors, in this case).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because kids know EXACTLY what they are saying?

And lawmaking power itself is freedom to coerce. Should we thus abolish the government?

Btw, Jefferson, himself, was opposed to the Constitution and wanted a revolution every 20 years.

I don't have a problem with not having freedom from religion, even though I'm not Christian. Why should you?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Imran:

I fail to see why you are defending the Pledge. Of course the current phrasing is an attempt to intimidate atheists, and that's exactly how it's being used in many schools!

Do you wish to pretend that all these examples of Pledge-inspired bullying aren't taking place? Or are you arguing that they're an unfortunate side-effect of a greater good?

What IS the greater good? What non-sectarian PURPOSE is there to "under God"?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's how the pledge is and what the majority wants. I'd have no problem with a pledge without those words, but if the majority want it, and it REALLY doesn't hurt anything, I don't see the problem.

[Jack the Bodiless]

That WASN'T what the Pledge said, until extremist Christians mangled it.

If it was revised to say "one nation, under the rule of the White race, indivisible...", you'd have no problem with that either, if the majority supported it?

It really DOES hurt. Being bullied hurts. Being told to get out of the country is not exactly pleasant either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If it was revised to say "one nation, under the rule of the White race, indivisible...", you'd have no problem with that either, if the majority supported it?

Nope. It's just a pledge. It means nothing, any constitutional violations are de minimis.

[Jack the Bodiless]

But why change it in the first place, and why the resistance to restoring the Pledge? That's what we're talking about here.

"Under God" does not belong in the Pledge. It was put there with malicious intent. What's so wrong about the original concept of "one nation, indivisible" which the change destroyed?

More examples of how the phrase "one nation under God" is commonly used, grabbed from Google:

"The great strength of the United States is that we are and will continue to be, despite the liberal court's decision, one nation under God." - Roy Blunt, rep. Missouri

From here:

2001-FEB: Virginia: Pledge bill defeated. State Senator Warren E. Barry introduced a bill making the recitation of the pledge of allegiance mandatory for every public school in Virginia. In doing this, Senator Barry violated his oath of office, in which he promised to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as implying that anyone has the right to refrain from reciting the Pledge. Under his bill, any student who refused to recite the pledge, without a valid philosophical or religious objection, would be suspended. Delegate Robert G. Marshall suggested that the bill be amended to require school buildings carry the national motto. The amendments were rejected by the Senate Education and Health Committee.

From here:

Sen. Buttars, the bills sponsor, said he cannot believe anyone would not want kids in public school to know and understand the pledge of their country.

Buttars said he would not try to take the controversial phrase out of the pledge.

"We've allowed the God haters and the value haters and the moral haters in this country to have center stage for so long that they've slipped the whole central moral platform of America off the stage," Buttars said. "We've gone too far. It's time to draw the line and start bringing it back."

Buttars said the United States is indeed one nation under God and he will pass the bill.

Note the foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric: it's "the pledge of their country" (as if it has always been that way ), and the "god-haters" hate values and morals (I assume we also hate Mom's apple pie too).

Ashcroft, being a moron as usual:

"The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," Ashcroft said.

"We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge," he said.

...So now the Evil Atheist Conspiracy is trying to stop people from voluntarily reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

From ONE NATION UNDER GOD by Rev. Bill Banuchi:

Does this include Atheists? Good Question. The answer is yes, and no. Am I trying to sound like a good politician? No, not really. What I mean is that the American spirit is one which acknowledges the God of the Bible as being true and real, but also acknowledges that there are others who do not believe what we believe; others to whom the reality of Christ has not yet been revealed. We must love them, care for them and pray for them, because it’s God’s heart that none of them would perish but that all would come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

We must love and pray for the Atheists and Agnostics but we must never allow them into positions of leadership in our nation "under God"...

...So you see, an Atheist or Agnostic has every right to live here, and be afforded all the rights and respect due a human being created in the image of God, but we must never elect them to office or we sentence ourselves to bondage under godless tyranny.

That’s why it was not uncommon for the early colonies to require a belief in God, The Holy Scriptures and in the system of eternal rewards and punishment before one could hold public office. In other words if you didn’t believe in God or the Bible, you could certainly live here, but because you are not, in your own mind and heart, under the authority of God who rules over America, you are not qualified to lead in this nation under God. Our rulers must be men and women under God; otherwise we will not be one nation under God.

It is taken as read that America IS "one nation under God". Not before 1954, it wasn't...

[Guynemer]

A number have polls have shown that 60% or more of the American public say that they would not vote for an atheist, period, end of discussion.

That, my friends, is bigotry. Plain and simple. The 1950s alterations of the Pledge and our currency have enshrined and reenforced that bigotry. And the histrionic, shrill defence of those alterations demonstrate just how ingrained that bigotry is in this country.

[ciaran]

Hey, let's hang on to the pledge because it's antequated and obsolete like religion and slavery. Let's prove to an alien race with vastly superior technology and xenophobic tendencies that we are not worth saving from extermination. Why don't we elect an ourangoutan to the highest political office in our political system, empower him with the capability to push complicated sets of buttons and make advanced transactions, and then argue about a bearded guy who was mounted on a pole and stabbed by another monkey who was then replaced by other people who thought that brainwashing our children with beliefs that they may or may not agree with--did they have the intellectual capacity to do so because Jane might well choose to be a Lutheran or something instead of an athiest or maybe she wants to be an athiest after all-- and wasting our legal dollars and television bandwidth when we could easily be reading a book, or making some money.

I mean, how important is this? Didn't EVERYONE kind of sleep through pledge? I mean, I didn't really care for this country when I was in high school. I cared about girls... and girls.

ciaran

[cinch]

Imran:

I don't have a problem with not having freedom from religion, even though I'm not Christian. Why should you?

That seems like kind of a strange thing to say, no? Just because you don't have a problem with something, he's not entitled to?

Personally, I've seen no solid arguments for keeping the pledge as is in this thread. It's mostly arguments about whether kids are bullied or not. That's not really the issue, though. The issue is the principle of the thing: freedom of religion IS freedom from religion. It has nothing to do with people saying "God" or practising their religion in the open, and everything to do with the state sponsoring monotheism in its loyalty pledge.

How is that justified?