Appeals court: Pledge of Allegiance still unconstitutional

[GePap]

So lest just use the 1953 version of the pledge and move on. These folks demanding that "under God" be kept just simply make a obvious situation last longer.

"I pledge alliegence to the Flag {of the United States of America* added in the 1920's, as If kids dind't know which flag it was..} and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

Now, what on Earth is wrong with that version?

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oooh, I have a solution to this issue:

Get rid of public education, and make everyone pay for their own! That way, parents can decide if they want religious overtones in education or not

Public education is what makes this country great... Without public education, only the rich would be educated and this society would degenerate into some sort of capitalist/feudal society with an elite educated populous economically controlling the poor.

Floyd, go become a hermit in Idaho or something. Then you don't have to worry about taxes, the government, or anyone infringing on your freedoms .

Detroit Dave: My kids aren't forced to pledge allegiance to a country under Martin Luther King. They celebrate a holiday that honors the man and his accomplishments, not his religious beliefs. I know you're just being silly, but there is a big difference.

The problem I have is that I'm reading the pledge as it's written literally. Most people are apathetic to it and don't care, but if you people step aside from your ignorance for a moment and read the pledge and look at what it is saying, you might understand my point of view. Or you could just be selfish and think that everyone should believe in God. Either way, it's wrong.

The way it's written, the pledge says that we are one country under the rule of a God. Despite it's fundamental general meaning, it still encompasses a belief in a God. And to have that be part of a National pledge violates the freedom to believe whatever you want to believe.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GePap
So lest just use the 1953 version of the pledge and move on. These folks demanding that "under God" be kept just simply make a obvious situation last longer.

"I pledge alliegence to the Flag {of the United States of America* added in the 1920's, as If kids dind't know which flag it was..} and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

Now, what on Earth is wrong with that version?

Absolutely Nothing.... that's how it should be. But there are too many selfish, dumbasses in this country that want to force their beliefs onto others.

[David Floyd]

Public education is what makes this country great...

You seem to be under the bizarre impression that US public schools are actually of any significant educational value. Allow me to correct that. They are not.

Floyd, go become a hermit in Idaho or something. Then you don't have to worry about taxes, the government, or anyone infringing on your freedoms

Why should I have to go somewhere else to avoid immoral behavior? Why shouldn't I be able to expect that people behave morally?

[Sava]

Taxes aren't immoral... even your Bible says so. And suburban US public schools are quite good, we need to give urban schools the same amount of educational resources to bridge the gap.

[Jac de Molay]

This is overblown. No one is forcing someone to adhere to a religious belief thru the pledge anymore than anyone is being forced to adhere to a religious belief by accepting money with "In God we trust" or listen, as a juror, recite an oath that ends in 'so help me God'.

The First Amendment, as interpreted by the courts, makes some allowance for the mingling of church and state, and has applied far more liberal criteria of what constitutes "undue interference" in their interaction than the two words in the pledge.

The same First Amendments also affords protection for those who refuse, for any reason whatsoever, to recite the pledge. This nonsense of indoctrination or brainwashing......

[Sava]

What's wrong with saying the pledge how it was originally written?

And everyone was bashing the anti-war crowd because kids were getting teased in Maine, how many kids would get teased because they don't believe in God?

I know there are bigger issues to worry about, but it's the principle of the thing. God shouldn't be on money, it shouldn't be in the pledge, it should not be part of anything related to the government, officially.

Sure, nobody's being burnt at the stake for being atheist, but the current state of "God" and the government is closer to theocracy than it should be. If you want a government with true religious freedom, then you have to take anything religious out of government.

[Jack the Bodiless]

This is overblown. No one is forcing someone to adhere to a religious belief thru the pledge anymore than anyone is being forced to adhere to a religious belief by accepting money with "In God we trust" or listen, as a juror, recite an oath that ends in 'so help me God'.

This isn't "listening", it's requiring minors to participate. And, yes, they ARE fequently being "forced". That was the intent of the 1954 change.

Don't forget that we're taking about minors here. If being led on by an adult isn't "forcing" them, then pedophilia and statutory rape aren't crimes either. Both are abuses of the adult's position of authority, and the child's trust.

I'd say that, in a schoolroom setting, refusal to say the Pledge (if the kid actually does have the cojones) also undermines the authority of the teacher.

The teacher plainly expects everyone to stand up and recite the Pledge. So why is little Jimmy just smirking and looking out the window? And he's getting away with it, teacher can't touch him!

Maybe he can choose not to accept algebra either.

Hardly surprising that some teachers take it personally, and intimidate atheists as much as the law allows (and frequently more than the law allows, causing further discipline issues).

Hardly surprising that many schools don't bother with it! But then there are interfering politicians who MAKE them use it. And, yes, some of those politicians themselves go beyond the law in doing so. One particularly amusing incident involved a "patriotism bill" in which kids would be required to recite the "under God" Pledge and receive two hours of tuition on the Constitution every week (where they would have learned that the bill itself was unconstitutional).

[Imran Siddiqui]

So lest just use the 1953 version of the pledge and move on. These folks demanding that "under God" be kept just simply make a obvious situation last longer.

GePap, you know about the government, right? How many things has the government actually reversed after it goes through the whole process (Congress, President, SC)? Not many. As you should know there is ALWAYS a resistance to change, no matter how silly. People grow comfortable with their traditions. That is how humans are.

I have no problems with going back to the original pledge, but plenty of people don't. And this topic isn't that important to stress.

[SlowwHand]

It's fairly clear what a lot of you pathetic bastards are against. Almost everything.
Can you clear up something? Is there anything you won't whine about ?

Just curious.

[David Floyd]

Taxes aren't immoral... even your Bible says so.

Yeah! While we're at it, let's go back to stoning children for disobeying their parents, too!

And suburban US public schools are quite good, we need to give urban schools the same amount of educational resources to bridge the gap.

Right, because we know from experience how good the second-highest funded school district in the nation performs (Washington DC)

*Hint* DC is very close to the bottom.

Clearly, throwing money at the problem won't fix it. Getting the government out of education (and, with government, political correctness and "diversity training" and the rest of their BS initiatives) might, though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I assume you mean that the majority "should" have the right to impose THEIR views on the minority, simply because they ARE the majority.

Well... that is what democracy is about, isn't it?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It's fairly clear what a lot of you pathetic bastards are against. Almost everything.
Can you clear up something? Is there anything you won't whine about ?

Just curious.

Can you clear up something?

What in the holy blue **** are you talking about?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I assume you mean that the majority "should" have the right to impose THEIR views on the minority, simply because they ARE the majority.

Well... that is what democracy is about, isn't it?

No, that's what the Borg are about.

[Japher]

Symantics.

I don't know if any one posted this yet but:

God (noun)
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

I would say that a couple of those definitions mention nothing of christianity, or religion in any sense. So let those blowholes pick which definition they want, and if they don't like it they can attack Marriam-Webster and not the state. Why is my state so full of morons?

On the same note:

Allegiance
1 a : the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord b (1) : the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government (2) : the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides
2 : devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause

Hey! Where not a feudal system, that is blasphamy maybe they have a point! (Sarcasm at it's best).

Hey, but I'm not one to nit-pick.

---

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America

(I give my loyalty to the US)

and to the Republic for which it stands

(and to this neat little thing we call a Republic, whatever that is)

one nation

(obvious)

indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.

(united as one for a cause)

... That was the original pledge until 1954. Adding

Under God

(beneath a supreme, and perfect, reality)

maybe a lie, but the other stuff could be seen as that to.

Weirdos

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I'd say that, in a schoolroom setting, refusal to say the Pledge (if the kid actually does have the cojones) also undermines the authority of the teacher.

Now you're just engaging in histrionics.

[Berzerker]

Elden -

First: I said the american COURTS were stupid, not all Americans.

I'm aware of whom you were calling stupid, did I say you accused all Americans of stupidity?

Second - They should make it optional rather than have it compulsory, say it if you want or pause a few seconds so those who want to say it can.

Children can recite the pledge to their heart's content on their own time. This isn't about individual prayer and pledge reciting, it's about the attempt to coerce other children into joining by having organised prayer and pledge reciting in the classroom. And frankly, these people who are pushing this pledge/prayer nonsense are actually insulting the rest of us. They have decided that our children are not patriotic and religious enough, so they must stick their noses into how we raise our own kids against our wishes because we have failed as parents. These people are no different than the homosexual activists trying to push their agenda of "tolerance" for homosexuals upon our kids through the public school system. But that's what the public schools have become, a battleground for social engineers - both left and right - to get their mitts on our kids to push their ideology and religion...

[Japher]

Children can recite the pledge to their heart's content on their own time. This isn't about individual prayer and pledge reciting, it's about the attempt to coerce other children into joining by having organised prayer and pledge reciting in the classroom. And frankly, these people who are pushing this pledge/prayer nonsense are actually insulting the rest of us. They have decided that our children are not patriotic and religious enough, so they must stick their noses into how we raise our own kids against our wishes because we have failed as parents. These people are no different than the homosexual activists trying to push their agenda of "tolerance" for homosexuals upon our kids through the public school system. But that's what the public schools have become, a battleground for social engineers - both left and right - to get their mitts on our kids to push their ideology and religion...

Oh my God! Sorry, I used the "G"-word.

Home-school your kid for all I care. Besides "tolerance" is a good thing, as well as respecting those who are supplying you with your education, and if you are in a public school those people are the American people, so show some respect, Silent Bob (couldn't help it).

On another note, a large portion of parents these days are awful parents who need a school system putting their noses into their buisness before a cop or a social worker does. So they should be counting their blessings, instead of the number of hours they have successfully neglected their kids.

[mrmitchell]

*cough* slippery slope *cough*

(THAT is why we should take the time to get rid of it.)

[cinch]

Imran:

Well... that is what democracy is about, isn't it?

Maybe a strict, pure democracy, but certainly not modern democracy. What about minority rights?


Sloww:

It's fairly clear what a lot of you pathetic bastards are against. Almost everything.

Can you clear up something? Is there anything you won't whine about ?

What's wrong with wanting to preserve freedom? How is freedom of religion less important than, say, the right to bear arms?

[Berzerker]

Japher -

Oh my God! Sorry, I used the "G"-word.

You aren't very bright, it isn't about hearing or reading the word "God", it's about using the state to coerce small children into affirming a religious belief they or their parents reject.

Home-school your kid for all I care.

Who asked if you care? I know you're an arrogant SOB, but I sure didn't solicit your opinion. Maybe if y'all stopped stealing other people's money to pay for those public schools, more people could afford private tuition.

Besides "tolerance" is a good thing, as well as respecting those who are supplying you with your education, and if you are in a public school those people are the American people, so show some respect, Silent Bob (couldn't help it).

Wtf are you blathering on about? I don't respect the public schools or you social engineers who think the schools exist to promote your religion.

On another note, a large portion of parents these days are awful parents who need a school system putting their noses into their buisness before a cop or a social worker does.

In other words, we all need your religion shoved down our throats. Pray to your God those social workers never use IQ as an indicator of bad parenting.

So they should be counting their blessings, instead of the number of hours they have successfully neglected their kids.

Yeah, people who don't want you a$$holes using public schools to indoctrinate children into your religion are neglecting their own children. Like I said, the people pushing this pledge think everyone else needs them to provide our children with a moral and patriotic education because we are bad parents. Do you also have a uniform for our kids? Try the color brown, it'll fit in with your ideology.

[DinoDoc]

9th Circuit court stays enforcement of its pledge ruling

By David Kravets
ASSOCIATED PRESS
2:49 p.m., March 4, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court on Tuesday stayed enforcement of its ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional when recited in public classrooms, pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Alfred T. Goodwin issued the order in response to a request from the Elk Grove Unified School District near Sacramento. The daughter of the man whose suit led the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to find the pledge unconstitutional attends school there.

Had Goodwin not issued the order, public schools in nine Western states would have been banned – beginning next Monday – from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, with its reference to "under God." Those states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Oregon and Washington.

The stay issued Tuesday gives the school district 90 days to ask the Supreme Court to review the ruling.

Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the federal government had no comment on the latest developments, and said the Bush administration was still considering whether it would also appeal the case.

In June and again last Friday, the San Francisco-based appeals court ruled that the pledge is an unconsitutional endorsement of religion when recited in public schools.

The Elk Grove district was the target of a lawsuit that transformed the pledge into a federal court case. Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist, sued the schools, alleging that his daughter shouldn't be subjected to collective recitations of the pledge.

In a case that bitterly divided the nation and the federal judiciary, the appeals court ruled in Newdow's favor. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said the Justice Department would "spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge their allegiance to the American flag."

Newdow, a Sacramento atheist, did not object when the 9th Circuit asked him his position on the stay.

"I'll let it play itself out," Newdow said Tuesday. "There's no question I am going to win."

California law requires schools to conduct a patriotic observance at the beginning of each school day. Elk Grove officials had said they would have students sign the national anthem instead of the pledge if the appeals court did not stay its ruling.

California Gov. Gray Davis has predicted the nation's highest court will nullify the appeal court's ruling, saying "surely the Supreme Court will permit schoolchildren to invoke God's name while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance."

Last Friday, the 9th Circuit rebuffed the Bush administration by refusing to reconsider its ruling in the pledge case. The circuit court's earlier 2-1 ruling that the words "under God" violate the separation of church and state has been widely attacked.

[Japher]

You aren't very bright,

and

I know you're an arrogant SOB

I really don't mind you attacking my ideals as stupid or arrogant, I mean, the feeling is mutual. Yet, please refrain from attacking me, personally. It really reubkes any argument you make, and reflects your own attacks on yourself when you can't argue anything without slandar.

As for the rest of your reply that is pretty much summed up with:

Yeah, people who don't want you a$$holes using public schools to indoctrinate children into your religion are neglecting their own children. Like I said, the people pushing this pledge think everyone else needs them to provide our children with a moral and patriotic education because we are bad parents.

A little more slander, butt... It don't see it as religious, read my post before the one you began quoting. Also, morals have nothing to do with it. Patriotic education? Hell, if you can't be loyal to a country that is supplying you and your familly with the necessities of life than get out. It's about showing respect more than partiatism. It is about not getting ppl like Castro, who will use the american education system to thwart our own interests. It is in the full right of the state to protect it's own interests, especially when it is paying the way.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Patriotic education? Hell, if you can't be loyal to a country that is supplying you and your familly with the necessities of life than get out. It's about showing respect more than partiatism. It is about not getting ppl like Castro, who will use the american education system to thwart our own interests. It is in the full right of the state to protect it's own interests, especially when it is paying the way.

And this is precisely WHY "under God" doesn't belong in the Pledge.

Praying to God has nothing to do with being "loyal to a country that is supplying you and your familly with the necessities of life".

Praying to God has nothing to do with "not getting people like Castro".

Praying to God has nothing to do with "the full right of the state to protect it's own interests, especially when it is paying the way".

This is a perfect example of the Christian fascism behind the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge.

It is NOT unpatriotic to be an atheist.

America is NOT a Christian country. If some Christians don't like that, they can get out.

[Berzerker]

Japher -

I really don't mind you attacking my ideals as stupid or arrogant, I mean, the feeling is mutual.

Hypocrite, you started in with me so don't whine when I return the favor.

Yet, please refrain from attacking me, personally.

Hypocrite, you started in with me so don't whine when I return the favor.

You made it personal from the start by taking my position and conveniently assuming I don't like God, etc...FU

It really reubkes any argument you make, and reflects your own attacks on yourself when you can't argue anything without slandar.

Hypocrite, you started in with me so don't whine when I return the favor.

Hell, if you can't be loyal to a country that is supplying you and your familly with the necessities of life than get out.

And you wonder why I react negatively to your BS? I have no loyalty to you, so don't act as if I'm ungrateful for not wanting your ******* religion or "patriotism" crammed down other people's throats. How inane, if you don't like policies I support, leave you ingrate! Then you whine about personal attacks?

It's about showing respect more than partiatism.

Respect for people who think (or people who can't think) the public schools exist so you can coerce our children into some religion you like?

It is about not getting ppl like Castro, who will use the american education system to thwart our own interests. It is in the full right of the state to protect it's own interests, especially when it is paying the way.

Wtf?

[mactbone]

Why exactly do politicians use their religion as a focal point on "why I should be elected"?

Because we live with a majority who would like nothing better than to indoctrinate kids with the notion that not only is their a "god" but that it is the Christian God.

Look at some of the attacks in this thread, about eliminating Christmas (not even sure if that's an officially recognized holiday or just tradition), or the spurious comments that by not endorsing a religion we are endorsing atheism.

Since when did the absence of something prove the existence of another? Especially when it comes to a government mandate.

To all the people that think there are bigger issues - look at the Indiana's Bid to Join Bible Belt thread. You'd think politicians had better things to do, but they keep encroaching on my Religious Freedom.

[Arrian]

MacTBone,

I agree with the last part of your post. Just as I think lauching a crusade (heh) to return the Pledge to its older form is perhaps 1,078th on the "Arrian's importance-o-meter" I consider the stuff in your Bible Belt thread to come in somewhere around 4,053rd.

-Arrian

[Japher]

You made it personal from the start by taking my position and conveniently assuming I don't like God, etc...FU

No I didn't. Where did I assume such things?

Hypocrite, you started in with me so don't whine when I return the favor.

No I didn't. I attacked your beliefs and didn't just start calling you an idiot.

And you wonder why I react negatively to your BS? I have no loyalty to you, so don't act as if I'm ungrateful for not wanting your ******* religion or "patriotism" crammed down other people's throats. How inane, if you don't like policies I support, leave you ingrate! Then you whine about personal attacks?

You obviously don't know how to debate.

Respect for people who think (or people who can't think) the public schools exist so you can coerce our children into some religion you like?

No. Respect for the people who fund public schools, and those who govern over them.

It is NOT unpatriotic to be an atheist.

America is NOT a Christian country. If some Christians don't like that, they can get out.

Jack; it may not be readily obvious, but I do believe in these statements. Granted "under God" was instilled as a christian religious icon to be used in a expression of devotion to the state. Yet, using the word "God" does not mean Christian god, nor does it necessarily indicate some supreme being of any religious ethos.

I am just saying that if there is any kind of "brain washing" occuring it is due to individual beliefs of the conotations of words, and not of the true meaning of the word. As I pointed out earlier, I coud easily make the same kind of accusations with the word "Allegiance".

To all the people that think there are bigger issues - look at the Indiana's Bid to Join Bible Belt thread. You'd think politicians had better things to do, but they keep encroaching on my Religious Freedom.

I agree that Indiana has some issues.

What about "In God We Trust"? Should that be removed for the currency too?

[Jack the Bodiless]

What about "In God We Trust"? Should that be removed for the currency too?

In principle, yes. It's another subversion attempt by Christian extremists. Paper money didn't say "in God we trust" until 1957.

But it's a relatively minor issue, because nobody is expected to recite it (or even read it). You can wipe your backside with a dollar bill and nobody will care (except the next user of it).

In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash is a handy history of these changes.

[Japher]

So, why is not fine that they make the pledge optional, or even those two words optional?

I see all this talk about the "ideas behind the pledge" being an attempt at forcing a belief system on a child, I obviously don't agree with this concept, but is alright for the parents to force their belief system on their own child?

I know you answers will be Yeses, but would that not be counter productive. The freedoms apply to all, right?