Is the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Astrocloud · 10-16-2003, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
Doesn't the word "created" imply religion in "we hold these truths to be self-evident; that ALL men are created equal"? What if you don't believe you were created? Maybe we should change it to "born".

1) Some of these questions are quasi-religous and have nothing to do with the legality of the pledge

2) The Declaration of Independance is a document of historical significance. Even if we were to change it -we would have to invent a "wayback machine" to redeliver it to the King of England (King George III) -in order for the new, revised document to have the same significance.

3) The Declaration of Independance in no way trumps the Bill of Rights when it comes to deciding the Laws of the United States. The Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment with it's Separation Clause is the relevant document.

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus

If the Pledge of Allegiance is an indoctrination tool, than why aren't you a Christian?

This makes no sense. If the Pledge of Allegience is an indoctrination tool, then why aren't I in the American Legion? I never said that it's particularly effective on myself... I did imply and now will specifically state that it is effective on some people.

Surely free will and indoctrination are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you've never heard of the prisoner's of war held in China during the Korean war? They had a very powerful indoctrination method, (off subject) but it didn't affect everyone in the indoctrination program.

The Pledge of Allegiance by contrast, isn't particularly effective and even seems innocuous to most people. However the first ammendment is very clear on the separation of powers. By mentioning God the Pledge is in violation of the First amendment.

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus

Do you think all this indoctrination has taken away the rights of people not to believe in God?

It's possible that the pledge infringes on certain groups political and religious beliefs. (See 319 U.S. 624 (1943)). Yet I think in this case it's more of a violation of church/state seperation, which in fact takes away the rights of every US citizen.

I've heard certain people claiming that mention of god in the pledge trivializes the meaning of god... Removing the personal relationship that some (claim to) have and replacing it with a impersonal rote mention. In other words, some find it insulting to be told how and when to call upon thier diety.

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus

It certainly hasn't for me. I just think its a waste of time, money, and heartache for a bunch of semantics.

Yet you feel passionate enough to waste time talking about it here. Certainly others might even feel more passionate.

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus

Astrocloud the Supreme Court will never be objective, because they might not agree with you. They are definitely going to be impartial if the decision is against what you want them to.

I've never said that "The Supreme Court isn't objective because they don't agree with me". I said that the Court has been stocked with some fanatics who aren't interested in preserving the Constitution (despite their oath). The fact that you twist things like that; I would think -is an insult. If you want to start flaming, please start a seperate thread (probably in Nonsense).

Conclamo Ludus · 10-16-2003, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud

Yet you feel passionate enough to waste time talking about it here. Certainly others might even feel more passionate.

I've never said that "The Supreme Court isn't objective because they don't agree with me". I said that the Court has been stocked with some fanatics who aren't interested in preserving the Constitution (despite their oath). The fact that you twist things like that; I would think -is an insult. If you want to start flaming, please start a seperate thread (probably in Nonsense).

Actually what I meant by it is that just because some people have a different view of how the constitution is interpreted than you, it doesn't mean they are fanatics and impartial. It wasn't an insult. Sorry you took it that way. Obviously you are very passionate about it. I am sorry I don't believe people are being oppressed somehow by the pledge. Just my humble opinion.

I just take comfort that if it is removed or stays in, we'll all wake up the next morning, the same people, with the same beliefs.

Kabsnow · 10-16-2003, 03:19 PM

yes, i believe it is.

it was when we were pissed off at the communists, and now we aren't. it is unnecessary.

filtherton · 10-16-2003, 03:23 PM

Despite all of the arguments to keep "under god" in the pledge, no one here has actually tried to claim that IS constitutional. So unless someone wants to somehow make the argument that it IS constitutional than all of the arguments seem to be a moot point.

Conclamo Ludus · 10-16-2003, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
Despite all of the arguments to keep "under god" in the pledge, no one here has actually tried to claim that IS constitutional. So unless someone wants to somehow make the argument that it IS constitutional than all of the arguments seem to be a moot point.

Good point. I couldn't honestly argue that it is constitutional.

Astrocloud · 10-16-2003, 03:41 PM

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcol...mns/070202.htm

God's Got Nothing to Do With the Pledge of Allegiance Furor
By Robert Scheer
Published July 2, 2002 in the Los Angeles Times

Belief in God is not the issue in the continuing brouhaha over the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Rather, it's the government's endorsement of a monotheistic God. That and the gutlessness of politicians in failing to support the right of two brave justices to dare invoke the spirit of the 1st Amendment in a thoughtful, if controversial, ruling. Instead of appealing for calm debate, our political leaders have demagogically stoked the passions of a mob. Is it any wonder that nuts are now sending death threats to both the jurists and the parent who brought this case to court?

True political leaders would have cautioned against intemperate attacks on the court and urged respect for the judicial evaluation of a profound and complex constitutional issue. They also would have pointed out that the Constitution requires the courts to be on continual guard against official actions that undermine the separation of church and state.

Why the hysteria now, when the decision is on hold pending appeal? The conservative U.S. Supreme Court is likely to reverse the circuit court. But whatever one's position on the pledge, the shrill overreaction by a bipartisan chorus of politicians and pundits is alarming. "Just nuts" was the contemptuous reaction of Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, who added that the Pledge of Allegiance affirmed "our belief in a supreme being.'' Does Daschle intend by "our belief" to deny the patriotism of those Americans who do not endorse the senator's monotheism? Or does he believe that the second-grader who is Buddhist or Hindu or, God forbid, simply more absorbed in learning to read than contemplating the unknowable should have to mumble the proscribed words for the sake of national unity? Should a teacher who is a freethinker or a deist, as were many of the country's earliest patriots, be forced to lie to her students by being required to lead them in the oath?

It was in consideration for such rights and protections of the individual that 9th Circuit justices Alfred T. Goodwin and Stephen R. Reinhardt held that the "under God" clause, which Congress added to the pledge in 1954 under the pressure of McCarthyism, violated the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on establishing a state religion.

In no way is this an anti-religious position; it is a defense of religious freedom from state control. A school district is "conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation, of the current form of the pledge," Goodwin, a Nixon appointee to the bench, wrote in his decision.

Moreover, when students invoke by rote the image of an almighty that we as a nation are said to live under, it trivializes consideration of religious and spiritual issues, as well as what it means to be a true patriot. Who knows what's going on in some child's mind as he chants the magical "God" word that none dare question--it could be God as a Mighty Morphin Power Ranger.

Instead of a blind loyalty oath to God and country--as defined by Congress and the president--the schools should be encouraging study of the complex relationship between religion, in all its forms, and civic society. They can begin with the example of the Afghanistan-based terrorists who also claimed to be living in a nation "under God."

The brilliance of our Constitution is that it protects the personal rights of the individual, including students and teachers, against the conformist pressures of the majority. The founders had ample experience with the particularly coercive effect of a dominant religion and for that reason inserted the ban on official religion in the 1st Amendment.

The framers of the Constitution were veterans of a revolution against a king whose divine right to rule the colonies was sanctioned by the official church of England. The Fourth of July, now upon us, should therefore be an occasion to celebrate the inalienable right of the individual to rebel against the dictates of state-sponsored religion.

What the Constitution requires, and what two highly experienced justices attempted to affirm, is the principle that the government ought never be allowed to arbitrarily compel an individual American's allegiance to anyone else's notion of God.

10-16-2003, 03:19 PM	#83 (permalink)
Kabsnow Registered User Location: CA	yes, i believe it is. it was when we were pissed off at the communists, and now we aren't. it is unnecessary.

10-16-2003, 03:23 PM	#84 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Despite all of the arguments to keep "under god" in the pledge, no one here has actually tried to claim that IS constitutional. So unless someone wants to somehow make the argument that it IS constitutional than all of the arguments seem to be a moot point.

10-16-2003, 03:41 PM	#86 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcol...mns/070202.htm God's Got Nothing to Do With the Pledge of Allegiance Furor By Robert Scheer Published July 2, 2002 in the Los Angeles Times Belief in God is not the issue in the continuing brouhaha over the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Rather, it's the government's endorsement of a monotheistic God. That and the gutlessness of politicians in failing to support the right of two brave justices to dare invoke the spirit of the 1st Amendment in a thoughtful, if controversial, ruling. Instead of appealing for calm debate, our political leaders have demagogically stoked the passions of a mob. Is it any wonder that nuts are now sending death threats to both the jurists and the parent who brought this case to court? True political leaders would have cautioned against intemperate attacks on the court and urged respect for the judicial evaluation of a profound and complex constitutional issue. They also would have pointed out that the Constitution requires the courts to be on continual guard against official actions that undermine the separation of church and state. Why the hysteria now, when the decision is on hold pending appeal? The conservative U.S. Supreme Court is likely to reverse the circuit court. But whatever one's position on the pledge, the shrill overreaction by a bipartisan chorus of politicians and pundits is alarming. "Just nuts" was the contemptuous reaction of Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, who added that the Pledge of Allegiance affirmed "our belief in a supreme being.'' Does Daschle intend by "our belief" to deny the patriotism of those Americans who do not endorse the senator's monotheism? Or does he believe that the second-grader who is Buddhist or Hindu or, God forbid, simply more absorbed in learning to read than contemplating the unknowable should have to mumble the proscribed words for the sake of national unity? Should a teacher who is a freethinker or a deist, as were many of the country's earliest patriots, be forced to lie to her students by being required to lead them in the oath? It was in consideration for such rights and protections of the individual that 9th Circuit justices Alfred T. Goodwin and Stephen R. Reinhardt held that the "under God" clause, which Congress added to the pledge in 1954 under the pressure of McCarthyism, violated the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on establishing a state religion. In no way is this an anti-religious position; it is a defense of religious freedom from state control. A school district is "conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation, of the current form of the pledge," Goodwin, a Nixon appointee to the bench, wrote in his decision. Moreover, when students invoke by rote the image of an almighty that we as a nation are said to live under, it trivializes consideration of religious and spiritual issues, as well as what it means to be a true patriot. Who knows what's going on in some child's mind as he chants the magical "God" word that none dare question--it could be God as a Mighty Morphin Power Ranger. Instead of a blind loyalty oath to God and country--as defined by Congress and the president--the schools should be encouraging study of the complex relationship between religion, in all its forms, and civic society. They can begin with the example of the Afghanistan-based terrorists who also claimed to be living in a nation "under God." The brilliance of our Constitution is that it protects the personal rights of the individual, including students and teachers, against the conformist pressures of the majority. The founders had ample experience with the particularly coercive effect of a dominant religion and for that reason inserted the ban on official religion in the 1st Amendment. The framers of the Constitution were veterans of a revolution against a king whose divine right to rule the colonies was sanctioned by the official church of England. The Fourth of July, now upon us, should therefore be an occasion to celebrate the inalienable right of the individual to rebel against the dictates of state-sponsored religion. What the Constitution requires, and what two highly experienced justices attempted to affirm, is the principle that the government ought never be allowed to arbitrarily compel an individual American's allegiance to anyone else's notion of God.