Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Is the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/31629-pledge-allegiance-unconstitutional.html)

KnifeMissile 10-14-2003 01:30 PM

Is the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?
 
Here is the article.

Is not mentioning God everywhere institutionalizing the belief of God? This particular example was not necessary and was added quite recently for a rather stupid reason.

I think it is unconstitutional and should be removed. Then again, I'm not an American. Just out of curiosity, does this change anyone's opnion of my opnion?

Lebell 10-14-2003 01:43 PM

You really are worked up about a lot of things south of the border, aren't you?

Anyway, please don't just post links:

------------------------------------------

High Court to Decide if Pledge Is Legal
35 minutes ago

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.


The case sets up an emotional showdown over God in the public schools and in public life. It will settle whether the phrase "one nation under God" will remain a part of the patriotic oath as it is recited in most classrooms.


The court will hear the case sometime next year.


The justices agreed to hear an appeal involving a California atheist whose 9-year-old daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.


A national uproar followed a federal appeals court ruling last year that the reference to God made the pledge unconstitutional in public schools. That ruling, if allowed to stand, would strip the reference from the version of the pledge recited by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.


The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.


The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America."


The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.


The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty to "one nation under God."


The White House hinted that an administration-written brief in the case could be in the offing, with Scott McClellan, President Bush's spokesman, calling the Pledge of Allegiance "an important right that ought to be upheld."


McClellan would not say definitely whether the White House would press its position before the court but previewed what it would argue if it did. "Keep in mind," he said, "that you have a Declaration of Independence that refers to God or the creator four different times. You have sessions of Congress each day that begin with prayer and, of course, if you look on our own currency, it says "In God We Trust.'"


Activists on both sides of the church-state divide said the case is a watershed for the court and for public opinion.


"This case represents an important opportunity to put a halt to a national effort aimed at removing any religious phrase or reference from our culture," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a law firm founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson.


The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the pledge case the most controversial issue before the high court in a decade.


"Everyone's got an opinion, informed or otherwise," Lynn said. "The bottom line is, will we require a daily religious loyalty oath for school children?"


The administration, the girl's school and atheist Michael Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.


The court, however, agreed only to hear the appeal from the school district. The administration will be able to weigh in separately. The court also said it will consider whether Newdow had the proper legal footing to bring the case.


Justice Antonin Scalia will not take part in the case, apparently because of public remarks earlier this year critical of the lower court ruling in the pledge case. His absence sets up the possibility that the other eight justices could deadlock 4-4, a result that would allow the lower court decision to stand.

In its legal filings so far, the administration has argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.

The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor general Theodore Olson told the court. It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson wrote.

The administration also claimed that Newdow cannot sue on behalf of his daughter because his custody of the girl is in question. Newdow and the child's mother, Sandra Banning, have waged a long and bitter custody battle over the child, who lives with her mother. Newdow told the court that he now has joint custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the Supreme Court.

To complicate matters, Banning has told the court she has no objection to the pledge.

Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and is representing himself in the case.

The phrase "under God" was not part of the original pledge adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress inserted the phrase more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.

Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624

In other cases Tuesday, the court:

_Turned aside an appeal of a lower court decision that upheld laws in nine states permitting doctors to give marijuana to sick patients.

_Agreed to decide whether border officers can randomly search gas tanks of vehicles coming into the country as part of stepped-up security measures that the Bush administration said are indispensable to the war on drugs and terrorism.

_Said it will take a fresh look at the complex question of how to protect children from online smut without resorting to unconstitutional censorship.

Food Eater Lad 10-14-2003 01:46 PM

I believe it is unconstititional to ask people to pledge to a diety. Imagine if instead of "under god" it was "under Allah" or under Satan" or even "under Micky Mouse". Asking kids to pledge to any of these beings, real or imaginary, is just wrong.

Sledge 10-14-2003 02:02 PM

Recognizing that "God" is kind of a catchall term for any miscellaneous in addition to being the official title of the Christian and Jewish gods, I still agree with the Lad.

I think we've moved beyond the age of "godless communism."

chavos 10-14-2003 02:03 PM

the pre 1950's version is just fine, if overly jingoistic. the under God addition is a little questionable...i would ask that my children not participate-i hope that they will believe in God...but i am quite opposed to them being taught that America as a political nation has much to do with that God....

KnifeMissile 10-14-2003 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
You really are worked up about a lot of things south of the border, aren't you?

Anyway, please don't just post links:

Yeah, I've just recently started looking into politics during the recent Ontario elections and I now find it fascinating! I'd talk more about Canadian politics except that there are probably more Americans than Canadians on this board, so...
It's interesting that you've noticed. I guess this really is a community!

I'll remember not to just post the link in the future but what is the motivation behind this rule?

maximusveritas 10-14-2003 02:34 PM

I definitely think it should be declared unconstitutional. The fact that Justice Scalia will not be taking part in this case gives me more hope than I previously had.

Lebell 10-14-2003 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle
I'll remember not to just post the link in the future but what is the motivation behind this rule?
Halx, the board owner, doesn't like having to click links. :D

Food Eater Lad 10-14-2003 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Halx, the board owner, doesn't like having to click links. :D
Is that the real reason? :lol: Why is that I wonder?

filtherton 10-14-2003 03:33 PM

It is only as unconstitutional as the ten commandments in a courthouse.

The_Dude 10-14-2003 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas
I definitely think it should be declared unconstitutional. The fact that Justice Scalia will not be taking part in this case gives me more hope than I previously had.

yup. even if it's a tie, the lower court's ruling will stand.

Liquor Dealer 10-14-2003 05:22 PM

Damn! I hate to do it but just for the sake of serenity I'm going to agree with you guys this time and try to provide an easy way out for you. We really should take God out of government for those of you who are bothered by the mention of his name. To make it easier and more convenient for you to accomplish this I am will to take all of those things that are around you that mention God. Put all of your ones, fives, tens, twenties, fifties, hundreds, bonds, and oh yeah! loose change in a package and mail it to me. I hope this will privide a solution for your dilemma and, don't thank me! I was glad to help.

bonbonbox 10-14-2003 05:42 PM

Removing the reference to God from the pledge is a step in the right direction. Get God out of politics and back in the pulpit. It's bad enough the government gets to say what's a religion and what's not. While they are at it, they should get out of the marriage business too.

lordjeebus 10-14-2003 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
Damn! I hate to do it but just for the sake of serenity I'm going to agree with you guys this time and try to provide an easy way out for you. We really should take God out of government for those of you who are bothered by the mention of his name. To make it easier and more convenient for you to accomplish this I am will to take all of those things that are around you that mention God. Put all of your ones, fives, tens, twenties, fifties, hundreds, bonds, and oh yeah! loose change in a package and mail it to me. I hope this will privide a solution for your dilemma and, don't thank me! I was glad to help.
http://www.flash.net/~lbartley/au/issues/godtrust.htm

According to this (found via Google), God references weren't added to coins until 1908 and to paper money until 1957. I think that these references, and those in the Pledge, should be removed as they serve no purpose. I believe that most people who argue that "God" is a catch-all term are the ones who believe in the Judeo-Christian brand of higher power.

If the SCOTUS decides to let it stand, perhaps someone could publicize the fact that the Pledge was written by a socialist...

The_Dude 10-14-2003 05:47 PM

and i think that the "god" in pledge was added in about that time too (50's) by mcarthur.

we went fine without it for 100+ years, we can do the same now.

Liquor Dealer 10-14-2003 05:56 PM

Like I said - take everything out of your pockets that has God on it - put it in an envelope and send it to me - you'll feel a lot better for it - Actually! I'll feel a lot better about it than you will but that is irrelevant.

The_Dude 10-14-2003 06:09 PM

as for money, i'm not calling for a total recall, just dont print "god" in the new ones that we print out.

eventually, we'll phase it out.

lordjeebus 10-14-2003 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
as for money, i'm not calling for a total recall, just dont print "god" in the new ones that we print out.

eventually, we'll phase it out.

I agree -- it's not a problem that merits significant expenditure to change.

Nizzle 10-14-2003 06:53 PM

We could have different deities printed on different coinage and bills. Imagine the uproar if Allah was on the $20 and dime?

HugAPug 10-14-2003 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle
Yeah, I've just recently started looking into politics during the recent Ontario elections and I now find it fascinating! I'd talk more about Canadian politics except that there are probably more Americans than Canadians on this board, so...
It's interesting that you've noticed. I guess this really is a community!


Hey, if you ever feel like starting a discussion about Canadian politics, know that there are quite a few Canucks around. I've also considered starting threads about Canada but decided against it.

Mojo_PeiPei 10-14-2003 07:36 PM

This country is a theist nation, it was founded on the Judeo-Christian influence. OMG the Declaration of Independence mentions a God, its endorsing religion lets burn it!!!! So once you Christo-phobes succeed, what are you going to replace God with, something like the communist heros???

emidew22 10-14-2003 07:36 PM

Constitutionally, the whole god bit should be removed. But when i was that young that i had to recite the pledge every day, i didn't think about the meaning of the words i was saying. It was just part of the routine, like taking attendance and having recess. And by the time you are old enough to decide your beliefs, no one really makes you say the pledge any more. It comes on over the PA, but everyone just keeps talking about the party they were at over the weekend, etc. When it comes down to it, you could even argue that saying the pledge in general is unconstitutional. Maybe i'm not a citizen and i just go to school here cause this is where my parents live and there's nothing i can do about it, blah blah blah. Seriously though, no one is gonna force you to say the pledge. You're not gonna get thrown out of school for it. Personally, i think everyone needs to relax. America has a big stick up its ass when it comes to political correctness. If you don't agree with the statement, then don't say it, but don't waste my tax money taking it to court. And don't be so touchy, the statement wasn't aimed at offending you.

Sledge 10-14-2003 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
This country is a theist nation, it was founded on the Judeo-Christian influence. OMG the Declaration of Independence mentions a God, its endorsing religion lets burn it!!!! So once you Christo-phobes succeed, what are you going to replace God with, something like the communist heros???
Yes. I nominate Stalin. One nation, under Stalin...

filtherton 10-14-2003 07:56 PM

I think it is a mistake to confuse the constitutionality of something with the pc movement. There is no way it can be justified under the seperation of church and state, and therefore should cease to appear on public property and currency.

Food Eater Lad 10-14-2003 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
This country is a theist nation, it was founded on the Judeo-Christian influence. OMG the Declaration of Independence mentions a God, its endorsing religion lets burn it!!!! So once you Christo-phobes succeed, what are you going to replace God with, something like the communist heros???

Cant tear up the constitution, but we can maintain a separation of church and state. When the powers that be start make you chant in the morning to be loyal to a diety, that is a direct violation of the best tenate of the American System, the very thing that has allowed us to be such a successful nation. Religion is a private thing. God is a religious idea. Unless you have empiracle data to prove otherwise.

Mojo_PeiPei 10-14-2003 09:11 PM

The rights of this country and its people were endowed to us by God the creator, the forefathers knew this.

The_Dude 10-14-2003 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
The rights of this country and its people were endowed to us by God the creator, the forefathers knew this, we prospered under their morals and ideals.
wanna show me proof of "The rights of this country and its people were endowed to us by God the creator"

and no, bible is not proof. it's fiction.

Mojo_PeiPei 10-14-2003 09:18 PM

Taken from the Declaration of Independence:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

----
On a side note your insane and just plain ignorant if you think the bible is fiction regardless if you are from the Judeo-Christian beliefs.

--
Further more if you were to make laws against God in public domain you would violate the first amendment, it clearly says freedom of religion, not from it. Secularism isn't an alternative to some "harsh repressive theocracy". Look at three of the biggest people behind secularism Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam.... not very good track records.

The_Dude 10-14-2003 09:23 PM

Quote:

On a side note your insane and just plain ignorant if you think the bible is fiction regardless if you are from the Judeo-Christian beliefs.
it's not just christianity. i consider 99% of all religious literature as mythology.

i'm not saying to make laws against god, but putting god's name on coins and pledges is making laws FOR god.

making laws against god would be dictating which religions are allowed to practice and how they shoud practice.

Mojo_PeiPei 10-14-2003 09:38 PM

All secularism does is replace God with the state, which is really no better.

The_Dude 10-14-2003 09:45 PM

god is not the same for all persons (as many even doubt the existence).

state is the same for all persons.

Mojo_PeiPei 10-14-2003 09:47 PM

* Few (by comparison) doubt the existence, and as you can tell by politics the politics board here, there are people who don't have anymore faith in the government/state.

MuadDib 10-14-2003 09:48 PM

The problem with using God is that it isn't all encompassing. The intent is pretty clear and even if not, it still doesn't encompass polytheistic religions or atheists. The government needs to stay out of religion to protect both from the other and I think its a good move to keep the government from endorsing any religion.
In a funny side story, you would not believe the number of dollars I get with the word God blacked out with permanent marker. Is this just a regional thing or do you guys get this too?

Mojo_PeiPei 10-14-2003 09:51 PM

I also find it interesting that you "atheists" are so weak in your beliefs that you are threatened by WORDS that don't even mean anything to you (or so you claim). You'll argue "we aren't threatened blah blah blah" , well if thats the case then whats your agenda??? You guys willingly negate the fact that 90% of Americans, and thats who we are talking about here, believe in some high power, A God. Get serious, maybe its you guys that need to be more mindful of other people's beliefs...

The_Dude 10-14-2003 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I also find it interesting that you "atheists" are so weak in your beliefs that you are threatened by WORDS that don't even mean anything to you (or so you claim). You'll argue "we aren't threatened blah blah blah" , well if thats the case then whats your agenda??? You guys willingly negate the fact that 90% of Americans, and thats who we are talking about here, believe in some high power, A God. Get serious, maybe its you guys that need to be more mindful of other people's beliefs...
just because a majority believes in supernatural doesnt mean supernatural exists.

the bill of rights was written for just this reason. to protect the minority from the majority (the masses).

this all fits in perfectly in the puzzle. the religious majority wants govt to have gods imprint over it, but the bill of rights protects the rights of the minority who doesnt want this to happen.

Quote:

I also find it interesting that you "atheists" are so weak in your beliefs that you are threatened by WORDS that don't even mean anything to you (or so you claim).
it's not just atheists that are against having "god" on notes & the pledge. i bet a majority of people that want the word removed do believe in a higher power.

Mojo_PeiPei 10-14-2003 10:02 PM

I disagree again, I remember seeing a poll about your favorite person, Roy Moore is it??? Anywho 3/4 of Americans felt the decision was outta line and are for the commandments being up. The poll was a CNN/USA today poll.

Just because we believe doesn't make him real, just because you don't doesn't.

The_Dude 10-14-2003 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I disagree again, I remember seeing a poll about your favorite person, Roy Moore is it??? Anywho 3/4 of Americans felt the decision was outta line and are for the commandments being up. The poll was a CNN/USA today poll.

Just because we believe doesn't make him real, just because you don't doesn't.

exactly. the majority wanted something that would pretty much run over the rights of the minority. our judicial system stood in place and the rights of the minority were protected.

Mojo_PeiPei 10-14-2003 10:05 PM

Since you will want proof:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/te...nts/index.html

Quote:

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (CNN) -- Only one in five Americans approve of the federal court order under which workers removed the Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of Alabama's state judicial building Wednesday, according to a new poll.

The new CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll found 77 percent of the 1,009 Americans interviewed earlier this week disapproved of U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove the monument.

.....


Mojo_PeiPei 10-14-2003 10:07 PM

All of this is political, I at the other end belief that the rights of the minority infringed on the rights of the majority, either way is fucked up.

I know in alot of cases thats what our system is for, but it gets ridiculous, just because a minority beliefs in something doesn't make it right or fair.

The_Dude 10-14-2003 10:10 PM

the rights of the majority are infringed when the govt/courts grant a power to the minority that is not stated in constitution/ammendments.

minority is given the right of freedom of religion.

if the government is going to erect statures of the majority religion and ONLY the majority religion, then it's not being fair to all other religions(not to mention that is endorsement) (and no, there is no possible way to be fair with all the religions. so the best way is to be neutral toward 'em all).

sry bout wanderin off topic


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360