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?

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.

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.

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."

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....

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?

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.

Halx, the board owner, doesn't like having to click links. :D

Is that the real reason? :lol: Why is that I wonder?

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

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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???

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.

Yes. I nominate Stalin. One nation, under Stalin...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

state is the same for all persons.

* 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Since you will want proof:

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

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 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

I find it interesting that so many theists are so weak in their beliefs that they are threatened by removal of WORDS. It isn't that the word God means nothing to an atheist. In fact, it means quite a bit. Almost all atheists I know hold the term God to mean superstition, evangalism, and entrenching religion into culture. Though I am a Christian, I can see the validity of their claim. It is very hard for someone to remain truly objective on a matter of this magnitude when you have almost all of society breathing down your neck and I personally take comfort in the thought that the government stays out of such entanglements and provides us with some room to think and question such beliefs. It isn't that the word God on a dollar bill or in a pledge is going to destroy their way of life, just like removing won't destroy the Christian way of life. What is important in a legalist state such as ours is the the precident it serves. The logic being the inclusion of such words all revolves around a majority belief in such a deity. The problem is that even the most democratic state can not logically swing with every whim of the populace. There has to be a solid grounding in rights for everyone. Respect for minority rights must trump majority will in matters of basic civil freedoms and rights that would make the majority will less meaningful. Implicit sponsorship of religion does just that. By acknowleding that the government (not the people in government) recognizes a single higher deity it endangers the participation and inclusion of those who do not. Because religion (or lack there of) is an issue that strikes at the heart of almost every human, it absolutely can not be endorsed on merits of popular acceptance.

I find that to be very broad minded of you...and I applaud you for it.


Frankly, I think that we Americans could stand to learn a little more about Canadian politics...so, by all means, post away.


I think you mean McCarthy


How about The God and The Goddess? Would that be alright in your eyes?


Laws of Nature and of Nature's God? Well, that could arguably prove my point about The God and The Goddess. Besides, the Declaration of Independence is not the source of our law...the Constitution is.


Actually, I'm all for the display of the 10 commandments...right next to the Wiccan Rede, the first part of which reads "Bide ye the Wiccan Laws ye must, in perfect love and perfect trust.
Ye must life and let live, fairly take and fairly give."


I find your openmindedness to be refreshing. Especially after having read your location as Lincoln, NE...the capitol city of the largest bastian of closeminded fanatical conservatism I have ever seen. I thank you for that.

Ok, for accuracy's sake (ahem, Mojo...), here's the relevant quote from the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It says nothing about "freedom of religion." This clause has been open (and how!) to interpretation, but it's pretty clear, looking at historical documents not limited to the constitution but including letters and essays of the founding fathers, that they wished to avoid the kind of "state religion" that they found so odious back in jolly old England.

I personally think the "under God" should be stricken for a number of reasons:

1. you can argue about "deism" all you want, but the fact is that the people who are so adamant about keeping the "under God" phrase in the pledge have a very particular and narrow definition of God that they want to shove down everyone else's throats. What's the difference between establishing a state religion, and establishing laws based on very particular religious precepts (e.g., the "immorality" of homosexuality?)

2. Leaving it in is a no-win situation: either "under God" is an empty "deist" phrase that doesn't really mean anything, or it's a blatant insinuation that to be loyal to this country you must believe in God. Bzzt, separation of church and state, thank you for playing.

3. Since when is having government involved in religion in any way a good idea? Its sole role should be the protection of religious liberty and expression of religious freedom, not the espousing or establishment of any kind of state-sanctioned religious beliefs.

Since when is the government removing religion been a good thing thank you Hitler , Stalin, and Saddam.

You've been thoroughly spanked on this one in a number of other threads so I won't even bother.

Iran. Nigeria. Afghanistan. See if you can connect the dots.

Wow, that is quite a large brush you are painting with Mojo! You know I usually try to stay out of the "Religi-politics" that go on here, but these two comments really blew me away, but then again according you you I am insane and ignorant.

I attended religious schools from Kindergarden through High School. I have a very solid understanding of the bible and Judeo-Christian beliefs,dogma, history and allegory. I have also studied other religions, philosphies and even cults. To believe that the Bible does not contain large amounts of fiction is really quite ignorant. Any serious Biblical scholar will attest to the fact that much of the Old Testament was taken from existing religions and altered to fit within the Judeo-Christian framework and much of the New Testament is allegory and has been edited over and over again(and lets not get into Revelations). I could go on and on, but I simply reccomend you read the Epic of Gilgamesh and see if you see any similarities to parts of the Bible.

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/...ian/gilgamesh/


Now, as far as athiests being afraid of a word, I think that is a little too simple and easy. I don't know what denomination of Christianity you are, but have you ever been approached by someone of a different belief who will not leave you alone? It gets annoying and eventually offensive, and this is how many athiests I know feel. In addition, it is not only athiests who are opposed the the "under god" portion. Those who wish to minimize the confusion that is inherent in the Constitution whould prefer that the governement not get involved at all with religion.

While I do not think that the "under God" portion in offensive in any way, I do not think it should be included. It was never part of the original Pledge and was only added in the 50's by Eisenhower.

Here is a quick history of the Pledge:

1892

The pledge, written by socialist editor and clergyman Francis Bellamy, debuts September 8 in the juvenile periodical The Youth's Companion. He wants the words to reflect the views of his cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of "Looking Backward" and other socialist utopian novels. It reads: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all."

1924

The words "the flag of the United States of America" are substituted for "my Flag." Fittingly, the change takes place on Flag Day.

1942

The government officially recognizes the Pledge of Allegiance.

1954

Worried that orations used by "godless communists" sound similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, religious leaders lobby lawmakers to insert the words "under God" into the pledge. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, fearing an atomic war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, joins the chorus to put God into the pledge. Congress does what he asks, and the revised pledge reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

2002

June 26 The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" because of the words added in 1954. The decision affects schoolchildren in eight states: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana and Hawaii.

August 9 The Justice Department files an appeal of the circuit court's ruling.

2003

The U.S. Supreme Court says it will decide whether the current form of the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.


Source: The Associated Press and Encyclopedia Britannica Inc


I now have remembered why I try to avoid the "religi-politics" threads.

mojo-feel free to use this like any other freedom. of your free will, with your time, with out taxpayer support, or government coercion. teach your kids to say it in school. teach kids in your neighborhood. lead a society devoted to reciting the pledge. publish pro-pledge leaflets. buy a buildboard that has it printed on a major highway. tack a copy on to an alter. do whatever you want. on your time. with your money.

There are plenty of us out there who think that God is a little too important to get mixed up with our sense of national pride....for me it has nothing to do with freedom from religion. this is very much freedom of religion. i want my kids to have schools in which they are not taught that the ideas of God that are supported in my family are wrong and unpatriotic.

In an effort not to step on the belief's of any single person, should we not do away with all form's of public interaction. If you can't talk, see, read, hear or feel, then we won't offend anyone. Having said that, I have always believed that majority rules, so if over 50% of the people want reference's to God on the money, in the pledge, or before the football game, it should stay.

How have I been spanked? I never once advocated a theocracy, all I'm saying is that a secularist alternative isn't not any better.

Iran- The people wanted the revolution, they welcomed the Ayatollah with open arms to get rid of the Shah.

Afganistan- The People welcomed/ still welcome the Taliban because they brought law and order from a country caught up in tribal warfare.

You guys seem to be all about self determination, these were the choices the people made regardless of how they like it after the fact.

If majority rules, why even have a constitution? What if the majority decided that no one should be allowed to own a handgun? In some states that's how the majority feels. Should we then just throw out the second amendment because the fickle majority says so?

Why is this such a stretch? How is "in god we trust" even remotely constitutional? Why is it such a big deal to remove it?

Following are the results (as of 3:15 P.M. CST 10/15/03)of an opinion poll conducted by the online edition of the Omaha World Herald (the local rag that I read because it's the only newspaper Omaha has.)




Keeping in mind that Nebraska, and Omaha in particular, is filled with bible thumping neo-cons, this scares the living hell out of me. How quickly people forget that the last time religion was mixed with politics, people got burned. Literaly. Oh...that's right...I forgot... it was fundamentalist christians doing the burning then too, wasn't it?


EDIT oh, and by the way, one of those 602 "no" votes belongs to me!!

In addition to the countries that lurkette listed, how about saudi arabia, united arab emirates, oman, quatar, egypt, etc..??

wouldnt they be much better off by removing religion?

Obviously and I am not going to refute that. The Arab world has sold its soul to Allah to retain power, and the people suffer horribly under it. Hell I won't even argue that Christianity had many many failings when it had power derived from religious authority. But the fact of the matter here is America we are a not a theocracy and no religious beliefs are forced on anybody regardless of what anyone says. The majority of people in America are christian always have been, and will continue to be for along time. They shouldn't have to accept change to accomodate people who don't share their beliefs, especially since there is no really problem in the first place. I know that evangicals exist and I agree they are annoying as fuck, I even hate them and I am Catholic! Just live and let live, there are truths to be found in every religion.

While I apreciate your standing beside us on this issue, The_Dude, really I do, I note that it's 3:30 in the afternoon.

Why aren't you in class or something?

It's 4:30 here and I'm pretty much done with classes.

I might go to this study session later, so thought I'd drop in.

haha, then why did they add the "under god" in 1957? Isnt that change when there is no problem in the first place?

Lets hop in our time machine and go kick Dwight's ass on account of all the problems this is stirring up here at the TFP.

no not that. let's just undo his error.

You MIGHT go to a study session later? :crazy:

Are ther no cute young co-eds to be chasing? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot...Texas, and all. J/K :D

You might to to reevaluate your priorities, man.




Excellent point, by the way.

We may not be ruled by the pope, i do think religious beliefs are forced on us every day. Where did the antisodomy laws come from? Where did marriage and the opposition to gay marriage come from? You'll have a hard time convincing me that there is objective, factual evidence condemning sodomy or gay marriage as a legitimate threat to the interests of society. Just because it doesn't say "god" on it doesn't mean it isn't motivated by religious philosophies.

They should have to accept change when that change puts things in accordance with constitutional mandates. Obviously there is a problem when one group violates the constitution and sees no problem in doing so.

No, it wasn't. Jefferson and a lot of our founding fathers were Deists. they believed in God, but did not particularly buy into Judeo-Christian doctrine.

I'll by into your argument when the constitution or the declaration mentions Jesus or Abraham. I can see what you're getting at, with God and all, but it was later intrepration that brought judeism and christianity into the mesh, the original intent was to be as neutral as possible, considering most major religions had a God, and atheism wasn't a full blown movement. i don't think. but i could be wrong on that one. anyway.

What's the big deal? After they do the right thing and remove the offending words, people that are pissed about it can say the missing words. It's the same as telling people to just ignore the words now.

I'm an atheist. I've been one since I was 8 years old, (figured it out sitting in a church no less), and I could care LESS if the pledge says under god or not.

You get freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. If my children are like me and god free, I'll tell them to do what I do and just say it and not worry about it. I love this country dearly, and if it makes a lot of people happy to say under god, I'm not going to get in their way.

Issues like this bring out the worst in people. Some atheists seem to make being an atheist their substitute for religion. As long as people aren't forcing you to slaughter a goat to Baal or give a tithe to the local church, you are just being petty by complaining.

I agree, it seems that to some people Atheism is not just about a lack of belief in a god, but something which requires them to strike out at any who do believe in one. It doesn't work that way.

It's funny that theists or deists are always trying to redefine atheism so that it suits them. What you are actually refering to is that some Atheists or other non-theists seem to enjoy proselytizing their beliefs to others.

That same act, proselytizing; is not only an accepted behavior among religious groups... but it is celebrated and encouraged. I guess turn about isn't fair play in this case. Eh Seretogis?


Secondly, the theists and deists have yet to make one argument for keeping the Pledge the way it is -that isn't steeped in religion. If the first amendment stands; if the wall of separation stands -then the Pledge is unconstitutional.

Does anyone have a non-Religious reason for keeping the pledge the way it is?

For reference here is a letter where Jefferson refers to the wall of seperation. The link is given here.

I hardly think of it as "accepted behavior" -- Jehovah's Witnesses have a bad reputation of doing the same thing. By and large, the average Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/etc doesn't openly attack other established religions. From my experience in "real life" and on discussion boards such as this, the same is not true of the average Atheist. By the way, I am agnostic.

How about, "it is voluntary and doesn't harm anyone." If someone doesn't want to say it, they don't have to. If someone wants to say everything except "under god", they can do that too. This is really a non-issue that's being blown out of proportion by a very vocal minority.

i do appriciate your reasoning seretogis, but the fact is taht if the court considers this a prayer, or institutionalization of religion, then it doesn't help its constitutionality to be made volentary. So long as the school is the intitiator or supporter...it's a problem. They could have a moment of silence...or kids coudl gather around the flag before school and sing it at the top of their lungs.... but the point is that the kids are informed by their families, their church/mosque/synagogue/community, and their own beliefs as how to make a religious expression...and not just being surrounded by a religious expression created by the school.

i don't think its worth the fight that it will be...so i guess i agree with the spirit of what your saying though....

Yet, with what amounts to an institutionalized prayer every day before class -the government is actively engaging in what Jehovah's Witlesses "have a bad reputation" for. This is first rate proselytizing.



You are making a generalization based upon your own anecdotal evidence. This is weak at best but I'm curious where you are going with it.

My guess is the logic goes something like:

a) Atheists are big meanies who are always "striking out" at others.
b1) Therefore any response to this is just another example of an Atheist "striking out".
or;
b2) Therefore Atheists deserve what they get when they have their rights taken away from them.

Please tell me if I'm creating some sort of Straw man here. What was your point in making a generalization about atheists? I'm curious.



It's very fashionable to bash Atheists. This goes back centuries and is clearly stated in Psalm 14: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." As a non-theist in an increasingly secular society; I have seen atheists get personally verbally assaulted by religious people when we were invited to engage in a debate. I've known hundreds of Atheists, Nontheists and Secularists -not all of them are as obnoxious as you intone, yet many have been bashed.




You say that the pledge is "voluntary"; you are deliberately ignoring the context of the pledge. When I was going to work everyday; I didn't stand with my colleagues and recite this pledge. The people who are reciting this pledge are little children. To voluntarily abstain from reciting the words "under god" -would be quite an advanced behaviour for a 7 year old. If you know anything about the psychology of group behavior; you know that the need to belong often outweighs little personal choices. People going against the norm of a group are often subjected to great amounts of psychological pressure to conform and fit in. (In fact this "need to belong" has been used as a powerful instrument of control by cults).

What the pledge amounts to is indoctrination. I'm fine with it -as long as it sticks to indoctrinating children into being good little patriots. Anything else is pushing it.

I'm agnostic. And I say the pledge of allegiance with the words Under God. I use money that says in God We Trust. And when I was a kid I had to recite the pledge everyday. And as luck would have it, I turned out okay. It doesn't bother me a bit, and never has. The beauty of being agnostic or atheist is that the words Under God have no meaning to you, so if you have to say the pledge of allegiance with a couple of words of nonsense in the middle of it, than so be it. Its not going to brainwash you. Its not going to make you believe in God and be a Christian if you say it. I guess the Supreme Court will figure it out though. Its not going to change my life or my beliefs a single bit, one way or another.

Simply ignoring it doesn't mean that the words have no meaning. Accept that there are people not as smart as you... who are influenced by the words on money.

Something that actually happened to me: a student at the University of Arizona (I believe he was a sports and exercise sciences student) -told me that "In God we Trust" printed on money was DIRECT PROOF of god's hand in the affairs of men.

I know this story is anecdotal but my point is that just because X happened to you and you are not harmed doesn't mean that X doesn't have an effect on others.

And the 'eyed' pyramid is DIRECT PROOF of the masons hand in the affairs of the US!

BFD, who cares, would your life have been better if some Arizona jock didn't get to talk about 'In God we Trust' on the money? Do you think the words on the money is why HE thinks so?

If someone wants to believe that the money is proof that God exists, I don't blame the money for them having that opinion. And believe it or not, I don't assume they aren't as smart as me. I guess I just don't see how people are influenced by it. And if they are, is it going to harm them? I don't think people are that stupid that they will be influenced by it. Maybe I put too much trust in thinking that people make up their minds on philosophical issues in more intelligent ways than reading it off of a nickel.

Actually, I make an effort to get rid of money almost as soon as I get it. I give some to my mortgage company, some to my auto finance institution, some to the utility companies...and the list goes on. So, sorry LD, nothing left to send your way. :D

To people saying that mentioning god in the pledge is not a big deal:


Fine, so if mentioning god in the pledge is 'no big deal' then it's no big deal to remove it. If it doesn't hurt anyone to have it there; will it hurt them to have it removed? Right now it seems to violate the first amendment separation clause. So remove it, right?

Sure. If the Supreme Court says its unconstitutional, they can take it out. Doesn't bother me. Now what about the money thing? Are we not going to have a truly free society until every coin or dollar bill or everything else has gone out of circulation? Should we take it out of the Declaration of Independence too? Should we change the language when its being read aloud in school so that the child who is reading it is not confused or influenced? Or should we just stop at the Pledge and move on with our lives? These are all questions we'll have to face at some point I suppose.

I say yes to many of these things... However the Declaration of Independance being plagarized from a John Stuart Mill rant and also more of a historical document than official US policy (In fact the US wasn't even a country when it was written); -doesn't need to be changed and I'm tired of people bringing that up.

In fact the Declaration of Independance supports wholeheartedly the idea that men should be free from the coercive power of the state. "We find these truths to be self evident; that ALL men are created equal" -implies that as equals we shouldn't choose one religion over all others and then shove it down everyone's throats. Being equals -we can decide for ourselves what philosophies to accept as truth.

Furthermore the Pledge of Allegiance is a very obvious indoctrination tool. It is meant to indoctrinate people into being good, loyal US citizens... It was perverted with the intent to push God into the public schools. This has nothing to do with good citizenship.

I also question the Supreme Court's ability to be objective on this issue (especially Clarence). It seems that over the Years the right wing has been able to stock this court with their own irresponsible court jesters (again, Clarence). They certainly weren't impartial in Bush vs. Gore... and they might not be impartial in this case either.

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

Do you think all this indoctrination has taken away the rights of people not to believe in God? It certainly hasn't for me. I just think its a waste of time, money, and heartache for a bunch of semantics.

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'm surprised at the number of people who interpret the desires of some to remove the "under one God" clause as a move by athiests to force their beliefs onto the religious. This is proposterous.
For athiests to do what the pious have done by adding the "God" clause, they would need to say something like "under the fact that no god exists," which is not what they're advocating.
Instead, they're leaving the choice of belief up to you by simply not making it an issue. You can be perfectly patriotic to your country and not be the least bit religious. To do otherwise is simply endorsement.

Having said that, I personally don't believe there should be so much propoganda to build patriotism. I mean, it depends on what you're trying to do. Sure, you don't want anyone to undermine the legal system in place or betray your country in any way, but at the same time you want a population that feels free to criticize it's government. I hate seeing people in the US demanding that people be "patriotic" and "support" the actions of the country. To me, they just don't understand what freedom is. Someone who believes that what their country is doing is wrong and is telling it so is patriotic, in my opinion.

The choice is up to you already, that's why I don't think it is an issue. I'm done arguing about something I really don't care that much about. :D
I suppose it proves that its an issue if I keep talking about it...:)

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.

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.


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.



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. :D 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.

yes, i believe it is.

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

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.

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.