Greetings!

I was watching the news, and shocked that the US Pledge of Allegiance has been declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. Now, I believe very strongly in the freedoms safeguarded by the constitution, and I am not very religious in any way, but I think we are becoming a little too "politically correct" to take such offense at the words "under God". Whatever it may mean to different people, it is an important part of American culture.

For those who want it, I am offering up an illegal MP3 file - the only MP3 on my player that I did not rip myself, but downloaded from the web: Red Skelton's rendition of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Note: if anyone can point me to a CD on Amazon.com or equivalent with this track, please PM me...

will an audio cassette do?

edit
maybe this CD will do?

Next thing you know money will become illegal. It does say on the back "In God We Trust".

This country is in sad shape.

PC is one of the reasons I decided to retire from the Armed Forces...we are trying so hard to please everybody that our operational effectiveness is being eroded away daily....

I've been waiting for this day since middle school.

Do you all realize that that those two little words were added by congress under Eisenhower in the 50's? It's not even part of the original Pledge. God should have nothing to do with patriatism or pledging allegiance to this country. What if it was "under Allah"... how would you feel then? This is purely and simply a constitutional issue... and has not a damn thing to do with the state of this country. It's as American as it GETS... upholding the Constitution. Kids being forced (not that they legally can be... read the findings of the court regarding why this suit was brought) to recite the pledge have their rights infringed upon by those two words. Simple as pie. Violation of the Establishment Clause. Look it up.

I have issues with the fact that it's REQUIRED BY LAW in thie state of CA that public schools begin each day with "appropriate patriotic excersises"... but that's a whole other can of worms.

Did you all even bother to read the courts findings??

Here they are in PDF.

edit: check out this quote from the findings...

"Moreover, the legislative history of the 1954 Act shows that the "under God" language was not meant to sit passively in the federal code unbeknownst to the public; rather, the sponsors of the amendment knew about and capitalized on the state laws and school district rules that mandate recitation of the Pledge. The legislation's House sponsor, Representative Louis C. Rabaut, testified at the Congressional hearing that "the children of our land, in the daily recitation of the pledge in school, will be daily impressed with a true understanding of our way of life and it's origins," and this statement was incorporated into the report of the House Judiciary Committee. Taken within it's context, the 1954 addendum was designed to result in the recitation of the words"underGod" in school classrooms throughout the land on a daily basis, and therefore constitued as much of an injury in fact as the policies considered in Wallace and Santa Fe. As discussed earlier, Newdow was standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter. The mere enactment of the 1954 Act in its particular context constitues a religious recitation policy that interferes with Newdow's right to direct the religious education of his daughter."

Read it... really... it's fascinating...

Is it really that important of an issue that we have to take it all the way to the supreme court? If a kid doesnt want to say it...just remain silent. There is nothing wrong with that. "Under God" is in the pledge because "God" is what this country was built on. Now I believe in religious freedom as much as the next guy, but no one is forcing anything on anyone...i just hate to see tax dollars go to WASTE on items such as this one. Flame me if you want, but this is just my opinion.

I think all they have to do is remove "under god" and the problem is over. I don't mind the kids saying it - I did everyday, but I went to school on an Army base...

Interesting when the President chastises the lower courts for having this kind of authority, when basically all they did was uphold a current law?

Greetings!

Yes, I am aware of the words being added in the '50s. And you are correct - it is a constitutional issue, and it is something that is important to debate and defend. I personally have no objection to anyone reciting it to use the deity of their choice in reciting it, or to leave the words out if they prefer. I agree that no one should be forced to recite it against their will, and that it is meaningless if it is forced.

As to the state of the country, I didn't really intend to go in that direction.

I do feel, though, that self-censorship is perhaps the worst form of censorship - not saying something because it is unpopular. It works both ways: I feel sorry for the person who has to stand silent listening to others say the words around them, but I also feel that I still have the right to say the words if I choose to. Thus my PC comment.

I am very glad for the link - I will definately read the original findings. Thanks!!!

Edit: I have read the original. Very interesting indeed! There are a number of valid points raised. I must admit, though, that I do not agree with either of the opinions completely. I do not personally feel that the phrase is an effective form of coersion, no matter how subtle. If anything, I would think it would be something that would be a learning experience, opening discussion between a child and parent of the importance of their shared beliefs. I would think that discussion would only serve to strengthen those beliefs, not erode them.

Cthulhu saves - in case he is hungry later.

Personally, I have no problem with it because I don't consider it to be religious to me, so it's purely patriotic in my eyes, and God doesn't really come into it for me.

What I do have a problem with is that in my county (maybe state?), schools have a mandatory moment of silence at the beginning of each day. I find that ridiculous.

I see your point - it's not like many of the words of the pledge have anywhere near as much meaning as they should, especially when it comes to the legislative branch. This pledge is much more apt:

I pledge allegiance to the RIAA
and the Corporations for which it stands
One organization, under Rosen
un-distributable
with tyanny, and injustice for all

or this one:

I pledge allegiance to the CEOs of America
and the scamming for which they stand
One scandal, under Andersen
Un-accountable,
With job-loss and stock crash for all.

I feel sorry for the person who has to stand silent listening to others say the words around them, but I also feel that I still have the right to say the words if I choose to.

First, I haven't actually read this ruling, but if it is just upholding that other law, then I know what's being talked about. So just tell me to shut up if I'm making an incorrect assumption.

There is no law that prevents you from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (or for that matter, from praying out loud) in a public place, including a school. The law specifies that the government cannot compel you to pray, or encourage prayer (I believe that as long as it's framed in the context of ``a moment of silence'', it's okay, because then each person is free to do as he wishes privately). Since the PoA contains the phrase ``under God'', that can be construed as a prayer, or at least to be religious, and that's the problem. If the schools were to remove that phrase, I can't imagine that there would be a problem.

And even if you want to argue that it's ``god'' and not ``God'', then that alienates atheists, and possibly other people whose religions to not include a god (not that there seem to be many Confucians in the US ).

I'm with Loren.

The added phrase does -not- belong there. It is patently unconstitutional. Some say this country was built on God. While it is true the majority of the founders had deep religious convictions, they went to extreme lengths to ensure that the government they crafted would -not- impose a belief system on its citizens. The imposition of beliefs, and the tyranny of the church of the day, was what drove many out of the early settlers from their countries of origin.

Though sometimes hard to swallow, we must strive to ensure that the separation of church and state remains intact.

Whatever it may mean to different people, it is an important part of American culture.

Well, on some level, so is Al Capone, but...

I don't have any kids, but I post my response here as a kindred spirit (ha! irony!) with the gent who is the plaintiff in this case.

The estimates vary quite a bit, but it seems like something between 5%-10% of folks in the US fall under the umbrella of atheist or "no-specific-deist-belief". More reliable estimates may be hard to come by because, IMO, many folks who are in this ballpark, belief/nonbelief-wise, are reluctant to categorize themselves in this regard. In turn, I think there are many reasons for that, whether it is a personal discomfort with the notion of being an atheist or a more pragmatic reason ("conservative senator's aide exposed as an atheist!!" read all about it). I have friends with kids who are *functionally* atheists, but who essentially keep a very low profile on this --- lest neighbors forbid their children from playing together among other reasons.

The old ecumenical/assimilationist rejoinder is that we should "respect other people's beliefs". Well, I don't think it works that way. It's downright hard to respect somebody's beliefs when you find them extremely puzzling and hard to fathom. So, I guess the more realistic behavior is to respect other people's right to maintain those beliefs as long as they don't try to injure you and or annoy you with those beliefs.

I somehow seriously doubt that the plaintiff in this case goes from door to door on Saturday mornings trying to convert his neighbors to atheism or that he leaves atheistic leaflets under people windshield wipers. If his life as a parent is close to what I have observed, he probably spends a lot of time talking with his daughter about the beliefs and church-going habits of her schoolmates and struggles with how he'll react if and when his daughter decides that she wants to go to church, too. He is surrounded by a lot of mass culture that he finds pretty alien -- he watched "Touched By An Angel" once then got roaring drunk just for fun. So, maybe he isn't going to go try to convert the neighbors or Kill His Television, but is there a reason he has to abide state-sponsored "under-godness" when one of the great virtues of this system of government is supposed (distinctly un-Taliban) separation of church and state?

Anyhow, my hat's off to him. he probebly didn't make many friends. And, for folks who find the ruling objectionable, you can just relax!! With this Supreme Court in this year's United States, the ruling doesn't stand a chance.

I watched a little local news story about the ruling. They interviewed a woman who said - and I quote - "There are just so many people in this world who are blind. We need God in our schools...". Lady, if you are out there reading this, please mark this atheist down as highly offended by your statement. (Although, I formed the strong impression that almost anyone who didn't belong to this woman's denomination might qualify as "blind" and can sign up to be offended, too!)

Anyhow, I submit that it was people like this sanctimonious, ignorant slut who successfully sought to insert "under god" in 1952 and this could be a *big* reason why some folks, myself included, would be pleased to see it go away.

"There are just so many people in this world who are blind. We need God in our schools..."

Yeah. What amazes me is that what I'm sure this woman meant is that we need morality in our schools, and that she and a remarkable number of other people are unable or unwilling to separate religion and morality. This would tend to imply that the only reason we have to be nice to each other is so that we'll be looked after in the afterlife. (Of course, even that assumption is a somewhat Christian-centric based notion, but we are talking 99.99% Christian bigots here.)

> I do feel, though, that self-censorship is perhaps the worst form of censorship - not saying something because it is unpopular. It works both ways: I feel sorry for the person who has to stand silent listening to others say the words around them, but I also feel that I still have the right to say the words if I choose to. Thus my PC comment.

I don't think it is PC at all. PC means to me the censoring of people by other people because they don't like what they say. To me, it generally does not involve the government. For instance, the push to get all sports teams to stop using Indian names (the Braves, the Redskins, etc...) because it might be offensive to some people is the epitome of silly political correctness gone wild to me. But this doesn't involve the government. Some guy saying you should or shouldn't say this is one thing, but the government saying it is another, and that is why this is a correct ruling. Frankly, there are enough people out there telling us silly things like "God is what this country was built on" and that the lack of religion in this country is causing our problems that we certainly don't need the government telling us too.

Bitt: Saying 'god' also leaves out Bhuddists, and since it is singular, Hindus as well.

Regarding President Dumya: This is the guy who said:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Respectfully, it appears that it was George Bush Sr. who felt atheists did not deserve citizenship.

I think the scariest part of all this has been missed: The legislative and executive branch threatening the judicial. Remember A. Jackson and the Trail of Tears?

Edit: I'm not implying a word variation in how we indoctrinate our children is equivalent to the Trail of Tears. But if you're praying for the Judiciary to protect anyone from the PATRIOT act, or anything else, you might see where I'm going with that.

I don't even know if I really want to respond here, but I guess I just have to say something. What is "unconstitutional" is the government imposing a particular religion on the citizens of the United States. Thats it. The constitution wasn't written with how people "felt" about religious differences in mind, it was written pecause people were getting persecuted for having different beliefs. In this country if someone expresses personal religious beliefs in certain places (ie: teachers in schools) they stand to lose their jobs as a first amendment violation. This seems contrary to the spirit with which the first amenmend was written.

I know this won't be a popular view on this board, but I honesly have "felt" like athesiem is the only valid choice left to anyone because of all the "god" stuff we aren't supposed to do. In the end, its nearly impossible to get yourself away from dealing with spiritual (or non-spiritual) things in life and it shouldn't be the governments job to protect us from that. If a child is uneasy about some Chrisitan, Muslim, Athiest, ect. thing that he has heard or experienced, it has to be up to the parents to deal with it appropriately. Now if the police start knocking on peoples door or rights to vote are determined by religious belifes, we have a first amendment violation.

Religious people and Athiests alike are taught things in school that they disagree with because of their belifes, you can't get away from this. If you take out all of school that somehow is related to spiritual disagreements there would be nothing left to learn. It is sad to me the the words "under god" have become such a battlefield when there are so many important things going on in this country. I belive in religious tolerance, but that doesn't mean I don't have to deal with the fact that some people, even most people, disagree with me; it means I have to accept them as American citizens despite their different religious views.

Nobody is forced to say the pledge. Nobody is forced to pray during the moment of silence. Nobody is forced to say "under God". What this ruling does is it takes away the child's right to say it. They also want to take away a child's right to pray. If you want seperation of church and state, then don't embrace a law that forces this guy's atheist beliefs on the other children.
Civil liberties my ass. They're only taking rights away.

What this ruling does is it takes away the child's right to say it.

Nope, it doesn't. The child is free to say it, but it's the school that, not only by law, but also by one of the basic principles of American democracy, is prohibited from LEADING the children to say it. Each child can continue to say it as they have been, it just won't be led with the words under God (which were added only because the Knights of Columbus campaigned for the words to be added in the 1950's.)

Nobody is forced to say ANYTHING during the pledge, nor are anyone's lips watched to make sure they're speaking every word. Kids can continue to (under the direction of their parents) say under God, say "under Allah", say nothing at all, or even say "[censored] America." But the simple fact is that one of the basic principles of this country is the separation of church and state, which allows people of all faiths to be EQUALLY FREE to practice whatever religion they wish, or to NOT PRACTICE those religions. The phrase "under God" obviously alienates people with certain beliefs, beliefs which I myself don't share, but need to respect just as I expect them to respect mine.

It's very simple. The act that was passed in 1954 was unconstitutional. The law is on this guy's side, and he is going to win. Get over it, continue to say the pledge as you always have, and get onto more important issues.

Amen. uh, I mean, you're right!

I challenge any reader here to show me where separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

I find it quite humorous that so many people can have a debate about the Constitution and don't seem to have ever read it. "Well...everyone says it, so it must be in there somewhere...."

My Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

Therefore, in restricting the freedom of religious speech, the court is actually violating the constitution.

I challenge any reader here to show me where separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

Challenge? You did it for us already! Where's the challenge?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

I'm trying to figure out how you can directly quote the phrase that clearly proves that church and state shall remain separate, yet claim it exists nowhere in the document. Let's look at it in detail at the way this phrase (called the "Establishment Clause" in the study of Constitutional law) is interpreted by the courts (and has always been interpreted by the courts.)

Congress = the legislative body of the U.S.
shall make no law = shall not make any laws
respecting = having reference to
an establishment = a public or private institution
of religion = (duh)

Translation = "The legislative body of the U.S. shall not make any laws having reference to a public or private institution of religion."

Q.E.D.

I COMPLETELY agree with the fact that the second clause (called the "Exercise Clause") guarantees that you have the right to express your religion. But Congress does not have the right to express their religious beliefs in our laws. If they did, they would be free to say that God has commanded them to, say, kill all atheists in our country, and we'd be compelled by our laws to follow their lead. Doesn't that sound a little bit like the tight binding of religion and politics that exists in certain middle-Eastern countries that tend to cause the occasional problem or three in this world?

Translation = "The legislative body of the U.S. shall not make any laws having reference to a public or private institution of religion."

The word "respecting" is a key word. A better translation that reflects the framers intent (easily attainable through other documents, journals, etc...) would be:

Translation = "The legislative body of the U.S. shall not make any laws concerning a public or private institution of religion."

Congress (and indirectly the court system) has no jurisdiction where matters of religion are concerned. In the enumerated powers and limitations of Congress, nowhere is given the power to "police" the use of religion in any form, public or private.

I know exactly how the court system has twisted it to fit their agenda, but in it's pure form, the phrase above simply states that religion is not going to be controlled or prohibited by the government in any way.

It's interesting how that court's decisions are the most overturned in the country. In other words, those judges' decisions are more often ruled by higher courts to be wrong decisions than any other court in the country. The ruling is bullshit. And it is PC crap like this that is eating away at this country.

Imagine an American going to a school in India and demanding that they stop using the word 'Allah'. Do you think that would be reasonable?

You're exactly right, Meatball.

The phrase above simply states that religion is not going to be controlled or prohibited by the government in any way.

The act which inserted "under God" to the Pledge did exactly that. It made a law respecting the establishment of a relgion. If you're going to split hairs and say that the word God does not equate to religion, that's just silly. But the Pledge of Allegience is a nationally-mandated daily occurrence, and it made reference to religion. No amount of creative interpretation can change that fact.

The fact is that when it was inserted into the Pledge, it was done so by the Government in a carefully orchestrated attempt to stamp out atheistic communism. Think 1950's, think anti-communism... And read the words of Dwight Eisenhower when he signed it:

"From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

Go ahead and try to tell me that's not "making a law respecting the establishment of religion."

Look, I think the dude who took this to court is an idiot, and the words "under God" don't offend me, as I do believe in a higher power. The verdict WILL be overturned, though by the letter of the law, the Pledge is, in fact, unconstitutional. If someone challenged it high enough, and the judicial system worked as it should, either the Pledge or that phrase in the constitution would have to be ammended. They are in direct contrast, and no reasonable interpretation can say otherwise.

Imagine an American going to a school in India and demanding that they stop using the word 'Allah'. Do you think that would be reasonable?

You dope, the people of India are mostly Hindus. Maybe 10% of the country is Muslim. Go read a book.

And what you're talking about is what makes America a great country, that we DON'T (or shouldn't) push any one particular religion, because our people are a mix of all faiths. The fact that other countries do it doesn't mean we should.

I don't think it's a federal law to recite the pledge.

But let me ask you a question. If this is a democracy where majority rules, and the majority of people want to keep and say the pledge, why should we allow a minority of the population to stop the majority from doing what they wish, especially since what they're doing doesn't cause any harm to anyone. And don't say that saying "under God" in the presence of an athiest is infringing on their personal rights.

In reply to:

---

that we DON'T (or shouldn't) push any one particular religion, because our people are a mix of all faiths

---

I agree with that. But I also don't think we should ban any religions or religious activities in public or private places. At my school, the pledge was always led by a student. What's wrong with that?

If you're going to split hairs and say that the word God does not equate to religion, that's just silly

I'll say exactly that. The ammendment was designed to prevent the establishment of a solitary religion (ie...state church) by our government like the Anglican Church in England, where people were fined for missing church and persecuted for disagreeing with the established church.

They did not believe that all religious things should be separated from government, or they would not have opened up each of their sessions with prayer.