The Pledge

[Killfile]

Another blog cross post:

A Federal Judge in Sacramento handed down a ruling on Wednesday (September 14, 2005) finding that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (with its controversial “one nation under God” clause) in public schools is unconstitutional because it implies a “coercive requirement to affirm God.”

Conservative groups have already labeled this ruling an example of “judicial activism.”

The ruling is being appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals which has already found this use of the Pledge unconstitutional.

The Miriam Webster Legal Dictionary (courtesy Answers.com) defines “judicial activism” thusly: “The practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent compare“

Clearly, this isn’t in opposition to established precedent. A higher court has already ruled on this topic. Its findings form the basis for this judge’s opinion. As to the concept of Constitutional Intent, the First Amendment is fairly clear on this matter and this Judge’s finding is in keeping with that Amendment.

So, no, it’s not “judicial activism.” It’s just good law.

A little historical background on the Pledge of Allegiance, for those of you keeping score at home. According to Wikipedia, the Pledge was first written for a children’s magazine by a socialist author and Baptist minister named Francis Bellamy in 1892. The original text read as follows

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Minor changes to grammar and syntax, as well as a change in 1924 to clarify to which flag, exactly, allegiance was being pledged, yielded this, more modern version.

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

It wasn’t until the 1950s, at the height of the Red Scare, that the phrase “under God” was added to the pledge. The religious connotations were meant to separate the United States from her dreaded enemy, the Soviet Union. Communism, particularly in its Soviet or Bolshevik form, is rabidly Atheist, seeing religion as a pacifying element that squelches the revolutionary fervor of a people.

President Eisenhower signed this most recent change to the pledge into law in June of 1954 saying “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty

It is a phrase that has outlived its usefulness. It was unconstitutional in 1954 and it is unconstitutional now.

[LordMune]

Good, there may still be hope for that country.

[ucrzymofo87]

the supreme court will overturn the lower court's ruling by a vote of 8-0 or around there because there is not constitutional issue regarding the pledge.

[Killfile]

the supreme court will overturn the lower court's ruling by a vote of 8-0 or around there because there is not constitutional issue regarding the pledge.

Now you're just trying to get me pissed off right? You don't seriously think that.... do you?

First, if there were "not [a] constitutional issue regarding the pledge" the Court wouldn't hear the case. The US Supreme Court only hears cases of Constitutional Import or those to which it has primary jurisdiction.

Secondly, there clearly is a constitutional matter involved here.

Saying the pledge in school creates an environment wherein children are pressured to conform.

The pledge contains the phrase "under God" which is an implicit affirmation of God. If it weren't an implicit affirmation of God no one would give a crap and this wouldn't be an issue.

By pressuring children to say the pledge, implicitly or otherwise, you pressure them ot affirm the existence of God.

This affirmation is in direct conflict with several major religions (Shinto, Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism, and Atheism among others).

By endorsing the pledge the state gives preference to monotheistic religions over all others. This is a violation of the 1st Amendment as incorporated upon the States by the 14th Amendment.

So yea, there's a Constitutional question here... and I would bet you a VERY substantial amount of money that the Court would NOT find 8-0 for the state.
[/b]

[ucrzymofo87]

I think what you're driving at is the establishment clause in the first amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,.."

first of all, the pledge has a secular purpose because its primarily a patriotic observance, not a religious one. It has been clear since West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) that no child may be compelled to recite the Pledge because, the Supreme Court reasoned, that would require affirmation of belief, in violation of the First Amendment freedom of speech.the phrase "under God" in the Pledge is not sufficiently serious or significant to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. the pledge is all about pledging alliegence to america, not about god.

however, i can see how aiethists would be upset by having to confess to a belief in God. Instead of the pledge, what our school did was have us stand and have someone sing the Star Spangled Banner over the speaker system. I think that would be an admirable compromise.

[Ellen]

"however, i can see how aiethists would be upset by having to confess to a belief in God. Instead of the pledge, what our school did was have us stand and have someone sing the Star Spangled Banner over the speaker system. I think that would be an admirable compromise."

You're also forgetting the that people shouldn't necessarily have to pledge allegiance to a certain flag or country. Which is why certain people don't stand when national anthems are played.

[ucrzymofo87]

the majority of the people in this country want to stand for the national anthem. people who do not want to have the right to do so. For those who want to stand for the national anthem, the minority should not say, "since we don't want to, you can't." that is also an unconstitutional restriction on the free exercise of free speech.

[Buzkashi]

Well I havent been saying the pledge since the 3rd grade. Not because of the under God stuff. But in the begining where it says " I pledge allegiance to the flag" stuff. I mean Im all for america and i love this country. I wish they said something else beside "to the flag". Because i dont pledge my allegiance to a flag. I pledge it to God. I know that when they say the flag they mean the country, but i just dont believe in reciting it. I still stand up though.

[Ellen]

the majority of the people in this country want to stand for the national anthem. people who do not want to have the right to do so. For those who want to stand for the national anthem, the minority should not say, "since we don't want to, you can't." that is also an unconstitutional restriction on the free exercise of free speech.

however, the issue at hand is that it has become akin to propaganda since this is done in the public education system. People who do not participate in this daily ritual can often be ostracized by those who do stand and recite the pledge. Often children recite the pledge not knowing the meaning behind it. This reasoning is the basis for why it should not be an integral part of the schoolchild's daily routine. If they wish to pledge allegiance, it does not need to be a public affair, however, they can still do so whenever they want, therefore it is not an infringement on freedom of speech.

[ucrzymofo87]

however, if someone wanted to pledge in the middle of class, that individual would be disciplined for disruption. so it only makes sense to set aside a small amount of time to pay respect to our country.

i personally believe that our rights come from God and not the government. by removing those two words from the pledge, i think we undermine where our rights came from. John Locke was an advocate of knowing that our rights come from God and not government. this idea transpires because government will take our rights and abuse them if left unchecked. one of our founding fathers said, "either we must be governed by God, or we must be governed by tyrants." the choice is ours.

[Ayanami]

however, if someone wanted to pledge in the middle of class, that individual would be disciplined for disruption. so it only makes sense to set aside a small amount of time to pay respect to our country.

i personally believe that our rights come from God and not the government. by removing those two words from the pledge, i think we undermine where our rights came from. John Locke was an advocate of knowing that our rights come from God and not government. this idea transpires because government will take our rights and abuse them if left unchecked. one of our founding fathers said, "either we must be governed by God, or we must be governed by tyrants." the choice is ours.

See here buddy, just because you think your rights came from God, does not mean that other people feel the same way. That is why the pledge is unconstitutional. Because it envolves everyone in the class. If you want to do the pledge, then do it in the privacy of your own home.

[Eldo]

Wow, do you guys really have to say the/a pledge every single day at school or something? I'd hate to do something like that, I don't have a hint of patriotism at all. I don't really see the purpose of a pledge anyway, seems like some kind of brainwashing to me. But I'm atheist and unpartiotic, which is probably the worst combination to make a pledge for.

Australia (well, the school I went to) only has the National Anthem playing at school assembly which are held once a week. Singing it is up to you, but yeah, we have to stand up as a form of politeness. Personally didn't really mind though. No form of pledge needs to be made or anything.

[ucrzymofo87]

See here buddy, just because you think your rights came from God, does not mean that other people feel the same way. That is why the pledge is unconstitutional. Because it envolves everyone in the class. If you want to do the pledge, then do it in the privacy of your own home.

the reality is that people can pledge wherever they want to. telling someone they can only say the pledge in the privacy of their own home is a violation of the law and free exercise of free speech.

i also agree with eldo that it is polite to stand during the national anthem and pledge out of respect for those who gave their lives for their country. that is a sign of dignity and respect for all veterans, which i think everyone can agree, deserve our gratitude and respect.

[Killfile]

No, people can't say the pledge anytime they want to. Let’s remember that this is a public school we're talking about.

Having a block of time set aside at the beginning of class is unconstitutional because is gives implicit state recognition to a ritual that affirms God. By giving the state's implicit blessing, and because of the way we encourage students to behave, we create a socially compelling atmosphere for students who don't believe to feel as if they should conform. We in short, create a situation where people are forced to choose between their religious convictions and their peer group.

It's ok that people have to make that choice from time to time, but it's not ok for them to be put in that situation daily by an activity of the state.

If students want to pledge to the flag, they can do so before classes start. Get there early.

As to the pledge not having religious significance, I direct you to the thread starting post:

President Eisenhower signed this most recent change to the pledge [the Under God part] into law in June of 1954 saying “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty

Yea. No religious overtones there.

Personally I find "patriotism" or, as we call it when its fanatical loyalty to some other country, "nationalism" distasteful. Read over the history of the last 100 years and see if you can work out where having a massively powerful military and a nationalist fervor has gotten various nations of the world as of late.

I'll give you a hint. Auschwitz.

[ucrzymofo87]

i think you're confusing nationalism and patriotism. patriotism is the love of one's contry. nationalism the complete and utter devoition to one's country and its culture. you can be patriotic without being nationalistic.

however, i also believe that it is not the two words ""under God" that are unwanted in the pledge. it is the pledge in its entirety. simply not wanting to say the pledge because you do not want to conform seems rather illogical. there is a quote that goes something like, "those who do not conform are conforming to nonconformity."

i think either reciting the pledge or standing for the national anthem would be a compromise. those who wish to stand for the national anthem are able to, and those who do not want to have the choice to remain seated.

[Killfile]

So speaks Answers.com

The noun patriotism has one meaning:
Meaning #1: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it
Synonym: nationalism

So that settles that I guess.

Moving on. Setting aside standing for the National Anthem, which is not being debated, either here or in the courts, the pledge of allegiance contains, by federal law, passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by President Eisenhower the phrase "under God," which Ike specifically stated has religious meaning.

The case before the court is to settle the question of the state's right to request/order a child to say the pledge, given that these undisputed facts about it.

That's it. That's all that's being discussed in the case.

I don't think that the question has anything to do with not saing the pledge out of a desire to be non-conformist. It has to do with the very real fact that not everyone worships the Christian God, a god at all, or a single god. Given that, why do we make them say they do?