Pledge of Allegiance "Unconstitutional"

valanhb

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
32,530
Purraise
100
Location
Lakewood (Denver suburb), Colorado
From Cnn.com

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag cannot be recited in public schools because the phrase "under God" endorses religion.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that reciting the phrase was a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state and amounted to government endorsing religion.

If it stands, the ruling means schoolchildren -- at least in the nine Western states covered by the court -- cannot recite the pledge, according to The Associated Press.

Pledge of Allegiance
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.



"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgement that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the pledge is normative," the court said in its decision.

"To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism."

The phrase was added in 1954 through legislation signed by President Eisenhower. The appeals court noted that Eisenhower wrote then that "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."

Although no child is forced to say the pledge, the judges said any child whose personal or religious beliefs prevented him from reciting the pledge was left with the "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting."

The case had been filed against the United States, the U.S. Congress, California, and two school districts and its officials by Andrew Newdow, an atheist whose daughter attends public school in California.

The government said that the phrase "under God" had minimal religious content.

But the appeals court said that teachers having classrooms reciting the pledge did not pass the coercion test. The court also said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an attempt to "enforce a `religious orthodoxy' of monotheism."

The three-judge panel was not unanimous in the ruling.

Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, who agreed with some elements of the decision but disagreed with the overall opinion, said phrases such as "under God" or "In God We Trust" have "no tendency to establish religion in this country," except in the eyes of those who "most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."

"My reading of the stelliscript suggests that upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. 'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!" wrote Fernandez.

The 9th Circuit is the most liberal and the most overturned appeals court in the country.
 

deb25

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Messages
12,769
Purraise
5
The last sentence of your post says it all to me. I imagine that if this decision goes to the Supreme Court, it will be overturned.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3

valanhb

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
32,530
Purraise
100
Location
Lakewood (Denver suburb), Colorado
I think this is a travesty, but where else but in liberal California where they think the Constitution is negotiable when they don't like it (i.e. 2nd Amendment need not apply in CA) would this ruling come down.

The case was brought by an Athiest who didn't want his daughter "exposed" to any mention of God, and who said that even though she had the choice not to recite it she was being coerced by peer pressure. Once again, the majority has to bow to the wishes of one of a very small radical minority. I suppose the only way to get the Pledge or patriotism back into school is to eliminate the "under God" phrase. I'm a pagan, and I see nothing wrong with the phase. It isn't specified "One country under (take your pick) Jesus Christ, Buddah, Allah, Zeus, Amen-Ra, etc."

I really hope this is overturned. But I guess if they can essentially ban Christmas and Easter in schools, this is only a logical continuation.
 

nena10

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Apr 5, 2001
Messages
1,436
Purraise
1
Location
Salt Lake City
That is dumb! How can those people be dumb?? I am a naturalized citien of the United States sicne 1995. Before, I was just a legal resident. Yet, all through grade school, junior high, and high school, I recited the Pledge with good intentions. I love to recite it as I love America. It is my home and I know what the Flag stands for. I love the freedom and justice. And the people.
I love singing America The Beautiful. I could go back to Mexico and then be loyal to that country, but while I live here, I am totally loyal to this beautiful country. I respect other beliefs, but I don't agree with the judges and the atheist.

I wonder if this person is or was allied to that one woman, I think her name was madeline O'hara.
 

krazy kat2

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Sep 14, 2001
Messages
8,085
Purraise
41
Location
Somewhere in Georgia
This is absolutely ridiculous! Don't the courts have better things to do? More liberal, politically correct bull--it! We are indeed the United States of the Offended.
I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that I heard somewhere that "under God" was added later into the Pledge Of Allegiance. A school teacher told us a story about how children will often misquote. This child had recited it as "one naked individual" instead of "one nation, indivisible." While I see absolutely nothing wrong with having "under God" in the pledge, maybe we should remove it, on the condition that every school paid for by our tax dollars be required to teach it to the kids and recite it every morning, standing, hand over heart. My school district did this for years. I still remember the pride I felt the first time I could recite it from memory. I really feel that this contributed to the patriotism I still hold dear to this day.
 

zapata

TCS Member
Young Cat
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
Messages
51
Purraise
0
Location
nova scotia, canada
Well I seem to be the only one to agree with the court's decision. Atheist have the right not to have religious discourse, no matter how minimal, imposed on them in public schools. The same as those who believe in god should have the right to not have atheist ideology enforced on them in schools. A pledge is an affirmation of belief, values and loyalty. it is therefore important that it reflect and respect the majority and the diversity.
 

jin & spawn

TCS Member
Alpha Cat
Joined
Nov 9, 2001
Messages
632
Purraise
1
Location
Colorado
Sad.

I'll bet the guy that brought the law suit doesn't have a problem using money, though... even though "In GOD We Trust" is printed all over it.


Oh, wait... I'm sure that's his next suit...
 

katl8e

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
12,622
Purraise
3
Location
Movin' on up!
No child if "forced" to recite the Pledge. When I was in school, we Jehovah's Witnesses, in class. When the Pledge was recited, these students were delegated to take the attendance sheets to the office. When we had our party, before Christmas vacation, they got to go home, early. Only in California, would the Pledge of Allegiance be considered unconstitional.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9

valanhb

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
32,530
Purraise
100
Location
Lakewood (Denver suburb), Colorado
Zapata - I respectfully disagree with you. Atheists have every right to believe what they want. But I don't think that this is forcing anything on them. I'm pagan, like I said, and I fully realize that the majority in this country are Christian. I constantly see Christian symbols and phrases as part of every day life. My beliefs are different from the majority, but I do not expect the entire society to change to go along with my views. I think that is very selfish and ego-centric.

Just my 2 cents.
 

katl8e

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
12,622
Purraise
3
Location
Movin' on up!
In this vein: has anyone, else heard about Charlie Daniels declining to perform on PBS' "A Capitol Fourth"? It seems that the powers that be, at PBS objected to the lyrics of "The Last Fallen Hero". The song is a tribute to those who died on 9/11, the police, firefighters and the American military. PBS doesn't seem to appreciate Charlie's form of patriotism. The lyrics and the text of Charlie's letter, to the head of PBS are on the "Soapbox" section of his website, charliedaniels.com. Charlie is going to perform in Atlanta, instead. I'm sure that his song will get a warm reception, there.
 

badhabit

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Mar 16, 2002
Messages
1,238
Purraise
2
Location
MA
**Shakes her head** I can only imagine where this is going to lead us...

Back in school we would recite the pledge of allegiance before class began. I remember kids goofing off during it and the teachers getting upset about it but no one was ever made to recite it.

I do not agree that the pledge of allegiance should be banned from schools and if a child should refuse to recite it as part of their religous beliefs then that should be allowed. People seem to forget that we live in a free country and you have a choice...
 

okeefecl

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
4,926
Purraise
2
Location
Sparkleball ranch
I realize that this topic raises a lot of strong feelings, for both sides of the issue. I have to admit, I feel two ways about this decision.

Part of me thinks, is this all the courts have to contend with? I believe that the recent decisions regarding the mentally retarded and juries in regards to the death penalty are issues our courts should be spending their time on.

However, I can completely understand those who feel uncomfortable with with phrase "under God" in the Pledge. My brother is an atheist, not because he woke up one day and said "Oh, I don't believe in God anymore". It took some very painful family circuimstances and a lot of thought on his part to come to his decision. Also, the contested phrase has not been part of the Pledge since the beginning. It was added in the 1950's, through an act of Congress. As far as I understand, people don't want the Pledge to disappear from public life, just that this phrase be removed.

One thing I did see on the evening news did disturb me, however. They interviewed a woman who said (paraphrasing) "This nation was founded this way, and if anyone disagrees, they should leave". All I could think was that this woman needs a review of American history. Sure, America was founded by people who believed in God, but it was founded to give persecuted groups religious freedoms they didn't have in Europe. For example, Maryland (where I grew up) was founded by Lord Baltimore, a closet Catholic, so that English Catholics would have a place to worship in peace. And that is what I think about when I think about America-a place where people have the right to have differing ideas and not be persecuted for them.
 

tigger2

TCS Member
Young Cat
Joined
Jun 8, 2002
Messages
35
Purraise
1
Location
Indiana
What I can't understand is this: Why in God's name would you leave him out of our pledge, when the entire reason the settlers came here was for religious freedom. This country was built on the belief in God, whether we like it or not. So after 226 years of the United States of America, under God, Some liberal jerks want to ban God from our country in every way possible? I think they need to get a life, and leave me and my family out of their uneasiness with their personal relationship with the true reason we are all here. GOD. Simple as that. Don't mean to offend anyone, I am sorry if I did.
 

mr. cat

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
1,848
Purraise
1
Location
Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
Look at it this way: The politicians will have something the rant and rave about for weeks now, a further excuse for their not getting anything done on issues which matter. Like the never-ending "flag burning" debate, this Pledge thing will become an instant hot-button media-yammering point. Won't that be fun?



I'm old enough to remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance before it was altered in 1954. I'm not old enough, however, to recall if there was any public debate on the matter back then. It would be interesting to discover just why such a long-standing pledge was suddenly altered. Maybe our elders were deemed to be insufficiently religious in 1954, therefore in need of a further reminder of what was expected on Sunday (or Saturday).

It's only taken 48 years for the "new" Pledge to be successfully challenged, so we'll see what happens. Whatever the judiciary decide is fine with me, as the Pledge isn't exactly a big part of my life: I'll stand by my military service in the Republic of Viet Nam as proof of my love of country.



=^..^=
 

okeefecl

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
4,926
Purraise
2
Location
Sparkleball ranch
What I can't understand is this: Why in God's name would you leave him out of our pledge, when the entire reason the settlers came here was for religious freedom.
Personally (and not to upset anyone, either
) I believe that in this day and age religious freedom also means the right to not have a religion, or to believe in Nature as the power which gives us life, or to believe in many gods/goddesses instead of One. Our history has been one where many people, from many lands and from many faiths came here to have the freedom to live as they choose. Some see the Pledge as condoning or supporting the idea that there is one God. I believe that it's this "melting pot" (to use such a cliched phrase") is what makes this place such a great place to live, and it's why my grandparents chose to come here.
 

katl8e

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
12,622
Purraise
3
Location
Movin' on up!
On this evening's news, it was reported that the words "under God" were added as a response to "Godless communism". This was during the era of the communist witch hunts.
 

deb25

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Messages
12,769
Purraise
5
The reason Eisenhower asked Congress to alter the Pledge in 1954 to include the phrase "under God" was because we were in the middle of the Cold War, and anti-Communist sentiment was running high. The phrase was included to differentiate us from Communists, whose government was traditionally aetheist.

I find the entire thing to be ridiculous. At my school, there are many Jehovah's Witnesses who do not recite the Pledge. We ask only that everyone stand. I'd say, in general, that more kids just stand than stand and recite.

Somebody has way too much time on his hands, IMO, to take something like this through the courts. I'll wager he has no trouble carrying around our currency in his wallet, even though God is plastered all over that.
 

zapata

TCS Member
Young Cat
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
Messages
51
Purraise
0
Location
nova scotia, canada
As Vikki pointed out, the pledge is constantly evolving to reflect the changes in American society and values, in short to reflect the times.
I suggest that North America has matured enough to recognize the value of diversity of beliefs and even to try to encourage it. After all diversity is the fuel of progress. I'm sure that the California courts had this in mind when they decided to alter the pledge from one that excludes certain minorities. .

I do hope I'm not offending anyone with my dissent: I realize i'm canadian and some of you may not think I have much of a right to voice my opinion but this is an issue that we all face (even in canada). The reason this is so important is because traditions, such as the pledge, are symbols or our identity, values and what defines us as a society. This is certainly not too small a matter for any level of American court.
 

hissy

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2001
Messages
34,872
Purraise
76
That one simple sentence in a piece of our culture could contain enough power to one person to go to this length to change it is ludicrous! With the tradgedy of Sept. 11 still fresh in our hearts and minds, I would imagine now, more than ever "One Nation Under God" should stand as a testament to the terrorists that although in their minds we are a feeble heathen nation, the opposite is so true. How many of us now attend church that didn't before this happened? How much of New York has changed where people are kinder now and more loving and offering prayer and support to their friends and to strangers? I suggest that perhaps what might be working on this man is conviction to his soul, that maybe being an athiest isn't all it is cracked up to be. With the myriad of problems in the United States at this time, this one shouldn't even be allowed to walk through the doors of the Supreme Court to waste theirs!


This is as ludicrous as what I heard on the news last night. They are convening a summit and will choose a group of people. They will be given 1.5 million dollars to then study in the coming years why America eats so much fried foods!
1.5 million dollars would go an awfully long way to feed the children in this nation who are living as homeless or in poverty and have hardly any food at all!
 

deb25

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Messages
12,769
Purraise
5
You know, when I attend some type of services in a Catholic church, for one reason or another, and the Lord's Prayer is recited, I substitute 'debts' and 'debtors' for 'tresspass' and 'those who tresspass against us'. In other words, I say the thing the way I feel comfortable with it. Why can't people who don't want to say "under God" just skip that part and pick up with "indivisible"?

The thing that gets to me the most about this issue si that it will be dragged through the court system forever, when there are so many matters more pressing in this country. And why am I stuck with the nagging thought that the guy who brought this suit was more concerned with his 15 minutes of fame than the courage of his convictions?
 
Top