Pledge of Allegiance "Unconstitutional"

Tigger2, Yes people came here for religious freedom. Too bad most of them didn't get it. Of the original colonies, only Pennsylvania and Rhode Island truly had religious freedom. That being said, I think the debate over the Pledge is nonsense.

I am a teacher, and most of my students simply stand during the pledge. I had a lot of immigrant students, who may not have known the words. The point is, the students are not required to say the Pledge. I think someone just has too much time on his hands and wants to cause a controversy.

I lean more to the liberal than the conservative. It gets really hard when I have to take the rap for someone who is liberal and who lacks common sense.

Those of us who believe in God, or any higher power, know that he is there, regardless of what some people seem to think.

Bren - Just like there are way out there liberals, there are way out there conservatives. I lean toward the conservative side, but I certainly don't have the same views as Rush or Newt.

I've been thinking about this, and I think the reason this made me so mad is the utter lack of tolerance. I am not a monotheist, but I am not offended when someone else expresses their beliefs. I accept that I am a minority in this country, in the world for that matter, and move on. I am so sick of all these people in a minority group, (atheists, homosexuals, etc.) expecting everyone around them to change according to their views of the world. I fully support equal rights for everyone, no matter what, but I am tired of anyone different than the norm wanted special rights for themselves. Suck up and deal!

(End of Rant - sorry.)

Don't assume that being a liberal means the rights of the one should take precedence over the rights of the vast majority! I am a democrat, liberal on human issues such as helping the poor, etc, but very conservative about moral issues such as abortion. I believe it is the republicans who are more often complaining that big government would interfere with individual rights. I'm glad we have checks and measures, however.
Now we have the right of a very small minority deciding the rights of the majority. Of course, the congress has already taken a stand by reciting the pledge in public as a unit, and the Supreme Court will overturn this judgment. I also remember "one nation, indivisible." I also remember prayer being taken out of the school district and an elective course in comparative religion replacing it.

I do not object to the Pledge being restored to the way I learned it. However, if this ruling stands, we might eventually say goodbye to "In God We Trust" on coins, God Bless America, America, the Beautiful, The Battlehymn of the Republic, being sung in public places, and forget the 1812 Overture at fireworks.(the piece with cannons and cathedral bells always played during the finale) It might show loyalty to Russia. It was written as a tribute to the Russian victory over the French, not our War of 1812. We can get as ridiculous as we want.

Originally posted by valanhb
Bren -

I've been thinking about this, and I think the reason this made me so mad is the utter lack of tolerance. I am not a monotheist, but I am not offended when someone else expresses their beliefs. I accept that I am a minority in this country, in the world for that matter, and move on. I am so sick of all these people in a minority group, (atheists, homosexuals, etc.) expecting everyone around them to change according to their views of the world. I fully support equal rights for everyone, no matter what, but I am tired of anyone different than the norm wanted special rights for themselves. Suck up and deal!

(End of Rant - sorry.)

Click to expand...

Bren, maybe I'm wrong but my impression is that the argued change to the pledge is to ensure equality of rights regardless if the group constitutes a majority or a minority. If, in this case, the rights of the atheist superceeded those of the monotheists (if they were seeking special rights), then the suggested change to the pledge would be one where atheism was highlighted like: one nation under no god
If you really want equal rights, then you can only agree with the proposed changes.

Zapata - you make a good point, and you are probably right. I think it probably will be changed to exclude any God references, and that's fine. Whatever. It is more politically correct and non-offensive that way.

If you can read poetry (which I'm finding, especially in another discussion on this topic, that most can't) the Pledge isn't to God, it is to the Flag and the Country (I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,). The "One nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All" are descriptions of the country.

The problem is that he was not asking for the pledge to be changed to not include God, but that no one in a public school be allowed to recite it. That was my point - he wants to exclude the whole thing because he doesn't like it.

I still think if the child wants, they can opt not to say any part of the pledge, or the whole thing. I also think the Supreme Court will be more rational in the event that this gets to them. Which it probably will.

The problem with our society is that we want to create lawsuits about everything. There was a thread to that effect not too long ago. Someone wants their 15 minutes of fame, and decides they're bewing discriminated against or whatever, and we end up wasting valuable court time on bogus cases. This Pledge case should not even be an issue. No one is forced to say it.

Special protections get way out of hand, but I do believe that there have been times when we needed laws to ensure equal rights (the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the law which prevented discrimination against the disabled come to mind.)

I will say again that I am more liberal than not, and I agree, that doesn't mean the rights of one are more important than the rights of the majority.

I think I am really a moderate who leans to the left. I don't like it when every liberal is lumped together into one group, usually considered jerks or idiots. I try not to lump all conservatives together, because I know there are some moderates in that camp as well.

Zapata, I am a little confused by your post. I know you are joking at the end, but maybe you didn't read what I had written?

Interesting...just heard on the news that the Supreme Court ruled that providing vouchers for children to attend private, i.e. parochial schools, is not a violation of the Constitution because it does not mean that the government is establishing a state religion. Should be interesting how this plays into the discussion here.

Any thoughts? Just thought I would add some fuel to the fire.

The reason I am against vouchers is not for separation of church and state issues. I'm against it because our public school systems are falling apart, and instead of giving money to help them, it's giving money to people who are running away as fast as possible. As the child of a teacher in public schools, I think the money would be better spent on teacher salaries, school upkeep, books, computers, sports, etc....

One more nip at the Pledge issue, and then on to other things. I have the hardest time conceiving of Mr. Petitioner's 2nd grade daughter coming home ostrasized for not reciting the Pledge. As more than one teacher here has stated, it's far from the norm to see every kid in class at rigid attention saying the Pledge each morning. As a matter of fact, I really can't see a 7 or 8 year old thinking so philosophically as to ponder the fact that God is mentioned in the Pledge. That's what makes me think of this lawsuit as an attention-getting maneuver.

Now on to the voucher issue. The biggest flaw with the voucher issue is to believe that so-called failing schools are failing because they are jammed packed with incompetent teachers. Yes, there are lousy teachers. There are also lousy doctors, lawyers, cashiers, accountants, waiters, you name it. These schools are primarily failing because the parents of the children who attend them don't give a darn about their kids' education or anything else in their lives. These same kids will do no better in a voucher-paid private school.

I agree. The only difference between teachers in private schools and public schools is the salary. Truly dedicated teachers will teach in either environment, although we do like to get paid a fair salary. I taught in both. This man, however, is not asking that his daughter be exempt from saying the pledge; he doesn't want her to be "exposed" to its recitation. He doesn't want her to hear the word "God" in a public institution.

As a public school teacher in an "empowered" (distressed!) district, I agree wholeheartedly with okeefecl. In many cases, the parent do care, but they are immigrants who don't understand the school system, or who had bad experiences themselves, and therefore don't want to participate at any level. Of course, there are those that could give a rat's patoot, too.

If the government wants to invest money in schools, they should see that we have enough supplies to teach with--which is not always the case. I know of art teachers who had to ask other teachers if they could have colored pencils and construction paper! Textbooks that aren't falling apart, or completely outdated, are also important. The actual buildings need to be in good shape, and some air conditioning wouldn't hurt, either.

The Senate just voted 99 to 1 to LEAVE the pledge as is! Yay!

Now, there's a courageous and unexpected vote — especially as it's meaningless until the judiciary make a final determination. But, hey, it's good posturing!



Regarding the sorry state of many public schools, one need look no farther than the local-yokel school boards. In too many cases they're all so busy pleasing the "less government" zealots in local chambers of commerce that they couldn't care less about the students.

In some cases, such as here at Portland, the local school board is so heavy-handed and secretive that nobody knows what they do with the money. Its legal department stifles all attempts at discovery; and its public-relations department has said "no comment" more often than all the local politicians combined.



=^..^=

Well it may be meaningless but I hope it does show some clout on the issue at hand.

Hate to inform you, Mr. Cat, but local control of schools is a thing of the past. It's all in the hands of the states and the federal government these days.

Thanks for posting that, Deb.

Boy, that sheds some light on it, doesn't it. Interesting that his daughter never felt "ostracised" at school, but that was supposedly the whole reason the suit was brought. Wasn't it the "Coercion Test" that they used to validate their ruling? Guess that should be thrown out the window. The little girl never had a problem with it, just Daddy. If he wants to bring a suit because he doesn't like it, fine. That's how the system works. But I think this particular suit should be thrown out based on that interview. It was brought under false pretenses.

I so agree. You know, I am not a fan of this ruling, but I wanted to try and see both sides. When I read that interview last night, I was just shaking my head. Makes it sound like a huge publicity stunt.

To quote the interview's last paragraph, the father said:

And as soon as I did the research, I realized the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It's a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it.
end qoute

Everyone should do this because it's cool? This could cost the taxpayers a fortune, the courts will be held from tending to serious issues, citizens are upset, children are confused, and he thinks this is cool? He's an idiot.

Amen....pardon the religious reference......This guy's credibility has sunk to zero with me.