The pledge ruling and Michael Newdow

[Nova Andromeda]

Do you agree with the pledge ruling? If not, what specifically is flawed in the ruling? If so, should we help support Michael Newdow since his actions must be costing him significant resources not to mention the threats against him and his family?

[Nova Andromeda]

I agree with the pledge ruling even though I recognize this was probably not the best time to win such a battle. I also think that Mr. Newdow should be supported by those of us with the resources who are not spending them on other worthy causes. Being a grad. student I don't have much to spare, but could probably come up with $20-100.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I agree with the pledge ruling even though I recognize this was probably not the best time to win such a battle. I also think that Mr. Newdow should be supported by those of us with the resources who are not spending them on other worthy causes. Being a grad. student I don't have much to spare, but could probably come up with $20-100.

I think that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and should be followed by the government. And that, in my opinion, should be the end of the story.

[Shadow]

I think it's ridiculous. No one is forced to say the pledge. If you want you can just skip "under God."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

There is no law requiring the Pledge of Allegiance to be said, or requiring it must be said in full. Saying "under God" does not respect an establishment of religion, either.

[Robert Treder]

No one is forced to recite it, Shadow, but they are required to say it in some schools. And even if they weren't, if the school endorses and encourages its recital, they are by extension endorsing and encouraging fealty to a god. I believe the wording the court used was that the required recital of the pledge presented students with the unacceptable choice between participation and protest.

[Howedar]

I think its nuts, but I do have at least a *slight* amount of (skeptical) religion in me.

[Robert Treder]

Aside from your *slight* amount of (skeptical) religion, are there any specific reasons that you find it nuts?
If there are none, that's ok; intuition's not bad, but I'm interested in hearing the reasons that it's nuts.
I mean, I don't have any amount of religion in me, so I'm sort of curious as to why someone who does (albeit a slight, skeptical amount) finds the presence of this 'amount' of religion to explain misgivings about the ruling.

[Shadow]

No one is forced to recite it, Shadow, but they are required to say it in some schools.

Something should be done about those schools, not the Pledge of Allegiance itself.

And even if they weren't, if the school endorses and encourages its recital, they are by extension endorsing and encouraging fealty to a god. I believe the wording the court used was that the required recital of the pledge presented students with the unacceptable choice between participation and protest.

So now it's illegal to have to make a choice?

[Robert Treder]

Not illegal to make a choice, Shadow. It's not fair to put children in the situation to make that choice. The choice has nothing to do with their education. A child should not have to choose between participating in something that he opposes to and protesting against it (by not participating).

At the very least you can see how it would possibly be offensive or unacceptable to have children recite the pledge...but what possible problem could arise from having them not recite it?

[Shadow]

Not illegal to make a choice, Shadow. It's not fair to put children in the situation to make that choice. The choice has nothing to do with their education. A child should not have to choose between participating in something that he opposes to and protesting against it (by not participating).

At the very least you can see how it would possibly be offensive or unacceptable to have children recite the pledge...but what possible problem could arise from having them not recite it?

I have never been offended by choosing to say the pledge, nor have I seen anyone be offended by this. So no, I can't relate to the pledge offending someone. Plus, 27 of 29 of that court's recent descisions have been overturned by the Supreme court. Everyone in the House and the Senate also disagrees with this. Newdow also wants to change he and she to re, and his and her erm, and his or hers with rees. He also wants "In God We Trust," and prayer at the presidential inaugurations gone. I hope no one gives him money.

[Robert Treder]

While I definitely don't agree with pronoun changing, that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the Pledge topic.

And I didn't suggest that you or any one you know would be personally offended by the line, but can you really not even conceive of the existence of atheists? Or Hindus? Or Satanists? Or Taoists? Or Wiccans?

[Eldritch Storm]

I just don't see why everyone is so damn pissed... I mean I do, but it's not that big a thing..

[Shadow]

While I definitely don't agree with pronoun changing, that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the Pledge topic.

And I didn't suggest that you or any one you know would be personally offended by the line, but can you really not even conceive of the existence of atheists? Or Hindus? Or Satanists? Or Taoists? Or Wiccans?

No Atheist I have met has been offended by saying it. I know this because I have seen Atheists reciting the pledge. I have never seen any of the others, but they don't need to say it, and if this is such a great descision, why does everyone in the national government disagree? This also comes from a court that gets 27 out of 29 descisions overturned.

[Robert Treder]

...If this is such a great descision, why does everyone in the national government disagree?

::sigh::

Not everyone in the 'national government' disagreed, first of all. Mike Honda, the representative of my very own district to the House of Representatives, was one of the few who voted in favor of the ruling in the otherwise unanimous, highly-publicized Congressional review of said ruling.

And you've effectively answered my previous question...you can't really conceive of someone who, deep down, did not at all believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I don't know what you expect them to do to show that they're offended by the line...sure, many atheists go along with the crowd and say the line...and sure, they can simply say the rest of the pledge and pause a beat, omitting the line. I myself omit the line when the situation dictates that I recite the Pledge...and I have done so since I was a small child. But just because I do that doesn't mean I like doing that.
The Pledge of Allegiance should instill pride in the citizen who recites it. It is a noble and heartfelt oath to the symbol of our great nation (maybe we'll talk about Jehovah's Witnesses another day ). It is therefore all the more frustrating that every time I or someone like me goes to say the Pledge, we are impeded in our patriotism by grating religious affiliations...what should be a simple and solemn oath becomes a constant reminder of an unfortunate minority status. It's not fair, and there's no reason it should continue to be that way.

[Shadow]

::sigh::

Not everyone in the 'national government' disagreed, first of all. Mike Honda, the representative of my very own district to the House of Representatives, was one of the few who voted in favor of the ruling in the otherwise unanimous, highly-publicized Congressional review of said ruling.

And you've effectively answered my previous question...you can't really conceive of someone who, deep down, did not at all believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I don't know what you expect them to do to show that they're offended by the line...sure, many atheists go along with the crowd and say the line...and sure, they can simply say the rest of the pledge and pause a beat, omitting the line. I myself omit the line when the situation dictates that I recite the Pledge...and I have done so since I was a small child. But just because I do that doesn't mean I like doing that.
The Pledge of Allegiance should instill pride in the citizen who recites it. It is a noble and heartfelt oath to the symbol of our great nation (maybe we'll talk about Jehovah's Witnesses another day ). It is therefore all the more frustrating that every time I or someone like me goes to say the Pledge, we are impeded in our patriotism by grating religious affiliations...what should be a simple and solemn oath becomes a constant reminder of an unfortunate minority status. It's not fair, and there's no reason it should continue to be that way.

A few agreeing doesn't make a difference. I would think that someone would say they didn't want to say the pledge, at least once. It is still your choice to be a part of that minority, so why should be angered by being reminded of it? Besides, why remove the whole pledge, and not just take out "one nation, under God?"

[Robert Treder]

The Ninth District Court did not have the authority to alter the words. That is why they banned it.

And are you suggesting that I choose to believe in a god just because the majority does?

[Shadow]

And are you suggesting that I choose to believe in a god just because the majority does?

No, I just don't think someone should get so angry because they have to listen to people say "one nation, under God."

[BioDroid]

The point of the matter is that the Pledge of Allegiance was enacted into law. By legally endorsing the entire text of the Pledge, the government had, in effect, endorsed religeon (namely chrisatianity but that really doesn't matter, ANY endorsement of ANY religeon is unconstitutional) It doesn't matter if a person is required to say the line or not. It doesn't matter if a person is offended by the words "under God". What matters is that the "Pledge of Allegiance" contains an endorsement of religeon in the words "under God" (And the words "under God" were not in the orginal text of the Pledge, but added later.)

An interesting side note is that the outrage is from the chrisitian community, and that most of the politicians and pundits I've seen mugging for the camera were opposed to the ruling, not because of the legal ramifications, but because it upset their religeous sensabilities, and several congresspersons went on the record saying that the career of these judges were over for having dared upsetting their religeous convictions. I personally believe that the strength of the separation of church and state is being tested here, and whether or not the ruling stands up will be the pass/fail criteria for the test.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Ha, looks like anti-communist propaganda has come back to annoy America.









("Under God" was added in 1954 as a propaganda campaign along with "in god we trust" to make the American people believe God was on their side against those godless commies)

[Guest]

And are you suggesting that I choose to believe in a god just because the majority does?

No, I just don't think someone should get so angry because they have to listen to people say "one nation, under God."

I'm not surprised that this debate might make its way onto my board. Notice how this person has repeatedly tried to misrepresent the subject: he claims that people are offended by merely having to listen to the Judeo-Christian-modified Pledge, and that is the source of the offense. This is similar to a thread on ASVS which is titled "One Nation under (Censored)", whose name is intended to imply that people are trying to censor Judeo-Christian thought. He has also tried to change it from a debate about the Constitution or about principles to popularity: if everybody in the government supports it, then it must be right (let's try applying this "logic" to the slavery era, or black civil rights in 1950).

This isn't about being offended by hearing the word "God". If that were the case, people would be picketing churches across America. It's about having God make his way into public schools, where he doesn't belong. The point is that even if the Pledge is not technically mandatory, you can't exclude small children from the group for not being part of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim intolerance triumvirate, because that puts unacceptable social pressure on young children to conform and recite something their parents may strongly disagree with.

Let's suppose the Pledge read "One Nation Under Mohammed", and people said "look, it's no big deal; your child can always just stand apart from the group and exclude himself". Would you accept this argument? All of the people who spout this "it's no big deal; why try to get rid of it" seem to ignore the fact that by their vehement objection to the ruling, they disprove their own argument. It is a big deal, and they know it. That's why Congress changed "indivisible" to "under God" in 1954.

[Iceberg]

The point of the matter is that the Pledge of Allegiance was enacted into law. By legally endorsing the entire text of the Pledge, the government had, in effect, endorsed religeon (namely chrisatianity but that really doesn't matter, ANY endorsement of ANY religeon is unconstitutional)

Popular misconception. You will find nothing in the Constitution outlawing an "endorsement of religion." Nowhere at all. Never. No place. Nada. What the Constitution outlaws is an establishment of a state religion, or regulation of religion by the state.

"Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion [i.e. establishing a state-mandated religion], or restricting the free exercise thereof." - The 1st Amendment to the Constitution

An endorsement of a religion is free speech, from which members of Congress are no more exempt than any other citizen of this nation. Those people who vehemently criticized President Bush for speaking at a religious memorial service on 14 September 2001 (some to the point of screaming with a total lack of dignity for his resignation) forget that the Constitution in no way prohibits any citizen - public official or not - from expressing a religion. To interpret it otherwise is to betray the very principles which it was written to enshrine, and we've already got more than enough of that going on as it is.

[Darth Wong]

An endorsement of a religion is free speech, from which members of Congress are no more exempt than any other citizen of this nation. Those people who vehemently criticized President Bush for speaking at a religious memorial service on 14 September 2001 (some to the point of screaming with a total lack of dignity for his resignation) forget that the Constitution in no way prohibits any citizen - public official or not - from expressing a religion. To interpret it otherwise is to betray the very principles which it was written to enshrine, and we've already got more than enough of that going on as it is.

You're changing the subject, Iceberg. The subject is whether the Pledge should be modified so that it is not unconstitutional. That has precisely nothing to do with the question of whether George W. Bush can say "God" in public. Of course he can (no one has ever remotely suggested legal restrictions on his public speech), but the rest of the population can also criticize him for being a polarizing influence at a time when he should have been more inclusive. You are confusing criticism with censorship, and then bringing that confusion into the Pledge debate.

[Iceberg]

You're changing the subject, Iceberg. The subject is whether the Pledge should be modified so that it is not unconstitutional. That has precisely nothing to do with the question of whether George W. Bush can say "God" in public. Of course he can (no one has ever remotely suggested legal restrictions on his public speech), but the rest of the population can also criticize him for being a polarizing influence at a time when he should have been more inclusive. You are confusing criticism with censorship, and then bringing that confusion into the Pledge debate.

Actually, I'm chasing after red herrings (and a misinterpretation of the Constitution that has irritated me since time-before-memory, or at least since about 1990), but that's just me, and my tendency to tilt after windmills. Were I otherwise, I would not be an ST-vs-SW debater.

Anyway, I have no argument with the idea that "under God" should be removed from the Pledge, but that's on artistic grounds - the phrase "under God" is extraneous to the original line, is a Twainian "darling," and should be murdered as such.

And that doesn't change the fact that certain people, especially on usenet, tripped over themselves to slice away huge portions of their dignity for a chance to castigate Bush for exercising his freedom of speech. And I'm not talking about reasoned dissent, but people who said stupid things and posted dozen-kilobyte screeds about how evil it was for a government official to express any religious sentiment in a public place and how DARE he (and no, I'm not kidding. This IS usenet we're talking about here).

[Rob Wilson]

Popular misconception. You will find nothing in the Constitution outlawing an "endorsement of religion." Nowhere at all. Never. No place. Nada. What the Constitution outlaws is an establishment of a state religion, or regulation of religion by the state.

"Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion [i.e. establishing a state-mandated religion],

Actually it's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-- First Amendment, Ratified December, 1791"

That's Respecting, not in respect to - which would allow the substitution of Regarding - so you cannot have any mention of a religion in any official Law.
The old Pledge of Allegiance demanding you acknowledge the Country being "one Nation, under God" is definitely acknowledging a religiou link to the Government of that country so even under your definition it fails spectacularly.

If people want to worship thn fine, but they cannot enforce their beliefs onto others "that there may be a God of what ever denomination or faith).

I fail to see how this could even cause a raised eyebrow let alone a national furore, as it doesn't stop those that practice a religion from still doing so and indeed affects the religious members of the USA in not one single way.

The Phrase "Storm in a teacup" springs to mind.

[Iceberg]

As I said, the phrase "under God" is a darling to the line "One nation, indivisible," and we all know what Mark Twain says to do with darlings...