Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional

Phantom: Actually, numerous precedents in our judicial system have established the meaning of the Establishment Clause as including any act of a government institution that by their actions acknowledge one particular religious belief/institution (in this case monotheism), while simultaneously not recognizing (by inclusion or exclusion) any other religious beliefs/institutions.

By doing so, they are giving preference to one particular religious view.

unless you're afraid of democracy and prefer government by nonelected judicial tyrants.

It is Congress' responsibility to introduce bills and make laws. It is the courts' responsibility to interpret them AFTER they are made. They are in this case interpreting law that has already been established, upon the basis of that law, as well as the court precedents that have followed it. The appeals process has carried it to the 2nd highest court authority and they have remanded the decision to the lower courts. Now they can appeal the case to the US Supreme Court.

The courts interpret laws, the laws do not interpret themselves... and neither Congress nor the President interpret laws. If people disagree vehemently with this process, the three-branch government we have would have been changed or abolished by now... and it still could be.

They are following due process here. In all reality, it will probably be overturned by the US Supreme Court... but honestly, the core issue I have to ponder is... Why should the government include "god" anywhere? Excluding it doesn't make us an atheist nation... it just leaves religion where it belongs... in the church and the home.

Do you want your government to become a theocracy, so that you and your local church have no control over your religious beliefs? Isn't that precisely why the pilgrims left England?

The Establishment Clause as it is interpreted by the courts seeks to respect religion by leaving it out of government... that we have now come to realize that, as ambiguous as "god" may be, it still excludes certain individuals and beliefs, is just another step towards the ideal democracy. When politicians tell you that religion is America's business... I would be very skeptical of their motives.

To endorse a pledge of allegiance that requires all people to declare their allegiance to one god (regardless of which one it is) is equal to declaring allegiance to theistic socialism... not democracy.

I wonder how many more centuries it will take before we respect all people's rights to their individuality. It took us far too long to recognize women and blacks aren't property... would any of you propose we return to those "traditions", too?

 

Why should the government include "god" anywhere? Excluding it doesn't make us an atheist nation... it just leaves religion where it belongs... in the church and the home.

I agree with this. I also appreciate 1st AD pointing out some of the founding fathers non-christian beliefs. I think many people assume the founding fathers were all christian. They weren't.

 

Darth_Snowdog, I totally agree with you! The Supreme Court has interpreted the portions of the Constitution to mean that the government can neither endorse nor discourge religion. Implying that there is a God supports religion and a specific one at that - montheism. This contradicts with the beliefs of atheists and polytheists to name a few.

People have been shouting about "majority rules." But that doesn't apply in this case since it is a constitutional question that cuts to the core of American ideals such as liberty and individualism. I respect the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for their courage in applying what the Constitution says to the matter. The fact that members of Congress have made such an uproar over this to the point of stating that they will find a way to overrule the Court is shameful! They are sending a message to the American people saying, "When something happens that we don't like, forget checks and balances, forget the constitution, we'll do whatever it takes to get what we want back - legal or illegal!"

Also, such a fuss is being made over a phrase that was placed in the Pledge in 1954. People are falling out over this like the words, "under God," have been in the Pledge since the founding of the nation. It was put in the pledge to differentiate Americans from "godless communists."

 

On a more humorous note, Farraday posted this in the Community, from Satirewire:

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS,
ONE NATION, (SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE),
INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

San Francisco (SatireWire.com) ? A U.S. federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public school is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God," a decision that has infuriated politicians from both parties, and sent the United States on a desperate search for a new sponsor.


While the U.S. Justice Department said it plans to appeal the ruling, officials are quietly speaking with several potential sponsors interested in having their brands associated with America, and are already test-marketing the phrases "One nation, under Wal-Mart," "One nation, under Windows XP," and "One nation, but 24,000 Starbucks."

Until an agreement is reached, however, the U.S. will advertise by replacing the phrase "One nation, under God," with "One nation, (sponsorship opportunities available)."

While the words "under God" were only added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954, God has been the title patron of the United States since its founding in 1776, and the God name adorns everything from U.S. currency to the phrase "So help me God" used to swear in judges and politicians. According to analysts, severing that 226-year relationship without an alternative is a mistake.

"Over the years, the U.S. under God has been a great draw for the major players - Einstein, Solzhenitsyn, John Lennon," said government marketing analyst Gil Treacle. "Without God's brand recognition and infinite marketing powers, you risk losing the marquis names to competitors. Then the networks don't renew, the money dries up, the fans revolt, and the next thing you know, you're Argentina."

But others defended the decision, saying it was wrong to force religion on anyone. "The phrase 'under God' clearly violates the separation of church and state," said McDonald's CEO Jack Greenberg. "However, there is nothing in the Constitution that separates chicken and state, which is why we're proposing, 'One nation, six chicken McNuggets and a medium Coke, all for $1.99.'"

Europeans, meanwhile, seemed to be confused by the uproar. "I don't understand. I always thought it was 'One nation, we are God,'" said British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "Oh my, I've been worshipping them for nothing."

Back in America, many questioned whether the United States really needs a patron, and instead suggested the Pledge should include verbiage that simply reflects America. So far, the leading contenders:


¤ "One nation, under indictment,"
¤ "One nation, road under repair,"
¤ "One nation, sure, but with cheerleaders!"
¤ "One nation, under yellow alert, please report any suspicious activity,"
¤ "One nation, but kinda two if you count Canada."

God, in various forms, currently sponsors most nations, with the exception of officially atheist China and Vietnam, and the Netherlands, which hasn't been told yet but is in for a nasty shock tomorrow.


Of course, "road under repair" actually belongs somewhere in Michigan's pledge (if we have one) or at least our motto.

 

LOL! God help us...Oops!

 

Having randomly selected a couple of people to reply to (considering the large volume of posts):

DARTHPIGFEET...

Here is a history lesson for you. All of our founding fathers while drafting the constitution used the term "Under God" it's on several of our capital momuments and other doctrines. Hense Christian.

1. The Constitution is the highest law--and its only references to God or religion are exclusionary.

2. The Founding Fathers were referring to the deist God, not the Christian one.

Now you also had others who were influential in the shaping of our nation such as Thomas Paine who was not a filthy little atheist as Teddy Roosevelt called him once, but he was against any kind of religion mention at all. Read Rights of Man, or any of his stuff and you will hear it over and over.

He was a deist (he wrote a rather penetrating attack on Christianity called "The Age of Reason"). You are correct in that he supported church/state separation.

So even back in the 18th century you had some who didn't want this, however majority ruled because if you look at the religions over in the country all the way from the 18th to the beginning of the 20th century it was primarily Christian. Whether Protestant or Catholic or other Christians sects the majority were Christians. This is still evident today if you look at the census or anything else. Why should things change now?

Part of the point of having a bill of rights is that the majority can rule only in certain areas. The Constitution and Bill of Rights--which are supposed to be the will of the whole people--are there to put certain freedoms beyond the reach of the simple, arithmetic majority represented in the Executive and Legislature. The independent judiciary is there to protect them--and it's very pleasing to see the Supreme Court ruling 6-3 in favour of separation, despite flustered indignation from bigoted politicians.

It's also a symbolic statement. Our country is not over God, but under God and rightfully so. It's a submissive statment saying out country is not bigger than God, so what's the problem? Those people could easily take the word God and have it stand for their God. In the end these people just want to start problems nothing more and that is why I get very upset over it. These people are not losing sleep or losing their soul by pledging allegiance so get over it.

1. You have to believe in God to be under him. Some people do not have a God at all.

2. "These people" are protecting their First Amendment freedoms. They are not "just [trying] to start problems".

3. The whole point is that the Pledge, as it stands, requires a commitment not just to the United States, but to a religious entity that a significant minority do not believe in.

If you don't believe in God then what the heck would you care anyway? Hey if you don't want to believe in God then fine pay for it later, but don't let others who do believe in a God to do the norm that has been going on for 70+years. Why can't it stay the way it is now?

1. Stop the veiled references to hellfire. They won't get you anywhere. Pascal's Wager was debunked long ago.

2. You don't believe in Vishnu. Therefore, by your reasoning, you wouldn't care if the Pledge of Allegiance said "under Vishnu".

keiran_helcyan...

Point #1. Nobody can force you to say the pledge of allegiance. The supreme court ruled in 1943 that the government cannot force student's to recite the pledge. So basically what this genius court in San Fransisco has decided is that: I shouldn't have the option to patriotically honor my country in school. Yep, that's real freedom.

You can commit yourself to God if you want. The court has merely struck down such profession as a national mantra that applies to everyone. You can say it, but the school can't encourage it, to put it another way.

Point #2. Th

 

Cant all this just be solved by taking "under God" out of the pledge instead of abolishing it completly.

 

DARTHPIGFEET said:

"...but don't let others who do believe in a God to do the norm that has been going on for 70+years."

1954-2002 = 48 Years

The pledge of Allegiance has been around since 1892. It existed without the "under God" clause longer than it has with it.

The orignal pledge in 1892:

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

And a revision in 1924:
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."

 

Ah, the weight of public opinion, the ninth circuit court has "locked" the case and will review its decision.

 

Alright it was late last night and the math was a little off. 48 or 70 who cares it's still a long time.

2. "These people" are protecting their First Amendment freedoms. They are not "just [trying] to start problems".

Oh but they are starting problems since they are not protecting nothing. You cannot protect your 1st amendment rights on this matter due to Congress and the Supreme Court has no business and cannot rule on this matter at all. They CANNOT INACT ANY LAW ON RELIGION. So if they deem "under God" to be un-constitutional they are making a ruling which they cannot do in this matter on religion. Against the rules so therefore it's invalid and cannot be passed into law.

If they do then they are flat out idiots, because they cannot.

Oh and the God our founding fathers were speaking of was the Christian God since that was the only reconized God in the 18th century here in America. Look it up in the history books and tell me if their are any other religious groups which had a 5% majority in America in 1789 and you would have proven your point, until then it was Christian and no matter how much you stretch historical facts it will lead you to the same conclusion. It was not until the 19th and 20th centuries that other religions began to show up here in America in fast numbers. Before that it was Christian. That is fact and it cannot be disputed that all of our founding fathers came from Europe which was Christian and most of their families if not themselves were members of the Church of England which is a Christian Church. If they were all deist which some were not then a mention of God the way it is mention should shut people up since they are talking about not one particular God but just a "SUPREME BEING"

 

In a governing body which supports freedoms, you know that not everyone will be happy with everything. Why do things that will make people mad in the first place? Putting "under God" is ASKING for trouble. If it's not there, and you didn't know it was there before, would you be complaining for it to be there?

Come on. Keep YOUR religion in the church and/or home. And don't bother the rest of us.

 

They CANNOT INACT ANY LAW ON RELIGION.

So, doesn't that just mean they had no right to add the "under God" in the first place?

Congress cannot make a law saying that people cannot recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

However, they cannot make any law saying that children must be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in its current form, either.

The Pledge, as part of a government-run system of education, is unconstitutional.

The Pledge itself, recited at home, at church, or at other non-government assemblies is perfectly legal. I'm sure schoolchildren are even permitted to say the Pledge at school, as long as it's not something they are required to do by their teacher.

Let me put it this way: the organized recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, directed by the officials of a public (government-run) school, as a regular classroom activity, is unconstitutional.

 

I look on it as saying that this country stands on RELIGIOUS FREEDOM...a principle that went very much into the making of this nation.

 

Well as of right now. If it's against someones personal believes to stand for the pledge then they don't have too and just sit there.

Why not just LEAVE IT THERE? It's not mandatory to stand for the pledge. It will also allow those who want to stand and say "Under God" to say it. Both sides win. It's fair and right down the middle and that is exercising your 1st ammendment rights by standing and not. This is why I say these folks who are against this are starting nothing but trouble. If they can't go along with this then there is a big problem.

Getting rid of it is just dumb. Maybe someone should go back and look if there was any controversey back in 1954 and see if there was any opposition back then. If there wasn't then it shouldn't be changed.

 

Until the words "Under God" are removed, I will call this the Prayer of Allegiance.

To people who say, "What's the big deal?" Well, when the nation totally belongs to Christians then they can have their "Under God" in the Prayer of Alleginace to the United States. Until then, I believe that the beliefs of all citizens should be respected in such a declaration to one's country.

Because our founding fathers were "religious", and "said" that our country was founded under God does not make the argument any stronger for keeping those words in it. They also believed in slavery, taking land away from the Native Americans, and that women had no say in society.

Should we praise those practices and beliefs in the Prayer of Allegiance as well?

There is no good reason why the words "Under God" should still be in the Prayer of Allegiance.

Latre!

 

It will be interesting to see what happens next. As the entire 9th District Appellate court will be reviewing the case, if it is upheld by the judges and the Supreme Court, would the pledge be banned or just altered?

What I saw on the news today was that the 1954 act that added the phrase Under God was declared unconstitutional. Not the entire pledge. If that section is removed, it will be interesting to hear people recite it. I know I can do it without thinking about what the words mean, and having said "under God" my entire life, I will probably do so without thinking about it, not even considering my own views on the subject.

 

Here's a thought, some insurance companies exclude coverage for "Acts of God". If they take that out, boy are they going to have to pay out a heck of a lot more than they are now.

 

Maveric,

I agree with you. I have said it so many times that it just comes out that way, no matter how I feel about it.

Which in reality is sad. We either just follow the rest of the "flock", or really don't understand or take the time to understand what we are saying.

Latre!

 

Basically what needs to happen is that those who still think it should be there should say it loud and clear just to piss the others off. I sure as hell will from now on. Let someone say something to me and it will take an act of God to keep them from going deaf from all the cussing I throw at them.

 

That is great idea, defend your faith by cussing out those that do not agree with you. If that does not change their minds, nothing will.

The Pledge of Allegiance is not an religious invocation; it is a tool for political socialization. It is designed to instill a sense of love and loyalty for the US in the children that recite it as a first step towards creating good citizens. The phrase "Under God" does not have to be interpreted as a reference to the deity of a specific religion. It implies that the only thing that this nation is subject to is the natural laws that control the universe. It can also be interpreted by those of a particular faith to mean that the nation is founded on the principle of their faith, but this only strengthens the bond of loyalty between citizen and country. Tell me how that is a bad thing.

 

Well Fingorfin, it just makes people who don't believe in God uncomfortable, and we can't have that, now can we?

 

There is no way to make everyone comfortable in a nation of more than 270 million people. People will just have to learn how to be secure enough in their beliefs to hold on to them if they are challenged. Is that so much to ask?

 

DARTHPIGFEET: Here's the thing: When the school LEADS the pledge, the school, and therefore the government is ENDORSING the belief that our nation is under God. For kids who don't really know about this kind of thing, by reciting it everyday in a sense brainwashes them, showing that it's a normal, good thing because they do it every day, and that because it's associated with the government, they have to believe it. I'm not saying this is how it is for EVERY child, just that it CAN be. For those of you who want to think that this nation is 'under God', I'm not stopping you, and neither is anyone else. Just don't make anyone else do it.

For those that say that children don't have to do it, it looks silly that one kid isn't reciting the pledge while everyone else is. In elementary school and middle school, children strive to fit in. This isn't the sort of thing that HELPs any.

 

I didn't bother to read much of this thread, it seems everyone is just repeating themselfs.

The fact is, the ruling is not going to stand. With the 99-0 vote and the president calling it stupid, even if the Supreme Court rules it constitutional, which I doubt they will, they could simply make up an amendment and pass it.

I doubt that the judges that made the decision will even support it after they have seen that the American public is strongly against it.

The courts do not want to lose power or legitimacy. Although they are generally free from much public opinion, they cannot make rulings this stupid without loosing legitimacy. I thought I wrote a essay on this, but I can't find it. I also cannot remember the name of the court cases that made courts loose legitimacy because nobody would follow the rulings. There was one about slavery or something and some general was like "The supreme court made the rule, they can come down here and enforce it."

 

There are always going to be people mad in a country so large. And 90% of the world believes in a higher power. The Pledge doesn't state "One nation, under Jehova" now does it? This isn't just the Christians. And if you are in the minority that doesn't believe in God at all, no one if forcing you to say the Pledge. The school leads it, kids can't be forced to say it though.

-sj loves kevin spacey