pledge of allegiance unconstitutional

heres my recommendation:


the teacher stands in front of the class and says 'victory',


and all the students shout 'yes'.


over/under 10%.


brad

Not sure what your point is, but it seems logical to me that adding religious references to the Pledge is an obvious violation of seperation of Church and State. I'm also looking forward to money without religious crap on it as well.

Seems totally logical to me too, but people are going ape. Case probably will be heard en banc and won't stand. Supreme Ct. might toss if that doesn't happen.

Your are right about people going ape High Desert Poker Man. The screaming and shrill babble is going on as we speak. Every breast- beating politician is out on the stump caterwauling and trying to wip up the masses. Jerry Farwell, who is next in line for any vacancies on the Trinity, is at his imbecilic best. I'm sure much more will follow - all just as grotesquely amusing. I'm looking foward to it.


-Zeno

I don't see why they can't just take out the two offending words and leave the rest of the pledge intact. That should make everyone happy.


Technically the judges are correct in an ideal world, but the world is far from ideal, and we have much much bigger fish to fry right now in this country, not to mention in the public school system.

of course there is no "separation" of church and state. the constitution says that the government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof." the separation doctrine was handed down by the supreme court as their interpretation of the amendment. the notion of "separation" does not reflect what the constitution says,and perhaps it is time to re-evaluate its efficacy. the "establishment" of religion as understood by the founders did not mean that the government must separate itself from religion.


Pat

What is using tax dollars to have kids in public schools to recite a belief in one particular conception of God if not the establishment of religion? All the people are saying, "well, the Supreme Court invokes God's name before court and Congress has a prayer, so it's OK." How? The words "under God" were added to the pledge in the 1950's as part of a big red and athiest scare. We've moved away from many things that were cherished in the 1950's like segregation, school prayer in other forms, McCarthyism, etc... What's so special here? Who wants our lousy federally funded public schools teaching spiritual matters anyway. They can't teach history let alone the spiritual questions of the universe.


I'm probably the only conservative lunatic in Idaho who thinks this 9th Circuit ruling is kind of cool.

It's a big deal because the politicians of both parties can't wait to make political hay out of it. Both houses of Congress made a show of reciting it today and singing "God Bless America," written by America's great hack songwriter. (I miss "Take Me Out To the Ballgame") There's votes in being for God.


Sure does seem like we should have bigger things to worry about than two words added to the Pledge of Allegiance because the Knights of Columbus wanted it in the days when we were sure the atheistic Communists were under our beds.

of course there is a big difference between forcing kids to say the pledge,and declaring the pledge itself unconstitutional. this is where supporters of this ruling are incorrect in my view. allowing kids to opt out of saying it as most public schools do (i believe i am not 100% on this) is one thing. by saying that the pledge itself is unconstitutional because of a reference to god is not what the constitution says. government is not "establishing" a religion merely because it has the students say the pledge of allegiance in the morning. there is nothing unconstitutional about a public school even having a prayer in the morning, again as long as it is not mandatory. again this is my view and not necessarily what the current court would have to say.


Pat

Kids can already opt out because of prior cases. The pledge is of course not unconstitutional per se, but I think it is unconstitutional to have the government have kids pray. This is not even a silent prayer or time to pray, or an after school club, rather it is a reference to a belief in a particular God lead by a government employee on government property when the government is acting as a parent or guardian of the children. I have not read the opinion yet, as I couldn't get it to pull up on the link I tried. I should read it in its entirety, but haven't yet. Your view will probably prevail in the Supreme Court or on rehearing. Not necessarily because of legal analysis, but because of that great constitutional standard - your side will get 5 votes. :-)


BTW, I have heard that until Hitler came along the flag was saluted during the Pledge of Allegiance in a fashion similar to the Nazi salute. Anyone know if this is true?

Here's a link to the opinion. I was mistaken above. The Court said in part that the adoption of the current pledge by Congress was unconstitutional. There's also a circuit split now. So if a rehearing doesn't change things, the Supreme Court is more likely to hear the case. The first criterion the Supreme Court uses to decide whether to grant cert. has been met - it is a 9th Circuit opinion. :-)

They're still playing God Bless America LA?


They switched back to "Take me Out to the Ball Park" at least a month ago in Oakland.

after reading the decision there is no doubt in my mind that the decision will be reversed. and not because of popular opinion but because the decision is flat out wrong on the law. no you can see why the left loves an activist court.(couldnt resist)


pat

Last time I watched on TV they were, but that was at least a week ago.


BTW, the reason I love Take Me Out To The Ballgame is because it's so stupid. Someone buys you peanuts and Crackerjacks and you don't care if you never get back? And why would you say "take me out to the ballgame" if you're already there?


What do you expect from a sport that considers Yogi Berra a sage?

If you love TMOTBG cuz it's stupid then you'll get along just great with my beer throwing buddy.

". . . with liberty and justice for all, except for liberty from being forced to say this every day."


You would think that the state compelling children to "pledge allegiance" to anything would create pause in in a country that prides itself on free thought and the absence of ideological coercion. In reality, the narrow mostly one-sided debate on this issue illustrates how Americans don't take personal political freedom seriously at all.


Most of us can scarcely imagine our children being free from mindlessly reciting a vague promise of allegience to a not-understood "republic" and, impliedly, the state that controls it. Thus, the tiny wedge of liberty created the two judges on the panel had to be restricted to the religious portion of the coercion, and even this has been condemned from every responsible quarter, including the leaders of every branch of government. Trent Lott confidently promised legislation, if necessary, to force children to mouth (or listen to others mouth) recoginition of the official deity. Their chief argument: we have so many other official references to God that we can't imagine removing them. This from people who piously condemn the absence of religious freedom elsewhwere in the world.


Contradictions like these litter the American landscape but we're so brainwashed that we can barely identify them, much less discuss them objectively. You see it with condemnations of things as "un-American," a perfectly meaningless phrase, and the constant criticism of those who exercise freedom of expression and dialogue by those who purport to celebrate it.

Now, just imagine Kate Smith belting it out.

Years ago, Gabe Kaplan, the somewhat comedic poker player, used to do a routine where he imagined what Ed Sullivan would be like were he drunk on the air and said what he really thought about the acts:


"Tonight, on our shew, first, Myron Cohen will come out and tell some of his Jew jokes. We also have Topo Gigio, that stupid, little Italian rat Then we have James Brown, who's going to sing some of that soul crap. And finally, that pompous old, fat windbag, Kate Smith, will sing God Bless America in her inimitable, off-key way."


Definitely not a PC routine. Please don't shoot the messenger.

Do the invidual states have laws requiring the recitation of the pledge of allegiance in public schools? Or is this done by local school boards or boards of education?


I don't think "un-American" is a meaningless phrase. Disregarding for the moment the fact that we've usurped the name for the hemisphere as the name for our country, I see something as "American" which conforms to our ideals. Thus I see Trent Lott's proposed legislation as perfectly un-American.


But this doesn't surprise me one bit, since Lott's politics are slightly to the right of mayonnaise. That not one Democrat (in the entire country, to my knowledge) could muster up the courage to say the right thing is more disappointing, but again, not surprising. A politician is a politician and God is the best there is, closedly followed by Uncle Sam, who imagines himself a direct descendant.

Would you feel the same way if the two words were Under Christ?

Check out the opinion itself. It talks about California's law that requires patriotism and that saying the Pledge fulfills the requirement, although other means can be used. local school boards then require the saying of the pledge (could it be because it is the easiest and cheapest way to fulfill the requirement?)

Brett,


Make no mistake about it, that's exactly what those two words say, despite the protestations of those who claim "God" has no ideological content in that phrase.


John

John's right; that's exactly what those two words mean. When I said it would seem we have bigger things to worry about, I meant every politician of every political stripe got his dander up over the removal of the words; not one ever thought their presence was wrong, or had the guts to admit it.

"Appropriate patriotic exercises."


Would doing sit-ups in front of the flag qualify? And isn't saying the pledge of allegiance only one "exercise." The law clearly calls for more than one exercise.


What a joke.

Bet you posted above about loving California before reading the opinion, huh? :-)


I think getting the kids some "USA" sweatshirts and having them wear those to recess would qualify.

Amen to that brother! Finally, someone with time and money challenged the "under god" in our pledge, and put an end to congress's establishment of those Judeo-Christian words. If this ruling gets overturned we will see part of our constitutional rights crumbling before our eyes. We will become a government mandated, single religion country.


CV


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.


The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791