Pledge of Allegiance

[kamome]

It's about time a federal court recognized that the Pledge violates the separation of church and state. Although many politicians are calling the ruling absurd, I think they're doing it to appeal for votes. The court should also recommend removing "God" from the oath taken before assuming public office and remove the prayer said prior to the commencement of Congressional sessions. That's the only way to maintain true secularity in the public sphere, and the burden would be minimal.

[Crispy]

My parents grew up in a place and time where everyone had to recite the Lord's Prayer, and then the Pledge of Alleigence (with the bit about God in it before the pledge was nationalized like that) every day before classes started. The seperation of church and state down there wasn't even an issue that anyone thought about.

[cstaylor]

9th circuit always does crazy stuff like this. It will be appealed to the Supremes and most likely overturned.

Look at your quarters, people: "In God We Trust".

Now let's recite the pledge here:

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.

What's next? Rewrite of the Declaration of Indepedence?

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

Look: if a kid doesn't want to say the pledge, that's fine. Schools should be teaching the three R's, not reciting the pledge. But pushing it as a "separation of church and state" is pretty weak sauce to me. "Separation of Church and State" keeps out the use of "God's Law" in the public sphere (so you can't burn "witches" because God told you they wuz evil!), but not for the eradication of all uses of the word "God" in the public...

[cstaylor]

Then have Congress remove the line. That doesn't change the point I made about the Declaration (I don't think McCarthy had his hands on that).

[cstaylor]

Then have Congress remove the line.

That's exactly what this ruling does. Are you sure you're not coming down with a case of not-reading-the-link-itis?

No, it doesn't work that way. The court can't make law, so it's not saying, "You can remove this line". All they are saying is that by the Constitution, the whole law allowing the pledge to be said in schools is illegal.

Read the article again.

[kamome]

No, it doesn't work that way. The court can't make law, so it's not saying, "You can remove this line".

Since when do the courts not make law? There is something called the common law, which is basically the patchwork of judge-made laws upon which statutes are written to plug the holes/rewrite judge-made law. Law in the US comes from various sources, including the courts, the legislatures, and agencies.

Regardless, what the court here has done is, as ultra said, overturning a provision of the 1954 act on the basis of its specious constitutionality. If you want to call that "law making", there could be a valid argument there, but it is within the court's jurisdiction to do so. See Marbury v. Madison.

[cstaylor]

[cstaylor]

Regardless, what the court here has done is, as ultra said, overturning a provision of the 1954 act on the basis of its specious constitutionality. If you want to call that "law making", there could be a valid argument there, but it is within the court's jurisdiction to do so. See Marbury v. Madison.

Oh man, not another contest of dueling dictionaries... no, you see, I misunderstood the verdict because it was mispresented in the article. According to the news article linked to this thread, it said that it was illegal to recite the pledge in school. What the court findings say is that "in its present form with the phrase 'under God', it is illegal". Although I agree with the dissenting opinion (there's no establishment of a state religion produced from listening to those two words uttered in a morning classroom), I think the news greatly mispresented the majority opinion.

Since when do the courts not make law? There is something called the common law, which is basically the patchwork of judge-made laws upon which statutes are written to plug the holes/rewrite judge-made law. Law in the US comes from various sources, including the courts, the legislatures, and agencies.

When Chief Justice Marshall made that decision, the only body that can make law was the legislature. All that was changed when FDR was granted executive order privileges by Congress. All that the court can do by judging a law as unconstitutional. I agree with Marshall: the court's job is to reign in the legislature from making laws that are unconstitutional. That's not the same as making law (IMO).

Now I understand that case a bit better (by reading the actual statement of the court), I can see how they could stretch the "separation of church and state" and the pledge of allegiance... but I do worry about other, more important things, like the Declaration of Independence.

[cstaylor]

I'd really love a delete button now... I guess I could go and "edit my mistakes" out of the posts above.

That damn first section threw me off:

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in schools.

And I completely missed this part:

The court said the phrase violates the so-called Establishment Clause in the Constitution that requires a separation of church and state.

Oh well... but any answer to my question about the Declaration of Independence?

[kamome]

I agree with Marshall: the court's job is to reign in the legislature from making laws that are unconstitutional. That's not the same as making law (IMO).

Every time a court interprets a statute and renders an opinion, it becomes binding authority on that particular jurisdiction. This has the effect of law, and any lawyer who doesn't refer to cases on point with regard to a particular statute would be committing malpractice. Thus, I would say the courts are a source of law.

As for the Declaration of Independence, I would say there is a distinct difference between that and the Pledge. Namely, the pledge comes from Congressional statute, and therefore is subject to interpretation or voiding by the courts. The Declaration is not a law, it is a statement of independence from England. It is not the Constitution. The Declaration is in a sense a dormant document that really isn't affected by the 9th Circuit's decision. Thus, having the word God in the Declaration doesn't present the kind of logical inconsistency that CS believes is there.

[cstaylor]

Except what if they teach it in Civics class?

[kamome]

Except what if they teach it in Civics class?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

[Mr. BIG]

What's next? Rewrite of the Declaration of Indepedence?

That's an incredible point!! I'm 19 years old right now....i guess I stopped saying the pledge 8-9 years ago, but from what I recall, the pledge forced absolutely no feelings about religion on me or my classmates.....I went to school with hindis, buddhists, muslims and christians who ALL recited the pledge as an oath to our country, not to "God".....

Supposing the words "under God" are stricken from the pledge (which I feel is much better than not saying the pledge at all) what's to stop these people from attacking the Declaration?? I think the pledge holds a similar place to the Declaration as far as America's cultural identity is concerned.....

What the HELL kind of timing was the ruling made on, anyways?? The 4th of July is next Thursday.....talk about a national identity crisis.

[Mr. BIG]

I missed Kamome's point at the top that completely explained my pains about the Declaration.....I guess I didn't see that there was a second page on the thread before I posted my reply....much apologies.

Thanks to Kamome for the insight into the matter....I only wish I'd read it before I put up that last post.

[kamome]

Thanks to Kamome for the insight into the matter....I only wish I'd read it before I put up that last post.

No problem, dude. That's what I'm here for.

[Mr. BIG]

If I had my way we'd all pledge allegiance to one another and to the lot of mankind as a whole....I'd much rather consider myself a citizen of the world than as the citizen of a solitary country; however, that is a lofty desire that I can only hope will be fulfilled within my lifetime. What gets in the way of this is malicious people who attack others on the basis of their beliefs or desires or skin pigmentation....if I want to pledge allegiance to the US, then that's my business. Who do you think you are to call me or anybody else stupid or wrong?? By attacking others because they pledge their loyalty to one country or another, you express to the world not only that you're closed-minded and intolerant of the freedom and opinions of others.

[Mr. BIG]

......but that you lack a sense of self-identity, which is a terrible thing.

[Mr. BIG]

You're completely right about being able to think I (or anybody else, in that matter) am stupid. It was hypocritical of me to preach that big mess about everybody's rights and then criticize you for what you said.....

[cstaylor]

Except what if they teach it in Civics class?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Here it is: Separation of Church and State. Children in public school. They are asked to read the Declaration of Independence in civics class. It has the word "God" in it, in fact, it has it more plainly than the pledge:

...and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

What this is saying is that all of the stuff about natural rights come from a creator (although a Christian God is not mentioned). Kid objects to the word "God", Daddy takes it to court, and the 9th circuit (using the pledge case as a legal precident) sez "You can't teach the Declaration in a public school, funded with public money, because it assumes that there's a creator, and some of our pupils might be offended if they thought that".

Of course, taught as a part of history, it might not be a big deal... but I thought the point of civics class was to teach kids "this is what being an American means... here's the documents that made you free... this is how you elect your representatives"

[cstaylor]

Oh man, not another contest of dueling dictionaries...

And who started this one, kimosabe?

No no no chumpmaster, I'm talking about the War of the Words I had with Kamome about the use of the word "story"

[cstaylor]

People who are stupid enough to get into nationilistic things such as a pledge of allegiance, or anything like that is stupid in the first place. I'm not an american i just live here

One of the nice things about "living in America" is that you can say things like this without getting strung up or run over by tanks. Why is that so? Some old white guys over 200 years ago thought it would be a nice idea if you could speak your mind without being thrown in prison and tried without appearing before court (some of the inalienable rights you have as an American).

Patriotism is a two-way street: blind obedience is scary, and like all obsessions is a dangerous road to take. Proud of what your country stands for (through its documents and laws) and what it does in and for the world? I don't see anything wrong with that.

[kamome]

You know, after further thought about this issue (and after reading about that ridiculous spectacle in Congress where all the Senators and Reps got up to recite the pledge and then give a standing ovation ), I'm wondering why the hell we even have to recite a pledge in the first place.

To me, the entire idea of reciting a pledge in school is basically thinly veiled indoctrination/brainwashing of children. It's also a prayer to the State apparatus: "I pledge allegiance...to the Republic....". This republic that is America is one nation under god? With liberty and justice FOR ALL? What a load of highfalutin crap--since when was there liberty and justice for all in the "divine" United States?

[kamome]

Cstaylor wrote:

Here it is: Separation of Church and State. Children in public school. They are asked to read the Declaration of Independence in civics class. It has the word "God" in it, in fact, it has it more plainly than the pledge

I still don't see why you think there is some kind of logical inconsistency with removing "under God" from the pledge and having the word God in the Declaration. Children are being forced to recite the pledge in schools (or they are at least forced to listen to it and participate in standing up for it). That is a State-sponsored activity; and if a child does not want to recite the pledge, he/she is subject to psychological exclusion from the rest of the group. It's the same thing as if the Lord's Prayer is recited in a school classroom--the only non-Christian child in the class would also be singled out in a psychological sense for not wanting to participate.

Studying a historical document that happens to contain the word God amid other flowery language is a completely different activity from reciting the pledge. The Declaration is not an oath, prayer or swearing of loyalty, as the Pledge is. It follows that removing the words "under God" from the Pledge will not in any way undermine the validity of the Declaration or the study of it in Civics Class. There just is no connection.

Furthermore, I should point out again that the Declaration in any case is not a document that provides any kind of legal authority in American jurisprudence. It only documents our intention to break from England and provides some philosophical grounds for committing what was then thought of as treason. It does not form the basis for our basic rights like our Constitution does. So why even focus on the Declaration anyway? It's a complete non-issue.

[cstaylor]

If it's taught in school, it's subject to Church and State separation. Were you taught the Declaration of Independence in school? I was, and you can't honestly discuss the Declaration in depth without touching on Natural Law (which supposes a creator, Christian or not).

Look, I said that the beginning of this thread that I think schools should be working on studying the three-R's instead of wasting time reciting a poem. I just worry that this will be the first move to removing other more important things from the schools.

[cstaylor]

To me, the entire idea of reciting a pledge in school is basically thinly veiled indoctrination/brainwashing of children. It's also a prayer to the State apparatus: "I pledge allegiance...to the Republic....". This republic that is America is one nation under god? With liberty and justice FOR ALL? What a load of highfalutin crap--since when was there liberty and justice for all in the "divine" United States?

With the current anti-terrorism legislation, it certainly does seem silly to say we all have "liberty and justice". You're a suspect? Habeas Corpus, what's that?
[quote="Supreme Court in 1886"][I]t is the birthright of every American citizen when charged with a crime, to be tried and punished according to law. The power of punishment is alone through the means which the laws have provided for that purpose, and if they are ineffectual, there is an immunity from punishment, no matter how great the offender the individual may be, or how much his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice of the country, or endangered its safety. By the protection of the law, human rights are secured]

[kamome]

If it's taught in school, it's subject to Church and State separation. Were you taught the Declaration of Independence in school? I was, and you can't honestly discuss the Declaration in depth without touching on Natural Law (which supposes a creator, Christian or not).

We're talking about this ruling, right? Under the RULING, studying the Declaration in a classroom doesn't suddenly become a violation of church and state, even though the word God is mentioned in the document. Why? Because simply having the word in front of you or discussing natural law as the philosophical underpinnings of the Declaration doesn't automatically create a First Amendment violation.

The Lemon v. Kurtzman test will still be applied to church-state cases as it was before (Lemon was the Supreme Court decision that established a 3-prong test for determining when a government regulation abridges the Establishment clause). I believe you could even incorporate the New Testament as a subject of study in a public school literary, history, or comparative religions course. It all depends on the focus of the course of study, how it is presented, the mandatory nature of the course, etc.

Look, I said that the beginning of this thread that I think schools should be working on studying the three-R's instead of wasting time reciting a poem. I just worry that this will be the first move to removing other more important things from the schools.

And what would that be? I've already explained why it wouldn't remove study of the Declaration from the curriculum. Like I said, the courts will still apply the Lemon test whenever a challenge is brought.

With the current anti-terrorism legislation, it certainly does seem silly to say we all have "liberty and justice".

You're right about that, although what I had in mind was the history of racism in America, which has been one of the ultimate affronts to the notion of "liberty and justice for all".

Whew, I am tired of typing.

[cstaylor]

We're talking about this ruling, right? Under the RULING, studying the Declaration in a classroom doesn't suddenly become a violation of church and state, even though the word God is mentioned in the document. Why? Because simply having the word in front of you or discussing natural law as the philosophical underpinnings of the Declaration doesn't automatically create a First Amendment violation.

The Lemon v. Kurtzman test will still be applied to church-state cases as it was before (Lemon was the Supreme Court decision that established a 3-prong test for determining when a government regulation abridges the Establishment clause). I believe you could even incorporate the New Testament as a subject of study in a public school literary, history, or comparative religions course. It all depends on the focus of the course of study, how it is presented, the mandatory nature of the course, etc.

Now it's starting to become very clear... mincing the definitions of words, incapable of using his own computer, having thorough knowledge of specific cases within the American justice system, desiring network spy utilities to search for company gossip, overreaching ambition stunted by superiors...

My fellow F*cked Gaijin: Kamome must be a corporate lawyer.