The Pledge of allegiance

[Bobby]

This has been a hot topic for a few. I personally have always had a problem with the pledge taking place within the schools. Especially with the words; 'under god.'
With the pledge of allegiance being a daily practice within our schools, why isn't it better that it be brought back to its original form that would allow it to be suitable for all walks of life?
Maybe the pledge should be removed all together. Maybe school rooms are not the place to pledge ones allegiance to their flag. Maybe this act should be done at the post office.
What do you think?
[/i]

[Jose]

The establishment clause is quite narrow and defined as "No LAW" establishing religion. Lord Patrick Devlin once wrote: "A State that refuses to enforce Christian beliefs has lost the right to enforce Christian morals." I agree with that. We're not a Christian state, therefore we have no right to enforce Christian doctrines. Key word here is "ENFORCE."

It is enforced, though. Certainly, when my friends and I tried to leave out "under God," we were told we were not allowed to do so. Thus, the Pledge served as a kind of forced indoctrination into this particular religion. A tiny step, perhaps, but more than our parents wanted.

Then one day, one of our teachers gave us a quiz. "Write out the Pledge of Allegiance," he said. We all got it wrong, after saying it in unison daily for about a decade. Even with "under God" in it, it was just a mindless ritual that meant nothing.

I think it's wrong to have "under God" there, because it is government sponsorship of one particular religion, and a great many Americans do not belong to that religion. But if no one can remember it well enough to write it down, then maybe it's really just government-sponsored make-work, and sets the tone for the deadly worksheets that follow.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

Sorry if it takes me awhile to get around to replying to this topic. It's not really a priority on the long list of threads I wish to opine, although this is fun topic to debate.

As the Serbs say, this is like comparing frogs and grandmothers. I don't care about making children "think about" God. You can bring up God all you want in the proper context. Religion, after all, has a long and storied past in our culture which we cannot divorce ourselves from (no matter how hard we try ). But thinking about God is a long way from legitimizing the idea of God. Exposure to God is no more harmful to students than exposure to sex education. The problem comes in when the teacher advocates one position, as it were, over another.

Oh I agree. Teacher's and school curriculum is way to opinionated these days. When teachers endorse and thus advocate certain worldviews, our children's young impressionable minds are what is victimized. Certainly it goes both ways from the religious v. secular worldview in the education system. The debate could be made with Intelligent Design in the classroom to serve as a fair opponent to macroevolution. The problem is our entire educational system is anti-intellectual, due to the status quo not wanting it's majority opinions challenged.

Anyways, enough ranting...
I see your argument - you believe the words "under God" in the pledge legitimizes religion in the state. My response to that argument would be that it is a hypocritical double standard by people (not necessarily you) who make such an argument and do not condemn the state for equally legitimizing secularism in education that exclude God. Secularists don't want God to be legitimized and I don't want things like macroevolution to be legitimized. My conclusion ultimately is there will never be a fair balance of worldviews. It is a moot point to try and use the BoR of the Constitution to do so, since the BoR is a rights-based theory.

So the pledge is not a law? I beg to differ. Just for the record: Legal Information Institute -- Pledge of Allegiance. Enforcement is a curious defense, because it implies that the only reason the law is not unconstitutional is that it's allowed to be selectively enforced. I.e., The unconstitutionality of it is already acknowledged, and the fact that some children can be excused from this government-sponsored activity only serves to highlight this.

This is where we get into some technical terms. The Pledge is "public law." Such laws are non-obligatory. Since they aren't legal obligations and don't tell us what we can't do, they are not really laws at all. To call the pledge a "law" (legal obligation) would be a misnomer in the context of the rights-based theory.

The pledge would be unconstitutional, with or without "under God", if it was obligatory upon people. State statutes acknowledge this by conforming the pledge to the rights-based theory, making it non-obligatory, and unjust if enforced for any reason.

On the contrary, this view seems more naive than mine. Clearly, a student who does not wish to recite the Pledge is free not to do so on any grounds. I would hope that such a political statement would be different from taking a religious stand. Religion, after all, is treated differently from political affiliation and citizenship. In these cases, the choice is a political choice, which means that the desire not to say the pledge is an active desire.

I submit that it is not this same kind of desire that precludes a student from not saying the pledge on religious grounds, but it is a personal belief that saying the pledge would be harmful to him/herself in a personal way. This is really what we're talking about, the harm caused to the student by forcing him/her to make a decision based on personal faith, and the consequences of that decision. The government says that America is Under God. Do you agree? If not, Canada is that way, buddy. Government acknowledges this particular God, and if you don't then your allegiance is imperfect.

So political beliefs/worldviews cannot be compared to religious beliefs/worldviews in this respect? Certainly any part of one's worldview can create emotional stress and alienation. But since when is the BoR in the business of mitigating emotional stress and alienation? The purpose of the BoR is to secure and protect the rights of citizens, not play Dr. Phil with individuals who feel alienated due to their worldview. The BoR simply secures that individuals right to hold that worldview in public.

The reason we're in a world of trouble is judges have tried to mitigate the emotions of people who feel alienated due to their worldview. The principles of the Constitution have reached a point of "anomie" (to borrow Durkheim's term).

It's not the Court's problem someone feels alienated from society due to the beliefs they subscribe in. When a judge posits the notion of universal tolerance - that all worldviews ought to be treated as equals - he is forcing that worldview (universal tolerance) upon people who reserve the right not to share that worldview (like me! ).

With that said, so what if the Pledge (with "under God") alienates some children to share an opposing worldview? As long as these children retain the right not to share that worldview, the Constitution's rights-based theory is upheld.

If Congress chose to excise the words "under God" from the pledge, that would be fine. However, this debate does NOT fall on the SCOTUS, since the pledge is not unconstutitional.

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you satisfied with this type of alienation? So you can't please all of the people all of the time, so we just shouldn't try, is that it? The tyranny of the minority mucking it all up for the rest of us. I'll flip your argument: How does removing "under God" constitute a harm? It is clearly a harm, now that you have admitted it creates alienation, so how does removing that harm create a wider harm? Shouldn't we try to make our government as relevant to all the people in the country as possible? This isn't political correctness, this is pursuit of happiness stuff.

Along with what I said above, I'm actually quite neutral on the words "under God." If Congress chose to amend the pledge, it would get nothing more than a shrug of my shoulders. My argument refutes the challenge to it's constitutionality and it's debate in the Courts. My beef with this issue is the principles of the Constitution and how it has been abused (in this case) by the liberal agenda.

The obligation is for them choose not to be a part of the wider society that does believe in God. By not participating, they are acknowledging that they are second-class citizens.

How are they second class citizens if they enjoy all the same rights everyone else enjoys? Their Constitutional rights are not being violated.

They CHOOSE not to share the worldview of theists in society. They are not FORCED/OBLIGATED to share that worldview.

How is removing this restrictive phrase possibly restricting the free exercise of religion? Your right of free exercise has nothing to do with a state-sponsored pledge. And the government is in the business of protecting both of our rights, not favoring yours.

You're right, but what about that ol' slippery slope argument? As soon as the SCOTUS exercises it's power to remove "under God" from the pledge, what's stopping it from removing God from other public places in society?

I get it now. It's already there, so there shouldn't even be an argument. We have ways to decrease the harm its doing, so what's the problem? Sort of like issuing gas masks to people who do not want to breathe in pollution from coal-powered plants.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be an argument, I'm saying the argument should not be centered on the Constitution. There is no constitutional basis for changing the pledge. Now whether or not Congress chooses to amend the pledge is another matter that lies with the will of the people.

I disagree that it doesn't make a difference why the law was made/changed. Constitutional scholarship is generally concerned with the circumstances surrounding the creation of law in order to interpret it. Everything must be seen in context, otherwise interpretation would be arbitrary. If you didn't like the Bush quote I gave earlier, how about this one?

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, after signing the law that changed the pledge in 1954

Contrast this with the previous change to the pledge of allegiance. When it was originally written, it did not include the name of the country. That was added later because it was thought that immigrants to this country might confuse allegiance to this country with allegiance to their mother countries. The addition of "United States of America" clarified the meaning of the pledge. What does "under God" do?

If the will of the people has changed since 1954, Congress can amend the pledge again.

I don't need to show evidence. A hypothetical situation carries as much weight in a court of law as does an actual incident. One might argue it carries more weight. And I disagree that this country is headed in the opposite direction from God. I think you might have a point if this was 1982. But the country has been becoming more religionified (?) since then.

http://christianparty.net/christianpopulation.htm

There's plenty of evidence to show religion is on the decline (at least Christianity).

Absolutely wrong. The change 50 years ago wasn't justified, it was rationalized. The fact that they did it does not prove that it was the correct thing to do, even at the time. And we have the right to question that decision on whatever grounds we find appropriate. The interpretation of the intent of each amendment has been used for legal argument. The interpretation of the reasons behind laws enacted since then can be used as arguments against them.

Fair enough - rationalized, not justified. Nevertheless, the change was made through Congress, therefore the will of the people. The change was not unconstitutional. I'm saying if you want a change, don't complain to the Courts, complain to Congress.

Does this mean we should ask our president to follow the law only as it suits his religious conscience? (Come to think of it... )

I believe the president ought to follow his conscience yes. I don't know what "religious conscience" means. The president ought to fight for what he believes is right and against what he believes is wrong. That's one of my biggest criticisms of John Kerry (see his view on abortion, but that's a whole other debate! )

OK. We should prepare our children for the irrational discrimination he/she will face because their beliefs are not shared by the wider society. We should prepare them to assimilate into a larger culture that will only give lip service to freedom of religion, and will instead promote a view that a majority of citizens find acceptable. We should teach them to become either Marranos to Christian America or else prepare for a life of discrimination based on minority status. We should teach Christian children that their view is the correct view, and that any other view is wrong.

Absolutely, we should prepare our children for irrational discrimination. That's what necessarily follows in a culture filled with competing worldviews. We certainly have no right to force a "universal tolerance" worldview upon people who reserve the right to reject that idea. Face it, the worldview of the status quo will be the most visible worldview in a democratic society. What a democracy does however, is secures the rights to freely express a worldview that opposes the status quo. That does not mean the democracy will somehow make this worldview more acceptable amongst the status quo, nor will it mitigate the emotional stress and/or alienation felt by a minority worldview; that is a impractical and absurd request for a democracy to fulfill. The limits of the moral and political theory are confined to the creation of rights, which effectively limit the power of the government and secure freedoms necessary for a minority to co-exist with a majority.

It wasn't necessary to change it in 1954. But because of the "politics" of the times back then, they went ahead and did it anyway. There is no logical reason for it to be in the pledge. It is indefensible on legal grounds. The only claim it has to legitimacy is its current existence. As I said above, I am allowed to argue that its inclusion was a spurious and, if I may say, half-hearted attempt to unify the nation in the face of an outside threat.

"Politics" is a very accurate word. Congress (who represents the will of the people) chose to amend the pledge - that's playing politics. They saw a logical reason to change it back then. There may be legitimate reasons to change it now, but these reasons must be supported by Congress, based on the will of the people. These reasons are NOT found based on the constitutionality of the pledge.

I don't think that a slippery-slope argument is out of place here, if only because its true nature is as a precedent. A precedent is the business end a legal slope that tips the law toward the issue. If we allow "under God" to remain, we have opened the door to acceptance of other similar types of religious speech, and have made it an acceptable form of religious expression.

Of course, it does not need to be found unconstitutional in order to have it removed. An act of Congress would be enough. But then, there is no snowball big enough to survive the heat put on legislators not to do so. It saddens me that there are so many people in this country that believe America is a Christian nation, and that by being a Christian someone is automatically "better" than someone who isn't. I wonder where they get these ideas from?

There ya go - an act of Congress.

[Jose]

I see your argument - you believe the words "under God" in the pledge legitimizes religion in the state. My response to that argument would be that it is a hypocritical double standard by people (not necessarily you) who make such an argument and do not condemn the state for equally legitimizing secularism in education that exclude God. Secularists don't want God to be legitimized and I don't want things like macroevolution to be legitimized.

Doesn't this viewpoint ignore the fundamental principle of freedom of religion? By putting one religion's (or one family of religions') viewpoint into a ritual that must be repeated daily by young people, the State is legitimizing that one religion's viewpoint to the exclusion of others. To be fair, the State should either include all religions (now there's a lengthy pledge) or refer to none of them. Singling one out is special treatment, and is inappropriate.

It is for this reason that "secularism" is legitimized in education. To avoid forcing a particular religion onto students, the State must teach from a religiously-neutral position. This does not apply to private schools, which are free to teach however they wish. Parents who disapprove of secularism in public instruction have the freedom to move their children to religious schools.

With that said, so what if the Pledge (with "under God") alienates some children to share an opposing worldview? As long as these children retain the right not to share that worldview, the Constitution's rights-based theory is upheld.

We should refresh our memories of the effects of leadership, peer pressure, and the general environment on children's learning. Being put into an environment with particular Rules imposes those rules on children. They learn to adopt those Rules, whether they have the freedom to choose otherwise or not. I presume that this is why you don't want what you call macroevolution to be legitimized. Students can choose not to accept it, but the pressures of authority (the teacher's leadership), peer pressure, and the environment of the classroom make it difficult for them not to. They always "retain the right not to share that worldview."

They CHOOSE not to share the worldview of theists in society. They are not FORCED/OBLIGATED to share that worldview.

But they are FORCED/OBLIGATED to be immersed in a culture that holds that worldview. Remember, the best way to learn a language is to be immersed in it. The same is true for the acquisition of worldviews.

You're right, but what about that ol' slippery slope argument? As soon as the SCOTUS exercises it's power to remove "under God" from the pledge, what's stopping it from removing God from other public places in society?

They would be, and are, free to do so. And why not? Again, these public places are immersing people in a single religious view. There would be justification for it (though, of course, little enthusiasm for doing so...but I still hold the argument as a valid).

Nevertheless, the change was made through Congress, therefore the will of the people. The change was not unconstitutional. I'm saying if you want a change, don't complain to the Courts, complain to Congress.

Quote:
Does this mean we should ask our president to follow the law only as it suits his religious conscience? (Come to think of it... )

I believe the president ought to follow his conscience yes. I don't know what "religious conscience" means. The president ought to fight for what he believes is right and against what he believes is wrong. That's one of my biggest criticisms of John Kerry (see his view on abortion, but that's a whole other debate! Smile )

But does Congress follow the will of the people? I think the evidence indicates that it all-too-often does not. How many of us really want more air pollution as a result of eliminating controls on powerplants? How many of us want antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections, as a result of not testing adequately in meat packing plants? How many of us want to increase the selection pressure on antibiotic-resistant bacteria by refusing to ban the routine use of antibiotics in animal farming? How many of us want to have the remaining wild areas, where we would otherwise go for rest, relaxation, and spritual renewal, clearcut, mined (with unregulated dumping of cyanide and mercury), and drilled? How many of us do not want safety or mileage improvements for large vehicles--or even alignment of bumper heights to keep Escalades from flattening the Civics that most of us can afford? How many of us want to have access only to incomplete scientific information, because much of it has been removed from the CDC, USDA, and NIH websites because it didn't match the president's religious views?

There is much that is done at the level of legislation and at the level of "unadvertised activity" that the general public actually does not want. The will of the people is often quite different from what gets done. Rather, much of what gets done in Congress is the will of the biggest donors.

I accept the fact that this is how politics works. Money has always been a lubricant, and mere people usually take a back seat (a big back seat, of course, since there are so many of them). It's simply unfortunate that the kinds of issues I've mentioned above will now get worse, and probably not be addressed again until the next public health crisis. We could avoid the crisis, but at the expense of monetary loss (or decreased monetary gain) by the big donors.

As for Kerry, his record shows that he does fight for what he believes is right, and against what he believes is wrong. What makes him seem so weird to some people is that he actually weighs alternatives before deciding what is right. Bush doesn't do that. He decides, and he doesn't waver, even if events prove him wrong. Give me a flip-flopper any day, if they can change their mind when new information shows that a new choice would be better. But, as you say, that's quite another debate.

But back to the thread: if Congress amends the Pledge, they will do so with legitimate authority. Like you, I don't really care one way or the other. It never had any effect on me, nor did it have an effect on my son. I can, however, see the viewpoint of those who feel that "under God" should not be there. Like Kerry, I can see the other viewpoint also. I'm happy to let Congress take the heat, since they'll be criticized no matter which way they go.

[ST88]

Incidentally,

The House of Representatives today passed a bill that would limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to the extent that it would not be able to rule on the question of whether or not the words "under God" could be stricken from the pledge.

In effect, the House is trying to override the powers of the judicial branch, something that it apparently part of the Constitution and is well within the rights of Congress. In an election year, this is an egregious example of pandering. Here is an interesting analysis of the event:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/23/hamilton.pledge/

I think the Senate has to pass the same bill, or something similar, in order to make it valid. I'm not exactly sure about this, though. I don't know if it has to go through the executive branch or not. And I believe this bill would leave it up to individual states as to whether or not the pledge would have the offending phrase in it.

In any event, here is an example of the dangers of a dominant political idea. They know it would be stricken as unConstitutional if it ever got that far, so they have moved to block it from being stricken.

[Jose]

you're right. The Senate has to pass the bill also, which seems unlikely according to the news analysis I heard.

It seems to me that it is a bit of a stretch on what their constitutional powers are supposed to be. The Congress passes the laws, and the courts adjudicate concerning them. Congress should be unable to pass laws that prevent the courts from adjudicating about laws. This is a dangerous precedent.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

Doesn't this viewpoint ignore the fundamental principle of freedom of religion? By putting one religion's (or one family of religions') viewpoint into a ritual that must be repeated daily by young people, the State is legitimizing that one religion's viewpoint to the exclusion of others. To be fair, the State should either include all religions (now there's a lengthy pledge) or refer to none of them. Singling one out is special treatment, and is inappropriate.

It is for this reason that "secularism" is legitimized in education. To avoid forcing a particular religion onto students, the State must teach from a religiously-neutral position. This does not apply to private schools, which are free to teach however they wish. Parents who disapprove of secularism in public instruction have the freedom to move their children to religious schools.

No, I don't think that's the case. The pledge does not impose any unjust obligations upon any person. So what if a monotheistic God is recognized in a non-obligatory pledge? You are appealing to political correctness - "to be fair..." - and as I've said, just because the pledge is not PC doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. I've already conceded the fact that the pledge is not PC...but that doesn't matter. You're building your case against the pledge off the premise that it's not PC. Since secularism is PC, it ought to be the established curriculm in schools. But political correctness undermines the very goal of education, which is broading the knowledge of students, irregardless of political agenda and worldview. I think you'd find a hard time arguing with my signature quote by Robert Frost.

We should refresh our memories of the effects of leadership, peer pressure, and the general environment on children's learning. Being put into an environment with particular Rules imposes those rules on children. They learn to adopt those Rules, whether they have the freedom to choose otherwise or not. I presume that this is why you don't want what you call macroevolution to be legitimized. Students can choose not to accept it, but the pressures of authority (the teacher's leadership), peer pressure, and the environment of the classroom make it difficult for them not to. They always "retain the right not to share that worldview."

Sure, I may oppose macroevolution for those reasons, but for those same reasons, I have NO basis to call macroevolution unconstitutional; for the same reasons you have no basis for calling the pledge unconstitutional. Keep in mind we need some logical consistency here. What I see is a double standard where people cry foul on the pledge and then hypocritically fight for an unchallenged curriculm of macroevolution. I understand the "to be fair" PC argument. So why not be fair and advocate ID textbooks to contrast with macroevolution? I too can appeal to PC to criticize the "unfair" agendas being pushed in our educational system, but it's going too far to bring the Constitution into it.

But they are FORCED/OBLIGATED to be immersed in a culture that holds that worldview. Remember, the best way to learn a language is to be immersed in it. The same is true for the acquisition of worldviews

Ah, they're "immersed in a culture" that for the most part believes in God? What should we do about that? I suppose we could either build schools that allow only a certain subculture or perhaps ban Christians/Jews/Muslims from the public? I don't see the use of complaining about the existence of a prevailing cultural majority and the fact that minorities are "forced/obligated" to be exposed to this cultural majority.

It comes down to the profound fact that in reality, the same reason reason people love America is the same reason people hate America: freedom.

They would be, and are, free to do so. And why not? Again, these public places are immersing people in a single religious view. There would be justification for it (though, of course, little enthusiasm for doing so...but I still hold the argument as a valid).

It seems you're essentially advocating for that agenda of "universal tolerance" which ironically does not tolerate any other worldview! Such a justification is self-defeating.
No, the SCOTUS should not abuse their power of "interpreting" the Constitution in order to trailblaze public policies of universal tolerance. There is a difference between an eisegesis and an exegesis of the Constitution. The Court has no right to provide an eisegesis of the Constitution.

But does Congress follow the will of the people? I think the evidence indicates that it all-too-often does not. How many of us really want more air pollution as a result of eliminating controls on powerplants? How many of us want antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections, as a result of not testing adequately in meat packing plants? How many of us want to increase the selection pressure on antibiotic-resistant bacteria by refusing to ban the routine use of antibiotics in animal farming? How many of us want to have the remaining wild areas, where we would otherwise go for rest, relaxation, and spritual renewal, clearcut, mined (with unregulated dumping of cyanide and mercury), and drilled? How many of us do not want safety or mileage improvements for large vehicles--or even alignment of bumper heights to keep Escalades from flattening the Civics that most of us can afford? How many of us want to have access only to incomplete scientific information, because much of it has been removed from the CDC, USDA, and NIH websites because it didn't match the president's religious views?

Your rant about Congress is duely noted. Of course there is two sides (sometimes more!) to every issue. I was not implying that the president ought to base all his decisions off his religious convictions. He was elected to work and make decisions for best interests of the entire nation (I would actually argue for the best interests of mankind - but that's a different debate). But it is also significant to note that the president is a human being, not a robot, and we ought to expect that when it comes down to making moral decisions from office, his religious beliefs will play a role in that. That is to be expected, unless we replace our president with a computer. I'd explain this more indepth using John Kerry's position on abortion as an example, however that's off topic.

There is much that is done at the level of legislation and at the level of "unadvertised activity" that the general public actually does not want. The will of the people is often quite different from what gets done. Rather, much of what gets done in Congress is the will of the biggest donors.

I accept the fact that this is how politics works. Money has always been a lubricant, and mere people usually take a back seat (a big back seat, of course, since there are so many of them). It's simply unfortunate that the kinds of issues I've mentioned above will now get worse, and probably not be addressed again until the next public health crisis. We could avoid the crisis, but at the expense of monetary loss (or decreased monetary gain) by the big donors.

Oh of course there is no doubt that there is a big difference between what Congress ought to do and what Congress actually does. But ultimately, this internal inconsistancy of Congress still doesn't justify an argument against the Constitutionality of the pledge. Maybe Congress had no real justification for amending the pledge in the first place - but that in and of itself does not provide then a justification for the Court to declare it unconstitutional.

As for Kerry, his record shows that he does fight for what he believes is right, and against what he believes is wrong. What makes him seem so weird to some people is that he actually weighs alternatives before deciding what is right. Bush doesn't do that. He decides, and he doesn't waver, even if events prove him wrong. Give me a flip-flopper any day, if they can change their mind when new information shows that a new choice would be better. But, as you say, that's quite another debate.

Aye - perhaps I'm the only one who believes that a candidate should have reasonable knowledge on an issue BEFORE he takes a stand on that issue. Too often do we see a politician taking a stand on an issue he doesn't know anything about. If this wasn't the case, he'd be less apt to "flip-flop." The reason Bush doesn't do this as much is he apparently believes in an objective right/wrong, rather than which opinion sounds "better" at the time. Enough about those pesky politicians though...

But back to the thread: if Congress amends the Pledge, they will do so with legitimate authority. Like you, I don't really care one way or the other. It never had any effect on me, nor did it have an effect on my son. I can, however, see the viewpoint of those who feel that "under God" should not be there. Like Kerry, I can see the other viewpoint also. I'm happy to let Congress take the heat, since they'll be criticized no matter which way they go.

I think we all can see the other viewpoint Jose. I certainly can at least. What I'm trying to do though is show that this other viewpoint has no basis for calling the pledge unconstitutional. Unfortunately it seems that so many people have this idea in their minds that the Constitution is there to make society more PC and that is NOT how the Constitution ought to be interpreted. The pressure should be on Congress, not the SCOTUS.

The House of Representatives today passed a bill that would limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to the extent that it would not be able to rule on the question of whether or not the words "under God" could be stricken from the pledge.

^^^^ Like I said...

This is a dangerous precedent.

Actually, I believe it appears to be a step in the right direction. That is, ensuring that the SCOTUS does not become the PC cops and sticks to Constitutional matters of the law.

[Jose]

Doesn't this viewpoint ignore the fundamental principle of freedom of religion? By putting one religion's (or one family of religions') viewpoint into a ritual that must be repeated daily by young people, the State is legitimizing that one religion's viewpoint to the exclusion of others. To be fair, the State should either include all religions (now there's a lengthy pledge) or refer to none of them. Singling one out is special treatment, and is inappropriate.

It is for this reason that "secularism" is legitimized in education. To avoid forcing a particular religion onto students, the State must teach from a religiously-neutral position. This does not apply to private schools, which are free to teach however they wish. Parents who disapprove of secularism in public instruction have the freedom to move their children to religious schools.

No, I don't think that's the case. The pledge does not impose any unjust obligations upon any person. So what if a monotheistic God is recognized in a non-obligatory pledge? You are appealing to political correctness - "to be fair..." - and as I've said, just because the pledge is not PC doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. I've already conceded the fact that the pledge is not PC...but that doesn't matter. You're building your case against the pledge off the premise that it's not PC. Since secularism is PC, it ought to be the established curriculm in schools. But political correctness undermines the very goal of education, which is broading the knowledge of students, irregardless of political agenda and worldview. I think you'd find a hard time arguing with my signature quote by Robert Frost.

You make two important points. The first is that the pledge is non-obligatory. It is this that makes it legal. The second is that it is, for many of us, a "so what" kind of issue. For most of us, the pledge is completely meaningless because of its mindless, ritualistic repetition. But, the "so what" aspect of it is not true for everyone. Clearly, there are those who feel very strongly that the words "under God" are so important that they are willing to take the issue to the Supreme Court, or pass laws that are intended to make the pledge "above the law" in that it shall be untouchable by the judicial branch. These are extreme measures, and indicate that the pledge is NOT a "so what" issue for these people. What, we might ask, is their goal in insisting that these words be in the pledge that everyone must recite or hear recited every day?

Regardless of the semantic technicalities, the fact exists that the pledge ensures that all school children will be exposed to this one religious view, regardless of their religious faith. Because the pledge is a nationally-sanctioned pledge, and because it is recited in public schools, it takes on the significance of government sponsorship. Therefore, it is, whether we would like to agree or not, the preferment of one religion over others, and is therefore a link between church and state.

It is not an issue of being PC. [In the current climate, it is PC to be Christian and not PC to criticize the government]. But, PCness is a matter of choosing to say or do things in an effort not to offend particular groups. With the pledge, it's a different thing entirely. We are telling children of other religions that this one religion is the one that the US considers valid. So, you see, I'm not building a "case against the pledge off the premise that it's not PC." The premise is that it is religious preferment in a State-sanctioned situation.

Sure, I may oppose macroevolution for those reasons, but for those same reasons, I have NO basis to call macroevolution unconstitutional; for the same reasons you have no basis for calling the pledge unconstitutional. Keep in mind we need some logical consistency here. What I see is a double standard where people cry foul on the pledge and then hypocritically fight for an unchallenged curriculm of macroevolution. I understand the "to be fair" PC argument. So why not be fair and advocate ID textbooks to contrast with macroevolution? I too can appeal to PC to criticize the "unfair" agendas being pushed in our educational system, but it's going too far to bring the Constitution into it.

It would, indeed, be difficult to say that what you call macroevolution is unconstitutional, inasmuch as the constitution does not call for separation of science and state. This is logical consistency. For both the pledge and the "fight for an unchallenged curriculum of 'macroevolution,'" I am using the same standard: separation of church and state (not science and state). The pledge standardizes one religion; the "challenges" to evolution are likewise from one religion. (Actually, the challenges are from a much more restricted religious viewpoint, since many theists have no problem with evolution.) Again, it's not a "to be fair" argument. It's a "not favoring one religion over others" argument. It is the religion aspect that brings in the Constitution.

The question of whether ID textbooks have a place in the schools is the topic of another debate, for which there are other threads. I think it would be fun to continue our discussion there, where we can consider specific points in more detail.

But they are FORCED/OBLIGATED to be immersed in a culture that holds that worldview. Remember, the best way to learn a language is to be immersed in it. The same is true for the acquisition of worldviews

Ah, they're "immersed in a culture" that for the most part believes in God? What should we do about that? I suppose we could either build schools that allow only a certain subculture or perhaps ban Christians/Jews/Muslims from the public? I don't see the use of complaining about the existence of a prevailing cultural majority and the fact that minorities are "forced/obligated" to be exposed to this cultural majority.

You've broadened what I said, thereby making it sound silly. I explicitly stated that the pledge immerses students, whether they want it or not, into State-sanctioned religious expression. As far as I know, students are allowed to omit the words "under God," but not to leave the room so they won't have to hear others say them. They are thus required, by law, to attend. It is a separate issue whether, in public, they encounter people who are different from themselves. Of course they will. The existence of a prevailing cultural majority is fine, and is to be expected. Each of us must learn our own methods of functioning within this diverse society. The issue here is whether, in the government-supported schools, the government should sponsor immersion in a particular religious view that students cannot easily avoid.

It comes down to the profound fact that in reality, the same reason reason people love America is the same reason people hate America: freedom.

I've seen and heard this sentiment in many places, and I don't understand it. Who are we talking about who hates America? Certainly, the numbers of America-haters are growing world-wide, in response to our I'm Right You're Wrong foreign policy, but within America who are we talking about? Those who criticize America's current leaders? They do so out of love for the country, and are trying to save it from disaster. Are we talking about Timothy McVeigh and other home-grown wackos who follow their particular vision to the extent that they try to "teach us a lesson"? Again, the country isn't the issue; it's the people who run the country who are the targets. Are we talking about those who try to legislate certain freedoms away from the citizenry, in the interest of furthering their particular religious agendas? This seems the most anti-American to me, since it eliminates freedoms--but even so, these people are going to this extreme because they think it will save their country. I guess the general sentiment is the current version of the right-wing "America--love it or leave it" sentiment of several decades ago. It's not PC to criticize, because "if you're not with us, you're against us." That's so simple-minded it's sick...but it must work politically, because they actually have followers. (Personally, I think it's an appeal to a deep sense of morality, with the main goal of distracting us from the real agenda, which is the elimination of public health protections so that rich individuals and rich companies can get richer.)

Quote:
As for Kerry, his record shows that he does fight for what he believes is right, and against what he believes is wrong. What makes him seem so weird to some people is that he actually weighs alternatives before deciding what is right. Bush doesn't do that. He decides, and he doesn't waver, even if events prove him wrong. Give me a flip-flopper any day, if they can change their mind when new information shows that a new choice would be better. But, as you say, that's quite another debate.

Aye - perhaps I'm the only one who believes that a candidate should have reasonable knowledge on an issue BEFORE he takes a stand on that issue. Too often do we see a politician taking a stand on an issue he doesn't know anything about. If this wasn't the case, he'd be less apt to "flip-flop." The reason Bush doesn't do this as much is he apparently believes in an objective right/wrong, rather than which opinion sounds "better" at the time. Enough about those pesky politicians though...

I agree that it would be ideal if politicians knew enough to do the right thing every time. Alas, conditions change. Bush's problem is that he doesn't change when conditions do. He believes his objective is Right, because he is Morally Certain. As you say, though, someone who changes their mind according to which opinion sounds better at the time is no good either. That's why the Bushies have tried so hard to imply that Kerry is like this. Actually, he's much more likely to think about the actual data, analyze issues carefully, and be swayed by neither opinions nor Certainty.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

You make two important points. The first is that the pledge is non-obligatory. It is this that makes it legal.

Just for the sake of this debate, I'll say no. The fact that the pledge is non-obligatory is what disqualifies it from it's constitutionality being legitimately challenged before the SCOTUS. I don't believe that just because something is legal it is automatically Constitutional. There have been many laws that are "legal" (officially passed by Congress or state legislature) yet are unconstitutional. The grounds on which laws can be legitimately considered unconstitutional is based on the imposition/enforcement of unjust obligations.

I believe it must be shown that the pledge imposes unjust obligations upon citizens if one is to argue against the pledge on grounds of constitutionality. That doesn't mean one can't argue against the pledge on other grounds; it just means that the argument has no constitutional basis on which to appeal.

That's what leads us to the what we seem to be debating now on the "second point."

The second is that it is, for many of us, a "so what" kind of issue. For most of us, the pledge is completely meaningless because of its mindless, ritualistic repetition. But, the "so what" aspect of it is not true for everyone. Clearly, there are those who feel very strongly that the words "under God" are so important that they are willing to take the issue to the Supreme Court, or pass laws that are intended to make the pledge "above the law" in that it shall be untouchable by the judicial branch. These are extreme measures, and indicate that the pledge is NOT a "so what" issue for these people. What, we might ask, is their goal in insisting that these words be in the pledge that everyone must recite or hear recited every day?

I'm really not trying to trivialize the emotional objections by "under God" opponents. This certainly is an issue some people feel so strongly about that they are willing to debate all the way to the SCOTUS. What I'm trying to argue though is that even though it may be emotional, these people have no legitimate basis on which to appeal to the Supreme Court - that is given what the Court was originally created to do - interpret the law on the strict basis of the Constitution and not trailblaze public policy via judicial decisions. They are to interpret the law, not create it.

The "goal" of the pledge and it's content is self-evident and really is not up for Constitutional debate.

Regardless of the semantic technicalities, the fact exists that the pledge ensures that all school children will be exposed to this one religious view, regardless of their religious faith. Because the pledge is a nationally-sanctioned pledge, and because it is recited in public schools, it takes on the significance of government sponsorship. Therefore, it is, whether we would like to agree or not, the preferment of one religion over others, and is therefore a link between church and state.

I noticed a careful choice of words here. You claim it is a "link" between church and state and that it is a sponsership of a given religion over all others. While I believe that's true, that still doesn't violate the Constitutional. I believe non-obligatory statements/expression such as "under God" do not fall under the establishment clause, but rather the free exercise clause.

Keep in mind the heart of my argument was to show that the BoR and thus the 1st Amendment is predicated on the rights-based theory. The establishment clause refers specifically to the creation of legal obligations vis a vie Congress. The idea of separation of church and state refers directly to the prevention of legal obligations based on religious doctrine. This is the establishment of religion. That is exactly what the framers intended to prevent - a theocracy. One need look no further than the context of the DoI, Constitution, and BoR and the tyranny by the Church of England to understand this concept. If Congress enacts laws based on religious doctrine, then the state has officially endorsed a religion and thus become a theocracy, no longer a democracy.

Understanding this, you can no doubt see why I don't believe the pledge and the words "under God" has any legitimate basis on which to appeal to the SCOTUS.

It is not an issue of being PC. [In the current climate, it is PC to be Christian and not PC to criticize the government]. But, PCness is a matter of choosing to say or do things in an effort not to offend particular groups. With the pledge, it's a different thing entirely. We are telling children of other religions that this one religion is the one that the US considers valid. So, you see, I'm not building a "case against the pledge off the premise that it's not PC." The premise is that it is religious preferment in a State-sanctioned situation.

I'd strongly object to your belief that it's PC to be Christian and not PC to criticize the government! If that was the case then we wouldn't have to have these silly debates. Anyways, I don't see how either premise carries any weight as far as the Constitution goes. The 1st Amendment says nothing about "preferment" of religion and considering that it's predicated on the rights-based theory, one must look at it from that perspective. The state may have sanctioned the pledge with the words "under God", but nevertheless provides the caveat necessary to keep the pledge constitutional. If at any time this "sanction" became obligatory, it will violate certain citizens rights, ergo unconstitutional.

It would, indeed, be difficult to say that what you call macroevolution is unconstitutional, inasmuch as the constitution does not call for separation of science and state. This is logical consistency. For both the pledge and the "fight for an unchallenged curriculum of 'macroevolution,'" I am using the same standard: separation of church and state (not science and state). The pledge standardizes one religion; the "challenges" to evolution are likewise from one religion. (Actually, the challenges are from a much more restricted religious viewpoint, since many theists have no problem with evolution.) Again, it's not a "to be fair" argument. It's a "not favoring one religion over others" argument. It is the religion aspect that brings in the Constitution.

The question of whether ID textbooks have a place in the schools is the topic of another debate, for which there are other threads. I think it would be fun to continue our discussion there, where we can consider specific points in more detail.

I know there are other threads on this, so I'm not going to respond at length. I'll try to keep it within the frame of this debate. Macroevolution is not science, it is a philosophical conclusion based on scientific facts, same as ID. Both theories use the same set of scientific facts to come to different philosophical conclusions. ID is not religion, it is philosophy. If ID is to be rejected, the implication is that the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment has been misinterpreted and rewritten to separate the state from philosophy and that's an ugly slippery slope. ID does not teach religious doctrine and religious doctrine is what specifically meant in the 1st Amendment's establishment clause.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the Constitution saying the state can't "favour" certain religions. It cannot establish any religious doctrine via legal obligations.

You've broadened what I said, thereby making it sound silly. I explicitly stated that the pledge immerses students, whether they want it or not, into State-sanctioned religious expression. As far as I know, students are allowed to omit the words "under God," but not to leave the room so they won't have to hear others say them. They are thus required, by law, to attend. It is a separate issue whether, in public, they encounter people who are different from themselves. Of course they will. The existence of a prevailing cultural majority is fine, and is to be expected. Each of us must learn our own methods of functioning within this diverse society. The issue here is whether, in the government-supported schools, the government should sponsor immersion in a particular religious view that students cannot easily avoid.

I've seen nothing in the law placing such requirements on the student/teacher. How is having to sit by and hear the words "under God" be recited a violation of a person's rights anyways? A violation of a person's rights requires an unjust obligation upon that person. Since the daily pledge reciitation is voluntary, no one's rights can be violated. That's the point I'm trying to make here.

As I've said, I'm quite neutral as far as the pledge goes...it doesn't matter a whole lot to me if "under God" was taken out. As a Christian, I'd prefer it to stay, even though I can't honestly say that this country is "under God" anymore. I'm just debating for the principles of the Constitution.

I've seen and heard this sentiment in many places, and I don't understand it. Who are we talking about who hates America?

I probably shouldn't used such strong words in the context in which I spoke. I was summing my thoughts on the irony of what I see as so many people preaching an idea of universal tolerance and vehemently oppose any idea that runs contrary to this concept. Universal tolerance is intolerant. People who object that this country isn't being fair and there can be no substantive preferences have missed the boat. The very fact that we have the kind of freedom conducive to such a variety of worldviews (even the intolerant ones) is appropriate tolerance; the kind of freedom spelled out in the DoI and Constitution is not the "universal tolerance" freedom as some people argue - it is a freedom that promotes justice. Sometimes justice isn't fair - and that is what people hate.

I agree that it would be ideal if politicians knew enough to do the right thing every time. Alas, conditions change. Bush's problem is that he doesn't change when conditions do. He believes his objective is Right, because he is Morally Certain. As you say, though, someone who changes their mind according to which opinion sounds better at the time is no good either. That's why the Bushies have tried so hard to imply that Kerry is like this. Actually, he's much more likely to think about the actual data, analyze issues carefully, and be swayed by neither opinions nor Certainty.

O/T (but that's ok!):
I think Bush put a good answer to that last night on the debate. Yes conditions change and thus our policies and strategies will change too. However convictions and beliefs of the heart do not change. I believe it's a good thing Bush is morally certain. That means he has a strong foundation on which to justify his decisions. Whether or not you agree with him, you know where he stands. Kerry on the other hand, IMO, lacks any sense moral certainty or conviction. Bush morally justifies the Iraq War on the human being's innate interest to freedom/liberty - manifest in fundamental human rights every goverment on earth has an obligation to secure. I don't see Kerry's strong moral conviction to fundamental human rights. He comes across as a politician through and through. I prefer a leader who does the right thing and has the moral conviction to stick it through amidst worldwide criticism than a leader that subscribes to a kind of moral relativism that stumbles upon those harsh criticisms. That's just my vague assessement on Bush and Kerry here - nothing more

[Jose]

This is why they invented judges--so they can argue the fine points of legal interpretation and consistency with the Constitution. We could keep at this for years, each trying to convince the other. The trouble is, we're both right about the specific points we make; the issue is the extent to which either view is weighted in the overall equation.

Just for laughs, what might we think if Congress had put in "godless" instead of "under God"? Would you still hold to the view that it is irrelevant because it is not obligatory? I think that my argument would then resonate with Christians, who would not want their children told, daily, that the country is godless. In your view, they would have no valid ground on which to object.

OT RE Bush/Kerry: it's interesting how differently we see them. I see Bush as a tyrant wearing blinders, who blunders ahead whether he has adequate information or not, just because he thinks he's right. I wouldn't mind his "certainty" if I thought his decisions were right, but I believe that most have been dead wrong. I think he's scary. In many ways, his selective choice of which information to use in justifying the war is just a minor issue. He's made so many fundamental changes to domestic policies that basically trade short-term monetary gain of a few companies for long-term declines in public health, that on these grounds alone I consider him to be grossly immoral--though unquestionably Certain. It puzzles me that so many people don't care about the fate to which he is sentencing their children and grandchildren. I think they just don't realize it because he has painted himself with this aura of Family Values Morality, and they don't look beyond it to see what he's actually done.

[aschenox]

I am relatively young, just a junior in high school. Admittedly I am just beginning to step into intellectualizong...but I am pretty firm about the PoA..either it should state one nation under God, Buddha, Siddhartha, Muhammed and etcetera forever, or it should claim no religious affiliation. What is the pledge as it stands stating but that if you aren't Christian then you aren't American? Though 76.5% of America is in fact Christian (Adherents.com), that leaves 24.5% of the population that isn't, and doesn't neccessarily believe in "God" at all. I still am aghast at what a horrible message this is to anyone, let alone a young child! What a way to ingrain into young Christians heads the thought that if you aren't one of us than you are wrong, an outsider, and definitely not a part of my country. This seems fundamentally wrong at its very core, and a deep throwback to the days where to be American was to be a hypocrite at the root of your being (christian and slaveowner? puritan period? seems pretty shifty. let alone that whole "religious tolerance" thing).

Let us also talk about the fact that blindly pledging allegiance to a country whose foundation you don't understand cannot possibly be good for the children of America. In fact, teaching our children to blindly believe in anything we tell them is just inspiring bored, mentally unchallenged insiped little snot eaters. But, you know.