Pledge Unconstitutional

Originally posted by A Sheep
I was wondering something. Because it is so constitutional to have that phrase absent from the pledge of allegiance, then why was it ever put in, and why did it take so long to take it out? 48 years!!!

Click to expand...

Why was slavery permitted for as long as it was? Why weren't women permitted to vote?

Just because it's wrong or unconstitutional doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And if the age of a practice makes something right, all you Christians should just shut down all your cathedrals, because the Shintoists and the Buddhist have you completely beat in terms of longevity.

   Jeff

 

Originally posted by A Sheep
I was wondering something. Because it is so constitutional to have that phrase absent from the pledge of allegiance, then why was it ever put in, and why did it take so long to take it out? 48 years!!!

Click to expand...

Most of this information is contained in the original news article. Did you read it?  The big lobbying effort to insert it was spearheaded by the Knights of Columbus.

The court said the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.

The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "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."

The court cited recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that said students cannot hold religious invocations because it violates the Constitution.

America was founded upon freedom of worship.
This means that we may mention GOD WHENEVER and WhErEvEr we PlEaSe!
(sorry for the half caps, lol lol I do that when I'm REALLY mad. . . )
The Pledge of Allegiance should remain legal as it is. If you don't like it, fine, then move somewhere else.
The athiests who wish to ban public expressions of Christian faith are hypocritical: they are forcing atheism on the public.
This is not Soviet Russia!
Go OuT aNd SaY tHe PlEdGe ToDaY!

Wow never get facts from message boards. May that be a lesson since most facts are just thrown out numbers on this board. In God we trust was on coins first in 1864 then on all one cent coins starting in 1909, dimes since 1916. Not 1954 (or around there). This country is going to get hit hard. We are rejecting God like it's a celebration. Next will be money and public buildings in Washington DC unless Christians start standing up for what our founding fathers really stood for. 52 out of 55 framers of the Constitution were avowed biblical followers of Jesus. I hate how everyone twists the past and where this country came from so that a new unGod movement in nation will grow.

And NPH, you are trolling me with that comment on Buddhism and Shinto. . .but I'm not biting, 'cause if I do, I will be tossed.
I'm already in enough trouble as it is.
But that makes me so

I guess that takes me to my next question. Why even make a constitution if it's always getting worked aroundslavery, no women voting, theism)? Doesn't sound like "All men(humans) are created equal" to me?

And as for your snide little jab at the end of your post, first of all it is not about the length of a religion, it is about the morals/values it instills in you, and/or if it gains you eternal life. And anyway, Jesus was a Jew(and God at the same time), so many Christians, and other people, would consider Christianity an Abrahamic faith, you know, that guy that lived 1300 years before buddhaa, and I don't know enough about Shintoeism to comment, but I highly doubt that it is pre 1950bc.

Originally posted by Blackhawk  
You ignored my point.  My point was that it is obvious that the signers did not mean what you are saying that they did.

Click to expand...

What am I saying they meant? I didn't say anything about their "original intention."

Have you ever heard of judicial review? It's been in force in this country since 1809. And that's what the 9th Circuit did. They held the 1954 act of Congress up to judicial review, and found it violative of the establishment clause. And in doing so the 9th Circuit relied entirely on Supreme Court precedent.  The Supreme Court has already wrestled with the framers' original intention; in fact original intention is often the methodology employed when evaluating whether legislation passes constitutional muster.

However it is one method among many and it is fraught with difficulty. But if it is "obvious" to you what the framers meant, then you are free to pontificate away, because decades and decades of federal jurisprudence has failed to agree what is "obvious" to you.

They did not mean that we can't have "In god we trust" On coins or that we can't say "Under God" in the pledge.

Click to expand...

Then why did it take until the 1954 for "under God" to appear in the Pledge of Allegience? Why doesn't "God" appear all over the Constitution? Why doesn't it appear anywhere in the Constitution? And how do you know they didn't want "God" on their money? Did they have "God" on their money? No.

This is very obvios when we look at their actions.  Possibly some early American History lessons are in order. 

Click to expand...

Then you are a truly remarkable individual because the federal courts, comprising some of the finest legal and historical minds in the country, have failed to discern what is so strikingly "obvious" to you.

Possibly some reading of federal establishment clause decisions are in order? Specifically today's 9th Circuit decision?

"Then why did it take until the 1950s for these slogans to appear?"

Why doesn't any read my posts? That's a lie about the coins. Read my post. PLEASE!

Originally posted by Project 86
"Then why did it take until the 1950s for these slogans to appear?"

Why doesn't any read my posts? That's a lie about the coins. Read my post. PLEASE!

Click to expand...

"This slogan," then. I meant "under God" in the Pledge. That's what this thread's about.

"Then you are a truly remarkable individual because the federal courts, comprising some of the finest legal and historical minds in the country, have failed to discern what is so strikingly "obvious" to you."

But when the same person passes a law you don't like the truly remarkable individual isn't so remarkable anymore I bet. Something to think about.

"This slogan," then. I meant "under God" in the Pledge. That's what this thread's about."

Then next time don't say THESE slogans. You were grouping coins with the phrase like others on here trying to say it hasen't been around that long on money so lets take it off there too type of thinking. So you meant the pledge. Thanks for correcting yourself and making yourself clear.

I think about it this way; I try to think about how the decision would actually affect me or someone I know.

This was a prayer that teachers were expected to lead. If I was teaching at a school with such a policy I would have to decline to lead such an oath. To do otherwise would be to engage in a serious act of hypocrisy. If I am fortunate enough to have decent co-workers they will respect my decision, but I cannot rely on this. In some schools, that would be a significant blow to my authority and I subsequent actions would be taken to isolate me (and perhaps drive me out of the school). I look at the establishment clause as something that should protect me from such behavior, so that I do not need to rely on the goodwill of my coworkers. Rights are something you should be able to expect, not something you get if people feel like it.

This is not entirely abstract, btw, I have twice been asked to lead prayers at our annual graduation dinner. Both times I declined, and was treated respectfully, though one co-worker treated me very different from that point on. If the prayer in question were a matter of school policy, I think it would have been a much more serious problem. As it happens, btw, I am not fully covered by today's decision since I teach at a tribal institution, and the establishment clause does not apply to tribal governments. If I wanted to challenge something like the pledge, I would have to work the federal funding angle, and I'm not sure how that would work out. In any event, most of the people I work with no what it's like to have someone force their beliefs on you (quite literally), and so most of my coworkers are unusually open minded about these things. It's not perfect; I once read a memo from a Vice president saying that evolution could not be taught in our classes, but we dealt with this by ignoring the proclamation in the hopes that the administrator in question would have better things to do than try to enforce it. I am not entirely happy with my school's approach to these issues, but I content myself with the knowledge that I can always leave and go back to a place where I will enjoy my rights as an American citizen more fully.

Sundry comments:

God is named in the Pledge. the word is used as a personal name, presupposing an identity. We can all read different things into that, but then we can all fight about what it really means after all. remember that a significant number of Christian leaders have been telling us lately that Allah is not God, that these are not just two words for the same being after all. I'm not saying I agree with that position, but I am trying to point out that the supposed inclusiveness of the term "God" can be taken away quite easily. And in any event, the term does not include me or other unbelievers. I regard any attempt to enshrine belief in God (however non-sectarian) in our nations rituals as a deliberate attempt to make me into a second class citizen.

No the founding fathers would not have applied the establishment clause itself to the states, though some sought parallel provisions at the state level. More importantly, the 14th Amendment changes all that. And of course, the founding fathers were human, and they could be every bit as inconsistent as our modern politicians.

(In reference to the other thread) defining this as a victory for Humanism is an attempt to make the establishment clause meaningless. If absence of a religion is defined as a religion in itself, then we are all condemned to a religion of one sort or aother. That's a game I don't appreciate, and todays decision simply does not endorse any specific world view. It does not force people to say the pledge without the words, it says you cannot force people to say the pledge with the words in question.

How do we draw the line? There are indeed some gray areas (the girl who recently wanted to thank Jesus in her validictorian speech for example), and I see some leeway for allowing individual expressions at formal functions (provided they really are individual, and do not lead to collective obligations). Much of the list of horribles that Worthy has posted are in no way implied by todays decision.

Several news pseudo-commentators have stated that this was political correctness run amuck. Those guys should kind of award for hypocrisy. The Pledge is itself an attempt to check the political correctness of citizens. It is a test of loyalty (i.e. political correctness), and those who wish to see the test include reference to God are themselves promoting a vision of political correctness (one which leaves unbelievers out).

Originally posted by Susan
America was founded upon freedom of worship.
This means that we may mention GOD WHENEVER and WhErEvEr we PlEaSe!

Click to expand...

Correct. You don't need the government to do it for you. Isn't that what conservatives believe? I'm suprised the conservatives aren't applauding this decision. It gets the government out of their religious lives. Isn't religious indoctrination what Christian families and preachers are for?

The athiests who wish to ban public expressions of Christian faith are hypocritical: they are forcing atheism on the public.
This is not Soviet Russia!
Go OuT aNd SaY tHe PlEdGe ToDaY!

Click to expand...

That's not what it's about at all. You obviously need to read the decision too.

Watching fundamentalist Christians pontificate on constitutional jurisprudence is almost as bad as watching npeterley and randman pronounce on radioactive decay.

Originally posted by Susan
America was founded upon freedom of worship.
This means that we may mention GOD WHENEVER and WhErEvEr we PlEaSe!

Click to expand...

Yes, that's correct. You may indeed worship whenever you please. You just can't force others to do so.

(sorry for the half caps, lol lol I do that when I'm REALLY mad. . . )

Click to expand...

I understand entirely. Slaveowners felt the exact same way when their slaves are free. It's always tough on the priveleged class when equality is instituted across class boundaries.

You have my sympathy, just not my agreement.

 

The Pledge of Allegiance should remain legal as it is. If you don't like it, fine, then move somewhere else.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, now there's the philosophy embodied in McCarthyism. Thank you for elegantly summing it up: believe as I do, or get out of my country.

 
The athiests who wish to ban public expressions of Christian faith are hypocritical: they are forcing atheism on the public.

Click to expand...

This is a false statement. We are not forcing atheism. We are just not permitting you to force Christianity.

 

This is not Soviet Russia!

Click to expand...

How very astute of you. Heck, even Russia isn't Soviet Russia anymore.

Go OuT aNd SaY tHe PlEdGe ToDaY!

Click to expand...

Feel free to do so. As an American citizen, it is your right.

   Jeff

 

Originally posted by Project 86
"This slogan," then. I meant "under God" in the Pledge. That's what this thread's about."

Then next time don't say THESE slogans.

Click to expand...

Jeez, alright already. I'll edit the post.

Originally posted by Susan
And NPH, you are trolling me with that comment on Buddhism and Shinto. . .but I'm not biting, 'cause if I do, I will be tossed.
I'm already in enough trouble as it is.
But that makes me so

Click to expand...

Susan,

 I'm sorry to say this to you, but tough. For that individual to claim that the Pledge was morally right just because it's been around for 48 years was nonsensical.

 And which part bothers you? The fact that Buddhism and Shintoism have been around a lot longer than Christianity?

    Jeff

 

"This is a false statement. We are not forcing atheism. We are just not permitting you to force Christianity.
"

But it's ok to force evolution down peoples throats and not allow a good teaching of Creation to be taught? I wouldn't be so upset if they would allow my tax dollars to pay for a Christian education at my choice.

NPH I reiterate:

And as for your snide little jab at the end of your post, first of all it is not about the length of a religion, it is about the morals/values it instills in you, and/or if it gains you eternal life. And anyway, Jesus was a Jew(and God at the same time), so many Christians, and other people, would consider Christianity an Abrahamic faith, you know Abraham right? That guy that lived 1300 years before buddhaa, and I don't know enough about Shintoeism to comment, but I highly doubt that it is pre 1950bc.

It's the decleration of indepence that has the link to religion but God is not said!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

 

It's sais creator, however I'm still a little shocked that they could throw the pledge out like that!! Not coming from a reliogous view either, mainly patrotism (sp).

Ok will probaly get attacked but I don't care.  As for those who are not from America and wonder why everyone is in such an uproar, the reason for me is Patrotism! (In my case at least)

 

 

 

Originally posted by A Sheep
I guess that takes me to my next question. Why even make a constitution if it's always getting worked aroundslavery, no women voting, theism)? Doesn't sound like "All men(humans) are created equal" to me?

And as for your snide little jab at the end of your post, first of all it is not about the length of a religion, it is about the morals/values it instills in you, and/or if it gains you eternal life. And anyway, Jesus was a Jew(and God at the same time), so many Christians, and other people, would consider Christianity an Abrahamic faith, you know, that guy that lived 1300 years before buddhaa, and I don't know enough about Shintoeism to comment, but I highly doubt that it is pre 1950bc.

Click to expand...

It's a nice try, but we're talking about Christianity, not Abrahamic faith. Christianity starts at 0 AD. Anything before that is Judaism.

And Shintoism was named about 660 BC to differentiate it from the newcomer, Buddism. The religion itself is much more ancient than that.

  Jeff