The Pledge stays as it is...

I'm really disappointed with this ruling. I wanted to see a decision on the question--whichever way that decision went. Dismissing the case because the father doesn't have custody of the child doesn't resolve the issue. It just sidesteps the question of whether or not the pledge as it now stands is constitutional. Such a shame.

elanor said:

I'm really disappointed with this ruling. I wanted to see a decision on the question--whichever way that decision went. Dismissing the case because the father doesn't have custody of the child doesn't resolve the issue. It just sidesteps the question of whether or not the pledge as it now stands is constitutional. Such a shame.

Click to expand...

I think Reverend B called it correctly when he said they "punked out".

Pardon my jumping in here, but there's a bunch of comments and assumptions being made here that just plain do not fit.

First off, if somebody wants to define "legal technicality" for me, I'll be grateful. Lately it seems like it's being used to mean "them judges refused to lay down the judgment I wanted to git from 'em."

Paula may be able to speak more fully than I to the "standing" issue -- but what it means is that to start a lawsuit, you have to show that what you're suing about will cause you real damage, not just that you don't like what's going on for some reason or other. Newdow as a non-custodial parent was deemed not to have standing sufficient to bring the suit, in the view of five Supreme Court justices. Just because he or somebody else has an attitude regarding some given practice does not give him the privilege of bringing suit -- and SCOTUS has been very firm that one must prove valid standing to justify bringing a suit before them. It's not a legal technicality but simply the requirement of proving that one is sufficiently affected by a matter to warrant bringing a lawsuit in the first place.

However, with all due respect to Paula, I have to respectfully disagree with her comments on compulsion. The established law of the land since 1941 has been that nobody can be forced or coerced to say the Pledge, true, but one would have to be naive or deaf and blind to miss the numerous instances when people are placed in situations where they are obliged to recite the Pledge. The requirement that it be recited in front of classes standing at attention that underlay the Newdow case in the first place is one of dozens of examples where the law of the land is disregarded by local governments and petty bureaucrats.

Second, it would be impossible for the Pledge of Allegiance itself to be unconstitutional, because it is established by Act of Congress as a formulary to which Congress gave legal recognition by resolution -- differing only in permanence from a resolution designating this as National Eat More Cottage Cheese Week. It places no compulsion on anyone, and as such, is within the purview of Congress to adopt as a statement relevant to national patriotism, with or without "under God" present.

And any regulation that requires or coerces a citizen by law to recite the Pledge is ipso facto unconstitutional as a violation of the free exercise and freedom of speech clauses. Barnette v. West Virginia State Board of Education was decided before Pearl Harbor, and is the settled law of the nation.

So I have reached a point where I feel that the continued debate about the Pledge amounts to a tempest in a teapot. There are undoubtedly Americans who feel that their lack of belief in God means that nobody else ought to be able to affirm their own belief, and there are Americans who feel that their own belief in God somehow gives them the privilege to compel everyone else to aver such a belief, whether those so compelled hold such a belief or not. But thank God that neither group constitutes a majority of Americans.

We are a country that cherishes our freedoms, and by and large gives thanks to God for endowing us with them. And I am very glad that that is the case.

Nasreddin said:

Actually, Thomas Jefferson is the author of that phrase - and he was a deist, not an atheist. Not sure if he'd be a "liberal individual" by your standards, so no comment there.

Click to expand...

Drifting slightly from the topic...


You're actually in error. Thomas Jefferson never coined himself a 'deist.' In fact, in his own words Jefferson said, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Though deist today popularly believe Jefferson was a deist, it is in fact untrue, or rather, unsubstantiated and certainly not an admission by Thomas Jefferson himself.

jefferson's thoughts and musings regarding religion certainly would allow him to fit comfortably in the concept of deism, though he rightly thought that every person ultimately defines their own relationship with the Divine, and as such are armys of one. he was too much of an iconoclast to sit in a pew, though, so he would not be a church member. that much is true.

opus_dei said:

paula-

1) the constitutionality of the issue is indeed about the "manner perscribed by congress." moreover, the courts have held, time and time again that there are instances where is is permissible to mention God. should we, per chance, also stop teaching students about the declaration of independence?

2) justice o'connor outlined in which instances are permissible in her concurrence with the lynch case i mentioned earlier. for futher times where it's permitted read a few pages back or read brennan's concurrence in Schempp, 374 U.S. at 303-04. (which is also quoted a few pages back)the supreme court does not act on a "reasonable presumption" of ANYTHING. that argument alone is logical fallacy and makes for horrid case law. moreover, the statistics used would most likely never see the light of day at trial.

3) instead of making ad hominem attacks on the justices please take a second to read a) settled case law on the topic and b) the entire newdow opinion.

Click to expand...

Opus Dei - I believe you misunderstood my position. Just to clear up the confusion, (1) I have always been fully in favor of keeping the Pledge intact; (2) I did not at any time ever make ad hominem attacks against the justices; (3) I have read many of the relevant opinions in this case. If you would go back and review my posts Nos. 54 and 56, you will see this is indeed the case.

Perhaps you were misled by Reverend B's quoting of me, where he inserted his own opinions in boldface type in the same quote box as mine.

Reverend B - For clarification purposes, it would be much appreciated if you would edit your post # 94 in some fashion so as to reflect that the opinions stated in boldfaced type are your own and not mine, or else separate out the quotes. Thanks!

Rae said:

Your personal opinion, with which I obviously disagree and will continue to disagree with.

People can be forced to do things under threat of violence. Happens all the time in school, regardless of Constitutionality ... which is what I was referring to. Or did you miss my experience that kids and parents are willing to force others to say the Pledge or be beaten up?

Click to expand...

Kids get beaten up for their milk money too. Should the schools stop offering milk to prevent future beatings?

I just read Thomas's dissent, and it's nothing short of revolutionary in terms of First Amendment jurisprudence: his position is that the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the states through the 14th.

Here's the decision. Thomas's is the last.

My favorite line from his dissent, by the by, goes something like: "While a textual reading suggests that Congress is forbidden from establishing a national religion (but see....)". Heh.

Nasreddin said:

Actually, Thomas Jefferson is the author of that phrase - and he was a deist, not an atheist. Not sure if he'd be a "liberal individual" by your standards, so no comment there.


Quite right. They do, however, give us more insight into the reasons for which the law was adopted - and I think that this is what crazyfingers was referring to. Her main points were that 1) the purpose of the law was obviously not secular, and 2) that the primary effect of the law was to advance religion. Would you disagree with either of those?
[/font]

Click to expand...

AT the end of Jefferson's life and his soul hung in the balance he wasn't a diest/dualist, there is evidence that in some of his later writings he became a Christian, or at least sought Christianity. People's views change over a life time, especially when ideation, meets reality. It is as the saying "there are no aetheist in foxholes".
The declaration of independance was almost an exact plagerism of John Locke's theology and theocracy..It was beautiful when John wrote it, and it was just as beautiful when Jefferson rewrote it, but was even more beautiful when the Continental Congress edited it, and in some places rewrote it. The first draft was life, liberty, and the pursuit of commerce.

Remember most of these men were not diest, the first signer to put his john hancock on it in bold letters was the Reverend John Hancock a firey preacher who was closely associated with revivalist Johnathon Edwards/ Aaron Burr sr. (father of the vp and founder of Princeton University) and the great awakening . It met with his approval that he gave it an emboldened AMEN. Many of these men were clergy. They were elected/sent "trusted leaders" by their people to represent them in the continental congress.

Aethism did not play well at all in Colonial times...

Paula said:

Opus Dei - I believe you misunderstood my position. Just to clear up the confusion, (1) I have always been fully in favor of keeping the Pledge intact; (2) I did not at any time ever make ad hominem attacks against the justices; (3) I have read many of the relevant opinions in this case. If you would go back and review my posts Nos. 54 and 56, you will see this is indeed the case.

Click to expand...

as to the boldface in the quotes, oops.....no more CF in the wee hours.

reverend B said:

it seems to me that three doesn't quite make a quorum. any other commentary you want to quote?

Click to expand...

Perhaps if you had taken the time to peruse the link to the 6/14 decision I offered in my post # 54 above, you would have known that the only Justices who commented on the merits and viewed recitation of the Pledge as constitutionally non-violative were O'Connor, Thomas and Rehnquist. As Scalia had earlier recused himself, he took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court, which only addressed Newdow's lack of standing, and in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, joined. However, note since they refrained from commenting on the constitutionality issue, that would explain why I was unable to provide their commentary. It certainly wasn't done intentionally on my part.

Although the concurring opinions of the three Justices I quoted earlier may be of precedential importance in this case, they are also non-binding.

Paula said:

Opus Dei - I believe you misunderstood my position. Just to clear up the confusion, (1) I have always been fully in favor of keeping the Pledge intact; (2) I did not at any time ever make ad hominem attacks against the justices; (3) I have read many of the relevant opinions in this case. If you would go back and review my posts Nos. 54 and 56, you will see this is indeed the case.

Perhaps you were misled by Reverend B's quoting of me, where he inserted his own opinions in boldface type in the same quote box as mine.

Reverend B - For clarification purposes, it would be much appreciated if you would edit your post # 94 in some fashion so as to reflect that the opinions stated in boldfaced type are your own and not mine, or else separate out the quotes. Thanks!

Click to expand...

i apologize. i can't figure it out and need someone to help me learn how to do it.

burrow_owl said:

I just read Thomas's dissent, and it's nothing short of revolutionary in terms of First Amendment jurisprudence: his position is that the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the states through the 14th.

Click to expand...

I had to read his opinion three times to make sure he was actually saying what I thought he was saying. Thomas simply does not appear to be able to think reasonably coherently in the absence of Scalia's voice - and that's saying something.

Hmmm....

I need to check something...

BRB

I am thinking that reason was more involved here than emotions. Someone actually used their brain instead of sitting on it keeping it warm.

It seems that seebs' excellent post was lost in the rabble-rousing.

seebs said:

The existence of rulings claiming something constitutional doesn't necessarily mean it is. Anti-miscegenation laws were considered constitutional... But they weren't really.

Anyway, I continue to be horrified that Christians are actively promoting the practice of making millions of innocent kids take God's name in vain. It's so far from right I can't imagine how this is happening.

It's bad enough that we strongly encourage kids to swear oaths they aren't old enough to genuinely mean. That just sets up the expectation that oaths are just mouth noises.

But... Putting God in it is just blasphemous.

Click to expand...

Great post, seebs.

I am not a Christian; however, I cannot imagine being one and wanting people to swear oaths of fealty on my deity's name, repeating the words over and over and over until they had lost all meaning. What power does your God have if you insist that nonbelievers swear upon him? Your God becomes a figurehead, an approximation, a diluted duty.

Besides, what need does America have with recitations of patriotism? If America is truly the greatest country, we have no need of such things. If we truly encouraged thought and reason instead of blind devotion, we wouldn't try to impress patriotic ideas upon small children. Are we so afraid of having our kids make up their own minds about this country?

I'ddie4him said:

I am thinking that reason was more involved here than emotions. Someone actually used their brain instead of sitting on it keeping it warm.

Click to expand...

I hope you're not talking about the unfocused mishmash that is the holding and the various opinions.

I'ddie4him said:

I am thinking that reason was more involved here than emotions. Someone actually used their brain instead of sitting on it keeping it warm.

Click to expand...

in an odd sort of way i agree with you. it took a lot of brains to create the life preserver arguement that the man did not have the right to speak for the child because he didn't have full custody. pheww!! dodged another bullet. extra points for dodging in an election year!!
all kidding aside, how do we make a constitutional arguement for the after-thought addition of "under God" into the pledge? not a faith arguement, because we don't have that right in this country, but a constitutional one? i honestly can not twist the document enough to be able to make that make sense to me.

As a schoolboy, one of Red Skelton's teachers, Mr. Laswell, explained the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance to the class word for word. In 1969, Skelton wrote it down and eventually recorded it. This is his recollection of the lecture, followed by a sad, prescient observation of his own:

http://www.spiritisup.com/pledgeofallegiance.html