Oh, that “blessing” argument is laughably weak. But hey, if anyone’s offended by “blessing,” feel free to take it up with the courts.
Well, but citizens are already protected from reciting a pledge that profanse their own beliefs. Even before the ruling, it was ruled unconstitutional to mandate the saying of the Pledge.
I would just get a laugh if I heard…
“Dammit children! We are not leaving until I hear the words ‘with liberty and justice for all’!”
Isn’t similiar to saying prayers in school? When there was school led prayer, people probably weren’t mandated to go along with it, it doesn’t mean that the prayers were constitutional.
Now we have the pledge–students aren’t mandated to say it, but that doesn’t mean the schools have the right to lead it.
Guess we should burn that Goddamned Declaration of Independence, too? Or maybe we should stop spending money? Oh, I know. Let’s get rid of those organizations that help the homeless, because they abridge a poor person’s right to freedom of religion. :rolleyes:
Leave it to people to get stupid over something as contrived and artificial as religion. Is it not enough to have your own opinion and leave it at that? I don’t agree with half the stuff I see here. Is that cause for me to sue?
This is perhaps one of the most petty and mindless things I’ve ever seen. It was wrong then to add it to the PoA, and it’s wrong now to remove it. It’s just a word, people. A representation of a concept. If you don’t believe, that word is meaningless.
I despair sometimes of ever understanding how this nonsense ever got to be the way it is now.
december, thank you for the brilliant post. Without your deep insight, I never would have known that the meanings of words varies according to the context. Wow.
Now, december, howzabout you apply that massive intellect and try to determine whether “blessings” in the context of the Preamble has a religious meaning.
Next, try to determine whether “God” (upper case, remember) has a religious meaning in the context of the Pledge.
Your analysis should be no longer than 5 double-spaced pages.
AirmanDoors, the Declaration has already been addressed. 1. It is not a document created by the Federal government. 2. Even if you want to make an argument about successor governments (Continental Congress to Articles of Confederation to U.S. Constitution), it was written before the 1st Amendment was ratified, so it is not covered by its provisions.
Sua
And to elaborate: As a historical document, no. It then ranks up there with something like the Gettysburg Address, which someone I know once had to memorize (a piece of) for school once.
should read:
Unless the authors wished to deify liberty (and you’d think they’d at least capitalize it, if so), it seems to indicate a non-religious meaning, unless you can elaborate your evidence.
inkblot
Note to Winnowill, re: your last post in the other thread (now closed).
Never rely on a news story for an accurate description of the law. The court’s opinion may be found in .pdf formhere. The majority’s two holdings are in the last paragraphs, on page 27. They simply held that the 1957 act adding “under God” was unconstitutional, and that the school policy of leading classes in the pledge “with the added words included” is also unconstitutional. Thus, the official Pledge survives, as redacted to meet constitutional requirements.
Though I put this up there with flag burning on the “things we really shouldn’t be wasting our time on” list, I have to agree with the Court’s ruling.
However, the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country. Curious how one circuit could be so much more liberal than all the others, since they’re all filled using the same process by the same presidents.
So, don’t be too optimistic that this ruling will stand. Yet, at the same time, I really can’t think of a decent counterargument to the court’s minority opinion. Even though the pledge is optional, this is a public body (a school) sanctioning and leading children in something that establishes the existence of a God.
Harmless? In this case, probably so. This isn’t a critical rite of passage, like graduation. Heck, most kids are asleep while they’re reciting the pledge. Still, lack of harm does not make something Constitutional.
What MINTY said. Plus, in regard to DECEMBER’s question: No one can be constitutionally required to recite the pledge. The U.S. Supreme Court held that unconstitutional in 1943, or 11 years before “under god” was even added.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past in dicta indicated that the pledge (with “under god”) likely would survive constitutional scrutiny, I’m guessing in fact it won’t. I thought the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, especially the part laying out the legislative history of the adddition of “under god” was pretty persuasive.
The U.S. Supreme Court will almost certainly consider the issue eventually – not because they embrace hot-button topics or because they’ll charge ahead to protect the pledge, but because this ruling by the Ninth Circuit is directly contradicts a ruling by the Seventh Circuit on the same issue, Sherman v. Comm. Consol. Sch. Dist., 980 F.2d 427 (7th Cir. 1992).
When two Circuit Courts of Appeals consider the same issue and reach opposite conclusions – that’s a situation ripe for the Supreme Court to step in and clarify who’s right and what the law is.
Actually, SNENC, if you read the concurring and dissenting judge’s opinion (and this was a three-judge panel), he asserts that a lack of harm can make something constitutional – or at least prevent it from being declared unconstitutional. It’s an interesting argument, but a whole 'nother subject.
How about “one Nation under Allah” or “one Nation under Yahweh”?
Would congress have passed a resolution 99-0 to support that version?
Wow, Jodi and I are on the same side of an Establishment question? :eek:
Actually, I agree that the Supreme Court will take the case, but I think it will be quickly and firmly reversed, at least on the holding that the 1954 amendment is unconstitutional. It’s just a matter of vote counting: Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas have apparently had the Establishment Clause redacted from their copies of the Constitution, and O’Connor has already stated in dicta that this sort of thing is perfectly fine. Kennedy is a bit waffling on these sorts of questions, but I’d be willing to bet he’ll buy the “trivial harm” argument or the argument that it’s really just a secular affirmation in disguise, like “In God We Trust.” And frankly, I’d bet you pick up a couple of the more liberal votes in concurrences too, since they know they and the Court will be pilloried if they go the other way. I call it 7-2 to reverse.
But I think there’s also an excellent chance the 9th Circuit will rehear it en banc and reverse, so maybe I shouldn’t be so hasty in concluding the Supremes will take it.
SuaSponte – yes, that “blessings” argument is a joke. The Decision itself is a joke.
However, the D of I argument is powerful evidence of the framers’ intent. One can make a case, as Minty has, that forced recitiation of the D of I would be unconstitutional. Most Americans would find that consequence ludicrous. It results form a consistent, but wrong, interpretation of “establishment oif religion.”
Establishment means the government choosing a specific religion. Mention of the word “God” isn’t banned by the 1st Amendment.
This ruling was made by only 3 judges. It may well not be upheld by the full 9th circuit court. Otherwise I have no doubt that the SCOTUS will overturn it by a bid majority.
december wrote:
Maybe the 9th Circuit wouldn’t have ruled the Pledge of Allegiance to be Unconstitutional if it had said, “…one nation, under Nature’s God”.
How about a nation where you aren’t allowed to speak the last name? ;j
Nonsense. Under that ludicrous standard, it would be constitutional to enact a tax on those who ascribe to no religion at all. Not to mention, “God” hardly applies to Buddhists, Hindus, or any number of non-monotheistic religions. Not to mention further that invoking God’s name is itself blasphemous to some faiths. (You anywhere 'round here, zev?)
And yes, the Supreme Court has already rejected the “generic God” argument.
Then why isn’t any deity mentioned in the Constitution, and why does the Constitution expressly forbid religious tests for officeholders?
This is of course woefully incorrect, but I will let one of our lawyers rain the relevant case law down upon your head.
Damn, carnivorousplant beat me to it. ;j
I once saw my son in a school skit/sing. They sang John Lennon’s Imagine, a song based on interating positions I am in complete agreement with. Radical homilies to be knitted into doilies.
But it bothered me. I’m not at all sure I want kids even talking about God, or the lack thereof.
Frankly, I don’t think this fight is worth it. I utterly agree that the inclusion of God in the Pledge is unconstitutional, and I still don’t give a rats ass. The Forces of Darkness are bound to use this as an excuse to roll about on the floor of the Congress and squeel in porcine rage. And distract our attention from other unsavory news.
If you can’t dismantle the crapola dished out to your kids on a daily basis in school, your doing a piss poor job of parenting.
PS to December - hereby I bless you. Worship me at your peril.