I’m not sure where I stand on this ruling, but I always thought the constitution guaranteed freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. If nobody is actually forced to say the “under god” portion of the pledge, and a majority want to say that part, then why exactly are they not allowed?
Of course, being the only one in your class not to say “under god” could be considered a hardship or an embarassment or something. But the question is, is the right to not hear the words “under god” really what the constitution protects? Does the constitution have a “no embarassment” protection? Or does it protect the right to say the words “under god”?
It was my understanding after watching the newscasts reporting it that the purpose of this “stay” was to simply prevent enforcement of a somewhat general ruling until a specific plan of action can be devised. Yes… it wasn’t going to take effect for another few months, so I suppose it was somewhat superfluous, but perhaps it’s just a way to ensure that the justices retain control of the effects of the decision, not so much pussying out when the shit hits the fan.
The news agencies, sensationalist as they are, immediately interpretted this as backing down so they could put up another “breaking news” update, but I think (read: hope? is this too naive?) that’s not exactly the case.
Outside of all of this theoretical debate, I thought a real world example of how the POA is used might be useful. I teach 5th grade at a California school where I’ve taught for the past 12 years.
At the beginning of the last school year, the school where I teach got a new principal. In the previous 11 years, the principal was too concerned with making sure students learned reading, writing, math, history, and geography to give a rat’s ass about whether the pledge was recited. It was just too inconsequential to show up on her radar. This was fine with me, as I’ve never understood precisely what the educational purpose of a daily recital of the pledge was (ie, what the students are supposed to learn from this activity, and how we determine whether they’ve learned it).
The new principal was concerned that the pledge be recited every day. Apparently she brought the subject up in student council meetings and the room representative from my room brought up the fact that we don’t recite the pledge every day, or at all. Shee took me aside and asked why, I explained that I saw no educational purpose, and that I found the pledge objectionable for religious reasons. She suggested strongly that I have a student lead the pledge daily. I did so.
I explained to students that saying the pledge was an optional activity, and that if they objected to it or chose not to participate for any reason–which need not be explained–they were welcome to do other things during the pledge as long as they did not disrupt the students who chose to participate.
The first time we did the pledge, 30 of the 32 students stood for the pledge while I passed out papers I had corrected the night before. The other two students sat at their desks. Afterwards, a student asked if it was ok to sit during the pledge. I told her that participation of any kind, including standing, was optional. Students were even permitted to leave the room during the pledge if they so desired.
The next day, five or six students sat while the pledge was recited. By the end of the year, about half the class was standing and reciting the pledge, while the other half got busy with their afternoon geography practice. Participation on map quiz days was considerably lower. Exactly which students recited varied from day to day. There were six to eight who always recited, about a dozen who never or very seldom did, and for the rest it seemed like it depended upon their mood and how much work they had yet to finish from the morning.
So far as I know, there was no divisiveness between the students who did and didn’t recite at any other time. I did have one parent remove his daughter from my class when he objected to students being allowed to sit during the pledge, though, ironically, she was one of the students who never did the pledge.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and separation of church and state. The majority can say anything they want. The majority can also contribute funds to build churches and send missionaries to the heathens. However, the majority cannot use the power of the government to raise money for churches and missionaries to the heathens; and the majority cannot use the power of the government to express their devotion to their religious principles.
That’s not what the question is. Christians (and other believers) can talk about God (and the Goddess and the gods) in public all they want.
That’s not what the question is either.
You have the right to say the words “under God”. I have the right to say the words “there is no God”. You don’t have the right to pick my pocket to get the money to put up a billboard that says “under God”. I don’t have the right to conduct my meeting of the local atheist society in your living room.
Numerous posts in this thread deserved a reply. Some of them got at least one. Hope I’m not just flogging a dead horse here, but I have a word or two of my own on some of these:
This is why those who say the ruling is taking away their right to say the pledge or swear to god or do anything whatever are simply full of prunes (this is GD after all, not the Pit, where “prunes” might be replaced by some other noun). Congress got it wrong. The Ninth Circuit Court got it right.
You just said it better (and volumes shorter) than I could. Bravo!
As a former singer, I never had a problem singing the words of Handel’s “Messiah” or Mendelssohn’s “Elijah.” But I regarded those oratorios as music only, not as “pledges.” I could not take a pledge of any sort that invokes a god, nor a “so help me God” oath in court without feeling like a hypocrite. The singing is a performance, like speaking words as an actor, whereas the pledge is a statement of one’s own beliefs.
You can’t really believe that. That statement is utterly absurd, utterly false, and utterly dishonest. You shame yourself with such a statement, for which you can adduce no evidence whatsoever.
Given what I’ve read of your posts so far, MEB, my guess is that this was just for contrast with WV_Woman’s statement above. Although there may be some Christians who think that way.
I’m still laughing at the image of theists “marking their territory.” May I use that sometime (with attribution, of course)?
Yes, some students are permitted to “opt out” of saying the pledge. But prayer in schools has already been prohibited because “opting out” tends to hold the dissenters up to the ridicule of their schoolmates. They shouldn’t have to.
No one’s rights are “trumped” by this decision. Instead, it prevents the religious from “trumping” the rights of those who don’t share their beliefs. Or are a bully’s rights trumped because the teacher keeps him from stealing the little kid’s lunch money? For purposes of this debate, let the “majority” be represented by the bully and the “minority” by his victim. The court can represent the teacher sending the bully to the principal’s office.
No theocracy has emerged because the Constitution and the courts have prevented it. If the majority always had their way, we would have a theocracy. And if we did, woe to even the religious whose beliefs and practices were in the minority.
Yeah, see ya, you despicable atheist you! I’m still laughing!
Though too long to quote here, the rest of your post was brilliant. But I especially like this insight.
Now it seems that Judge Goodwin has shelved this ruling indefinitely. So much for separation of powers. The judge is just another coward. Sad.
One thing I think a lot of people are missing is that, even though the Pledge is optional, teachers have to lead it… so its not really optional for them… And since not all our teachers are Christians or Jewish (or Muslim), that’s a violation of their rights, and I think that’s being missed here (unless its already been mentioned, in which case, I will be shutting up).
You know, what really gets me about this is people assuming that being forced to recite the pledge makes you a good American. I recited the pledge every day in elementary school and that did not make me a patriot. What made me a patriot was coming to know and love my country, warts and all. Seeing the beauty of the Appalachians and the Pacific Coast, the vastness of Texas and rainforests of Washington. Learning about the history of the United States–not just Washington, Jefferson, and the like, but also the abolitionists, the labor organizers, the suffragists, and the civil rights workers, people who saw an injustice and worked to correct it. Hearing people have loud and lively debates and knowing that it’s a cherished American tradition.
A patriot isn’t necessarily the one who hangs out the biggest flag or stands for the pledge. A patriot is someone who votes in City Council races, who stands in an elementary school gym to cast their votes even in elections that don’t seem important. A patriot is someone who works to serve their country, not just in the military, but as a mentor for children, as a volunteer at a homeless shelter, as someone who sorts books at the local library. A patriot knows that dissent is not treason. A patriot knows that loving your country need not have anything to do with loving a God.
In short, I’m incensed that anyone would dare question my patriotism just because I don’t say “under God.”
I agree that “under god” should not be part of the pledge. If I was in elementary school I would be uncomfortable saying it for two reasons.
I’m not sure if there is a god or not.
If there was a god, he would be a personal experience, not something accepted and well known enough to be part of a state sponsored pledge.
I also agree with Elucidator, that the POA can be an act of submission. Kids are pressured into pledging to god.
My problem is that the concept of “separation of church and state” can be taken too far.
“However, the majority cannot use the power of the government to raise money for churches and missionaries to the heathens” The problem is, EVERYONE in America uses the power of the government to raise money. Money itself depends on the government. There are very few jobs (if any) which are entirely outside of the scope of the government. And in any case everyone is dependant on the government to protect their property.
You can argue that any money is dependant on the government, and therefore cannot be used in religious matters. But then you are taking away freedom of religion. You can argue that any money which comes from the government directly cannot be used in religious matters. But what about people who have government jobs? Do you take their freedom of religion away? You can then argue that the government cannot give money for the express purpose of it being used in religious matters. But if this is the case, then private citizens would be able to use government money for religious purposes as long as it was a viable option out of possible uses of the money. This could be construed as a weakening of the separation of church and state.
So if religion and government must be entirely separate, freedom of religion suffers. Freedom of religion necessarily implies that religion and government cannot be entirely separate. So which part of the constitution, freedom of religion or separation of church and state, has priority over the other? I usually consider freedom more important.
‘Seperation of Church and State’ does not appear in the Constitution. Only judicial interpretation creates that seperation, and it is quite concievable that judicial interpretation could lower that seperation.
For those who forgot the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If people in public schools wish to recite the Pledge of Alligence, including ‘…one Nation under God’, it seems to me that to prevent this would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.
Athiests are under no obligation to recite the POA. To prevent others (such as the 82% of Americans who are Christians, according to Pew Research Council , Q.18) from reciting the full POA is simply a vindictive athiest attack on the majorities values. Athiest beliefs should not be rammed down the rest of our throats.
California, the state where the trial was held, requires a patriotic affirmation- the use the PoA. It was being required you ignorant bastard.
You are still free to chant the false pledge all you like- no one is going to kick your door down and arrest you. All that is being contested is the right of the state force Christian beliefs down children’s throats. Athiest beliefs have NEVER been forced down anybody’s throat in this country, you ignorant bastard.
Sorry about that, I shouldn’t have resorted to name calling in GD. Brutus, your arguments are ignorant and mean spirited but I shouldn’t have called you childish names.
And the insertion of the words “under God” by the Congress in 1954 into the real pledge (which was, by the way, written by a socialist clergyman) was a violation of the First Amendment. It had no purpose other than a religious one, and making laws that have a strictly religious purpose is a no-no for the Federal government. So there.
Well, quite aside from the fact that some of the people that believe the “under God” portion to be be a violation of the Establishment Clause are actually believers, a concept I’m sure you find difficult to wrap your mind around . . .
A great big :rolleyes: to this. When you really, honestly feel like Christians can’t get a fair shake in the United States, you just let me know. This constant adoption of a dishonest persecution complex by Christians never ceases to boggle the mind. Here are the Yahoo! Yellow Pages search results for churches just in my ZIP code. 20 pages, nearly all of them Christian churches. Yeah, atheists are really cramming it down your throats. Puh-leeze.
Nobody was required to say ‘under God’ in California. Nobody was required to recite ANY FUCKING PART OF THE POA in California. You could stand silent, picking your nose, if you so choose. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943. Speaking of ‘ignorant arguments’, do a little research before flapping your jaw.)
And by not allowing those who want to recite the POA to do so, you are forcing your minority views on the majority.
To the best of my knowledge, it is not legally required for ANY student to recite the POA. And most definitely, it is NOT required in California. So yet again I must ask, ‘Apart from trying to ram their views on others, what is the point of banning the POA from schools’?
This is an awfully strange line of argument. Yes, monetary policy is a governmental function. But there is a distinction between public money and private money. The money in my bank account is private property; once I’ve paid my lawful taxes, it can’t simply be arbitrarily confiscated, not even to pay for some legitimate government purpose–an interstate highway or a new aircraft carrier or something–let alone to do something which is not in the purview of the government to do even with its lawfully collected taxes. If someone has a government job, once they get paid, their salary is theirs, that money is not part of the public treasury any more, and they can tithe or contribute to the Society for the Printing of Bibles for the Heathen, or they can go stuff their salary into a stripper’s G-string. (This assumes, of course, that the government employee is being paid to perform a legitimate government function, like build highways or crew aircraft carriers, and not to pester the heathens about God.) Private property, including church property and atheist meeting halls and heathen temples full of idols, are all impartially protected by the government; the Christians can’t burn down the heathen temple full of idols, and the heathens can’t put a cannon on the temple’s front lawn and bombard the Christian church.
This is a false dilemma. Separation of church and state doesn’t conflict with freedom of religion; separation of church and state protects everyone’s freedom of religion.
