What would the amendment say? Wouldn’t it be more precise to say that if SCOTUS uses SOCAS as the reason for taking god out of the pledge, the only thing that would put it back in is repealing the first amendment?
Most of the people in this thread are all just parts of what is truly wrong with America.
People are so concerned that one or two people’s overactive sensitivty will be harmed by an optional pledge being said in the same room, it is absolutely ridiculous.
Furthermore nothing in the Constitution says we have to ignore religion or refuse to acknowledge it as one of the single most important institutions in the history of mankind. All the constitution says is we may not make a law respecting an establishment of religion.
I find it funny people like to stamp out freedom of speech, expression, and religion just because they are whiny little atheists that love being anti-establishment.
There is no right to be free from speech or ideas that you individually find offensive.
If the amendment said, specifically the pledge of allegiance was permitted in public schools, then gave the pledge verbatim, that would coexist with the 1st Amendment.
Afterall there is a lot more in the 1st Amendment than that one phrase meant to avoid a “Church of England” type situation.
What is “wrong with America” is that it contains far too many people who want to use the power of the government to foist their religious beliefs upon others.
Don’t take my tax dollars to pay for religious indoctrination. You want to witness, fine. Do it on your own time and with your own money.
I like the guy, and I sure as hell agree on the issue, but there’s not a chance it’s going to happen. It wouldn’t matter if the pledge said “One nation under Christ, dedicated to stamping out the heathens.” The Supreme Court is going to stick up for it. And we’re all going to be treated to months of commentary in the “liberal” media about what a bunch of evil, moronic, anti-American lunatics all those on the other side (but especially atheists) are. Which of course has nothing to do with the “Under God” rubbish being an evangelical statement of divisiveness and supremacy.
I’m glad he didn’t turn out to be a raving nut and think he has been quite effective. However, I feel the court will rule that Newdow has standing and it
will also rule that “under God” is a ceremonial term without religious connotation and is, therefore, constitutional.
I must say if I was religious I would find that argument more offensive than if they took “under God” out of the pledge. To me, that says that your belief doesn’t mean anything, it’s hollow so reciting daily is a useless gesture.
It’s good to be right. It’s bad to be so convinced of your righteousness that you force the US Supreme Court to establish the precedent that you’re wrong.
Yet the courts have already ruled that “In God We Trust” is not an endorsement of religion. I might well say that forcing me to use money imprinted with that motto is even more of an endorsement than a school recitation that may be ignored at an individual’s discretion. You can refuse to say the Pledge; you can hardly refuse to use money.
But the money does not constitute an endorsement of religion. You may feel that it does, but the fact is, it doesn’t.
Did you review the cases I mentioned? How about the reasoning expressed therein? Couldn’t a justice be persuaded by those, without the desire to meld church and state?
- Rick
I know you’re not arguing this, but I just don’t get this argument. The “under God” part was added during the cold war out of fear of the “godless commies.” Hardly ceremonial.
Blowero, I’ve been to places that have suffered from genuine tyranny. Having a Pledge of Allegience written, that you’re then free not to recite, really doesn’t count.
The simple fact is, there can only be one Pledge. It cannot, by its nature, be an individual statement of belief for 280 million Americans. It must be universal in nature. Therefore, it’s going to offend somebody.
Removing “under God” from the Pledge would offend far more Americans than leaving it in would, and would, in my view, constitute a light “tyranny of the minority.” How this is an improvement over what you’ve complained about escapes me, especially since the two words in question are the furthest thing from an establishment of religion.
[QUOTE=Mr. MotoThe simple fact is, there can only be one Pledge. [/QUOTE]
Nonsense. There could be no Pledge. What business does the government have establishing such a thing anyway? If I get 51% of the public to go along with it, can I have Congress create a Pledge of Allegiance to My Winterfresh Ass, and require teachers to lead their class in reciting it every morning?
I agree, but I feel that the justices will claim, like they did with the “In God We Trust” on our currency, that it is now largly ceremonial.
Aronow v. United States," 432 F.2d 242 (1970) in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit The court ruled that: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise
There is a lot more to Christianity than platitudes. If you take any one phrase all that seriously then you really need to take a good long look at your religion. Religiously speaking I’m not going to care either way if the pledge is removed. My religion is something between me and my god.
What I get tired of is people making mountains out of molehills. The phrase “under God” doesn’t have anymore day-to-day meaning than the phrase “E Pluribus Unum” it is just political blather.
If someone is genuinely offended or hurt by that one phrase then they have issues that no court is ever going to be able to fix. And for said court to try and do so errodes the fabric of what is our great nation.
Whoa there, counselor. Just because the law’s on your side doesn’t make you right out here in the real world. Courts can, in fact, be mistaken. If you want to prove Musicat wrong in fact then you have to come up with a hell of a lot more than a fallacious appeal to authority.
I do agree that following precedent is a reasonable basis to overturn the California decision. It has been settled law now for decades and there seems no pressing reason to remove the matter from the political arena. Those of us who agree with Newdow are free to attempt to change the minds of our fellow citizens.
Sure, knock yourself out. Since Congress established the Pledge in the first place, it is properly that body that should make changes to it, or additions to it.
Since, however, a majority of Congress has established a Pledge of Allegiance, as amended, your pledge might be considered superfluous. 
I don’t disagree. To be honest removing “Under God” and “In God We Trust” from the pledge and our currency is not high on my list of things that need to be done. Though I would like to see that, there are other more pressing issues we need to deal with.
That said, I know many people to whom religion is a very important part of their lives. What I find odd is that these people (for the most part) do not object to their strongly held beliefs being turned into meaningless platitudes.
[Homer] Mmmmm, winterfresh minty green’s ass.[/Homer]
And actually, a pledge to your winterfresh ass would be less likely to be struck down as unconstitutional, since it probably wouldn’t invoke religion.
. . . Not that your ass isn’t worthy of reverential worship.
More seriously, I don’t agree with Newdow on this issue, but I can’t help but see him as a sort of Gideon’s Trumpet kind of hero. He certainly acquited himself well in a forum where even seasoned lawyers are often made to look silly. I have a feeling we’ll be seeing a book or movie of the week about him sometime in the near future.
Actually, I object. I strongly support Newdow’s position, but from a Christian standpoint. Not wanting to hijack, I explain my view in this thread. Unless there are religious Dopers out there who passionately support the current pledge, I suspect my “great debate” won’t be so great.
Okay, I’ll bite – pretending that the Supreme Court actually gets a clue and rules that “Under God” must be removed from the Pledge, how does that translate into eliminating freedom of speech, freedom of expression, or freedom of religion?
(The answer ought to be amusing, in a tragic way)
I am an atheist, and this is precisely the reason I’m on the fence about the SCOTUS decision. If they rule against Newdow, eh, not that big a deal to me. I object to it on principle, but after all, it is voluntary, and my life won’t be terribly profoundly affected by it. After all, when I grew up, I was under the impression that the Pledge was entirely mandatory, and I said it along with everyone else. I still grew up to be an atheist.
But if they rule for Newdow, I terribly afraid that there will be a religious backlash, and before you can say “Establishment Clause,” there’ll be a new amendment to the Constitution.
This would be terrible. The amendment might specifically read that it was only pertinent to the Pledge, but the fact would remain that, for the first time, it is written into the law of the land that we are, in fact, a religious nation. In my opinion, it’s an extremely slippery slope from there.
One of the things that made the Founding Fathers geniuses was the fact that they somehow managed to create a nation which favored no particular religion, and (ideally) brooked no religious meddling in secular affairs, but in which one could feel free to believe any damn way one wished. Absolute brilliance. The word God appears nowhere in the Constitution, but freedom of religion (or the lack thereof) is included.
If we add any official legalendorsement of “God” to our Constitution, how long will it be before, say, atheists holding office in the US is challenged on “Constitutional grounds?” I mean, we are One nation, under God. It’s policy. How long before the language becomes an issue and any polytheist holding office (I don’t know of any, but it’s possible) is challenged on the grounds, that we’re not “One nation, under gods?”