The spirit of this republic, huh? Are you ignorant of the origins of “under God” or do you just still think those commies are trying to take over America through atheism?
The supreme court has already struck down school-led prayer, including prayer for which participation was voluntary. Your argument that it should not be struck down because it is voluntary is moot.
It is not a “fact” that God exists, anymore than it’s a “fact” that Jesus Christ is our savior. It is a religious belief.
The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Not “a” religion. Just “religion”
A quick search on dictionary.com tells me that Religion is “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.”
God is defined as “A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.”
Asking children to recite a pledge that tells us we are a nation “Under God” is establishing the religious belief that God exists and that we live “under” Him, subject to his rule. Ergo, it is establishing religion, which is directly contrary to the First Amendment.
If “Under God” is ruled unconstitutional, don’t blame Liberal Activist Judges. Blame the plain text of the Constitution of the United States.
People need to educate themselves about the actual legal arguments against teachers in public schools leading schoolchildren to recite “Under God.” Read the legal brief of Mr. Newdow. Read the entire thing. Read the legal brief for the Elk Grove School District. The entire thing.
Then, and only then, will anybody here be able to give something even resembling an informed opinion about this subject without talking out of their ass. Don’t be mistaken, I’m referring to both sides of this debate.
I only have a couple weeks left here to fight ignorance before my guest membership wears off. In the interests of those who actually want to engage in an intellectual debate on constitutional law:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/march04.html
Scroll down to Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow et al.
Just my 2sense
Smile. Only when I’m bringing in the sheeves, ** Musicat**
agiantdwarf said…
Smile. You didn’t understand a word I said, did you giantdwarf?
The key, active word, ** blalron**, is not “religion”, ** Blalron**, but rather “establishment”…
establishment:
(1) the act of forming something.
(2) A organization founded for a specific purpose.
Yeaaah buddy, the simple inclusion of “under God” will certainly establish a government religion.
Maybe when Kerry gets elected President, or when the next ice age cometh,
whichever cometh first.
__________________________________Smile.
I often have the same thought about people who must publicly proclaim their beliefs.
** spingears**: Newdow and various other egotistic self appoointed detractors of the nations traditions have a small shred of fear that they just might be wrong about their position with regard to the Diety and are seeking “Validation” of their position.
DanBlather: I often have the same thought about people who must publicly proclaim their beliefs.
Milum : Don’t blame spingears, Blather, you publicly solicited his beliefs.
We really need an irony smilie.
How is a taking a coersive endorsement of monotheism out of a state-led, ritualistic chant a “validation” of atheism?
(Just out of curiosity, why did you put “validation” in quotation marks? Also, why did you capitalize it?)
Fantasy is fun…but unfortunately irrelevant to the legal questions in this debate.
Those of us who support Newdow also do not care and do not wish to meddle with the beliefs or practices of others but when a teacher begins directing religious chants at my daughter it becomes my business. In fact, any use of my tax money to proffer a stae endorsement of monotheism is my business.
Congress SHOULD change the Pledge… but, since they haven’t corrected there error in the last 50 years, the Supreme Court has to step in eventually and correct their error.
I believe this is clearly unconstitutional. I realize the Court has precedence to allow it; I’m just stepping in to voice my opinion on the issue. The Pledge of Allegiance actually helps me remember how long I’ve been an atheist (although I used to call myself agnostic)–I can remember WAY back when we recited it daily in grade school, thinking that the “under God” part wasn’t right from what I understood of how the country worked (kinda funny coming from a 4th grader, but I’ve always been a geek 
)
So are we atheist not human? I can conceptualize (although, I admit, not fully grok) “something” coming from “nothing,” and I’d rather that the US government didn’t say I was wrong in its Pledge of Allegiance. I’d also rather it not say YOU’RE wrong about whatever YOUR beliefs may be, btw, since that’s how this country is supposed to work.
Jon the Geek said…
Well then, Mister Geek, go ahead, do so.
_____________ .
And** Jon the Geek** also asked…
No, Jon, you atheists are human but you atheiststs are not atheists.
If you closely examine the realtionship between the meaning of the two words you will understand that they are mutually exclusive units of expression.
What you all are, are self-anointed agnostics.
So don’t feel bad. This means there’s hope!
I don’t think the issue here is whether leaving UG in the pledge is an implicit endorsement, or an “official” establishment, of religion or not.
I believe the core issue is one of individual rights. This country, perhaps more than any other, values the rights of the individual as paramount. When a group of individuals, even in the minority, is able to organize and present a cogent argument, there is a strong bias, both socially and legally, to argue their case for excercising their particular rights.
In other countries, particularly asian countries, the collective rights (you might say views…) of the community outweigh individual rights, no matter how well organized. That is a frightening concept for Americans. Perhaps our legacy with England, or the fear of the slippery slope towards a police state keep us ever vigilant toward respecting the rights of the individual.
It seems to me that 50 years ago (The McCarthy era for example) there was more of a “common” set of beliefs that governed individual behavior. It seems clear that society exerted greater pressure on the individual to conform to an imlicit code. That was manifested in many ways; the media, social structures, even the family. Popular culture encouraged community service and selfless behavior was encouraged.
Was that a better time? For the majority, probably. For atheists, or gays, or even minorities it was proably an oppressive environment in many ways. So, over the last 40 years in particular there has been a move to gain more rights for the individual, even if the community as a whole objects. That has had some tremondous benefits for our society. The Civil Rights Act, and the civil rights movement are shining examples of addressing fundamental flaws by the rule of the majority. (I am Irish and was married to an African American and have 3 children. I shudder to think what our life would have been like 50 years ago)
The problem is, that when we throw off all moorings it is increasingly difficult to figure out where the benchmarks are. The “community” as such has less sway in keeping the individual in line. (Whatever the “line” is…) So Frank Collins and his Nazi buddies march through Skokie Illinois which at the time had the highest concentration of Holocaust survivors in the world. Progress? For Frank, yes.
More to the point, I do not recite the pledge for personal reasons. Nor do my children. I do not vote, nor do I sing the national anthem. These are deeply held personal convictions. Can I not make an argument every bit as cogent as Mr. Newdow that UG is NOT the issue; the whole pledge is! I mean, this country offers me so much freedom that I don’t have to “pledge allegiance” to it at all. The irony that I would use that freedom to not be an active participant in defending it, either by reciting the pledge or going to war, is not lost on me. It’s one of the paradox’'s of this society.
As this relates to me and my kids, out of respect and deference to the collective value of my community, we stand for the pledge and even for the national anthem at ballgames. Yet, I would not, even with the threat of law, recite the pledge, sing the national anthem, or accept obligatory military service. How is my situation any different that the objections of the atheists? The pledge is a belief system no less powerful than that of religion. It has a tradition no less rich and is full of meaning and imagery. I went to the ballgame right after 9/11 and at the very end of the national anthem 3 F15’s flew low over the park. In spite of my beliefs I had goosebumps. Go to Arlington National Cemetary and then then tell me that the pledge shares nothing in common with religion. It’s a belief system, and I have the right not be coerced into participating. Isn’t that right?
But I’m not. The simple pledge doesn’t compel me to participate. Nor it it coercion in any way. It doesn’t violate me or my conscience by standing respectfully and recognizing the fact that the majority in my community believe in it. I would submit that if UG can be successfully removed, than there is adequate basis to argue that the pledge itself should be removed.
Do you even read what I posted here? I put forth the exact same definition from dictionary.com com, and said I didn’t view the statement ‘under God’ as reverential. You may believe otherwise, but even if the statement inspires belief in God, belief in God is not a religion. Nor is it ‘religion’, without the article.
As for your miniature tirade on my usage of the word “fact”, you’ll notice that when I used it I enclosed it in quotation marks myself, which indicates I was using it dubiously to begin with!
And then, in my last post on this thread, I expressed my disdain for the term ‘activist judges’ … how likely is it then that I would blame the outcome of the trial on them, labelling them with that phrase?
Not very.
“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”
Does asking children to recite this every morning, even if they are free to decline, violate the Establishment Clause? The Supreme Court has held that it does.ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421
How is this case in any way materially distinguishable from Engel? “One Nation, Under God” says almost exactly the same thing as the first half of the Engel recitation does. Namely, that (1) God exists. (2) We live “under” him.
Marsh was about prayers in legislative chambers. The Court has expressly declined to use the same reasoning with schools.
“Inherent differences between the public school system and a session of a state legislature distinguish this case from Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 , which condoned a prayer exercise. The atmosphere at a state legislature’s opening, where adults are free to enter and leave with little comment and for any number of reasons, cannot compare with the constraining potential of the one school event most important for the student to attend” LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
The important thing about Lee vs Weisman that applies directly to this case is the discussion of peer pressure.
“The school district’s supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places subtle and indirect public and peer pressure on attending students to stand as a group or maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction. A reasonable dissenter of high school age could believe that standing or remaining silent signified her own participation in, or approval of, the group exercise, rather than her respect for it. And the State may not place the student dissenter in the dilemma of participating or protesting.”
When I attended public school, I was in this very same dilemma with the Pledge of Allegiance. I objected to it because of the “Under God” portion. At first, I simply stood up and didn’t recite it. Then I took the bolder step of not standing up. The teacher nagged at me that it was “disrespectfull” not to stand for the pledge. Other students gave me funny looks. Eventually I caved in and stood up for the pledge but didn’t actually recite it. 
I think that’s an excellent argument. My point was only to suggest that there is another argument to be made on the other side.
Richard Feynman tells of how he and the other physics students used to joke that “trivial” seems to mean “proved” to mathematicians. I’m not arguing the correct outcome; merely that there is a colorable argument on both sides.
Here’s an excerpt from ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
"The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. "
How is the “under God” phrase in the pledge any different from school-led religious prayer except for the degree to which God is mentioned/invoked? Shouldn’t the result from ENGEL apply directly to the pledge case?
I forsee another issue, one the atheists might not anticipate.
If “under God” is removed, you’ll have a situation where the rewritten Pledge, though restored to its original state, is now at variance with the Pledge most Americans have grown up with. A good number of these people would prefer the old Pledge, and some of these people would be quite militant about it.
It’s entirely possible that the new Pledge would exist only on paper. The person leading the Pledge would just skip a beat after “one Nation”, and everybody who wished, according to their own freedom of religion, could say “under God”.
That’s at official events, mind you. At unofficial events, I believe you’ll still find surreptitious use of the old style Pledge. Can’t totally stamp it out, either. Freedom of speech and all that.
I guess this would be an improvement in a way, since it would remove state sanction from the phrase. Of course, the scorched earth left behind, and mutual distrust on all sides - that’s all worth it, I guess.
Mr. Moto, as long as the person leading the Pledge reads the modified Pledge, I have no problem with people saying the old “under God” version. It’s entirely within their right.