WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state. The case sets up an emotional showdown over God in the public schools and in public life. It will settle whether the phrase “one nation under God” will remain a part of the patriotic oath as it is recited in most classrooms. The justices agreed to hear an appeal involving a California atheist whose 9-year-old daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily. The phrase “under God” was not part of the original pledge adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress inserted the phrase more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.
—I have no expectations that “Under God” will be struck from the Pledge. The fact that an atheist and not a concerned Christian brought the case pretty much caps that globe.
I don’t care much about it one way or another, I’d rather see it out so it’s more inclusive but neither do I think it’s a deliberate slap at Buddhists or agnostics or whatever either. But I do think it’ll be one hell of an entertaining case to follow.
Oh yeah, that rustling sound is that of every Dem presidential candidate squirming with discomfort at the prospect that they’re going to probably have to take a position on this silly thing. Mike Dukakis, a very patriotic and thoughtful man, followed the advice of his state’s Supremes and vetoed some legislation that would have made the Pledge mandatory in schools, and caught holy hell for it in '88. Has Dubya said much about it?
Well, since this is a great debate, I think we should discuss whether it should go.
The two sides of the argument, as I see them are:
A) The US is and always has been a country with strong roots in the belief we are doing what is right as codified by the religious sects that originally dominated … sorry, populated the country. As those were Christian peoples and beliefs, God has typically been mentioned in historic documents and even on our currency, perhaps to justify our actions (as a nation) in running parallel with the (assumed) will of God. It also served to unify our people, who were often from different countries but holding similar religious beliefs. Since this is a basis on which we have traditionally operated, the words “under God” should remain in the pledge because it’s the way we’ve always done things.
B) In the modern US, it is important that we maintain unity as a nation without excluding some citizens by enforcing the ritualized recitation of a nationalistic poem that includes a line some citizens disagree with. Today, there are likely many people in the US who hold vastly differing beliefs in religion, yet are staunchly in support of the country. Deleting these two words will maintain the integrity of the pledge and its patriotic meaning – which most citizens hopefully believe in – without spurning US-loving folks with the use of a phrase that may engender a feeling of religious intolorance. If the US is truly the “melting pot” it once claimed to be, the words should be struck to truly encapsulate all of the citizenry.
Personally, I would love to see it struck, but I will have to agree with Eve that it won’t happen. The religious right aside, even moderate conservatives will likely balk at changing something they grew up with.
Yeah, it’s one the crazy things we’ll just have to live with. I could almost understand it if the pledge had been designed from the earliest days of the republic with “under God” in it. But the fact is that “under God” was added to the pledge about 50yrs ago. You’d think that if it was added it could be taken out, but everyone seems afraid of the backlash.
The Supremes will likely dodge the issue with the standard caveat that no one is required to say the pledge (except perhaps the military) and so it’s no big deal.
But I too would like to see it removed. As a gay kid, everytime a doctor or a teacher or a relative asked me if I had a girlfriend, it felt to a certain extent like a slap in the face. And as an atheist from the age of probably 9 or 10, required chapel and grace-before-meals in boarding school, and yes the Pledge, though not as personally degrading, always left a sour taste in my mouth. And always felt coerced. (There, Eve THAT oughtta draw Libertarian in: he does searches for coerce, coercion, coerced.)
Bah. Dump the phrase. It isn’t necessary. And while they’re at it, they should dump “In God We Trust” and “so help me God” (et al.). God’s a healthy, mature guy. He has lived a long and productive life and He hardly needs us mere mortals throwing His name around to boost His ego. “Forcing” a bunch of nonbelievers to say His name reeks of insecurity.
Slight hi-jack: in France, a collegue was not allowed to put a religous phrase into his Ph.D. thesis (in maths) because of the separation of state and religion. IMO that is overdoing it…
Their nostaligia didn’t seem to bother them when they changed it the first time.
But I doubt the court will take it out. But I also doubt they will be able to come up with a coherent explanation of why they did not either. The Chief Justice and Scalia have both previously shown a broad ability to be misleading about the founding fathers, and I don’t doubt that we’ll be hearing some whoppers about how Madison et. al were passionate Christians who thought that religion was good for government as long as there was no state established church. church. “Ceremonial Deism” is the biggest joke around.
Actually, I’m hoping the Court pulls their collective head out of their collective tush and says, “The pledge itself is dumber than dirt & requiring it is dumber than that!” And whilst they’re about getting rid of that, they can also chuck the “In God We Trust” motto.
Of course, neither’ll never happen but it is nice to dream on occasion.
Not to hijack, I hope, but since us Merkuns keep getting told that we should look more and more to Europe, could any UK Dopers let me know if there’s any controversy about your national anthem, which is after all just a long prayer to the Lord to help out the Queen? Do British athiests refuse to sing it altogether, or do they just shrug and do it? Is is a problem at all?
And, as a veteran of state government, I would guess that the 1954 change was slipped in and not a big deal at the time, and those who voted “for it” didn’t give it much thought besides, “Oh yeah, most people believe in God, let’s add it. Next!”
I wish someone would introduce it to the millions of teachers, principals, administrators, school-board members, and others. I know I’m not the only one here who was punished for my reluctance to recite the pledge.
But I too would like to see it removed. As a gay kid, everytime a doctor or a teacher or a relative asked me if I had a girlfriend, it felt to a certain extent like a slap in the face. And as an atheist from the age of probably 9 or 10, required chapel and grace-before-meals in boarding school, and yes the Pledge, though not as personally degrading, always left a sour taste in my mouth. And always felt coerced. (There, Eve THAT oughtta draw Libertarian in: he does searches for coerce, coercion, coerced.)