# "Pledge of Allegiance" Case Goes Before Supreme Court **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 14, 2003, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375 "2003-10-14T14:29:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/41 "2003-10-14T22:52:30Z")
Of course I’m a paranoid. Paying close attention to politics and history entrains paranoia. And this stinks. Now, I will defer to expertise on this issue. But to this untrained and skeptical eye, this looks like the Supremes are serving the Pubbies a steaming hot button campaign issue just tailor-made for thier purposes. Lost your job and your CEO walked away with enough money to buy Ghana? Yeah, but the Dems are against God. Think the whole Iraq mess is a symphony of mendacity and incompetence? Yeah, but the Dems are against God. So - upon reviewing the In Box for the Supremes - can anyone tell me that it makes sense that this issue needs be dealt with toot sweet? Or is it plausible that they are moving this right along for the above mentioned nefarious purposes? As to the issue, yeah, technically its not quite kosher to have reference to God in official government hoo-ha. But the fight over that triviality just aint worth it. Especially not in the light of the political ammunition it lavishes on the Troglodyte Right. PS: **Minty** , geez, linking us straight to a website made up entirely of legal glurge. Whattzamatta you? You couldn’t just give us the skinny and offer the link to doubters? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/42 "2003-10-14T23:04:13Z")
Ugh, it is going to be decided next year, an election year. **elucidator** may be right, and even if it wasn’t on purpose, you can bet Bush is practically masturbating over this. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/43 "2003-10-14T23:26:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > **Lost your job and your CEO walked away with enough money to buy Ghana? Yeah, but the Dems are against God. Think the whole Iraq mess is a symphony of mendacity and incompetence? Yeah, but the Dems are against God.** > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Revtim_ > **Ugh, it is going to be decided next year, an election year. elucidator may be right, and even if it wasn’t on purpose, you can bet Bush is practically masturbating over this.** Has any high-profile Democrat actually come out in support of the Pledge decision? Or any other seperation of church and state issue? It seems like a non-issue for the campaign. In 2000 Gore was bible-thumping more than Bush. I fully expect whoever runs in 2004 to do the exact same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/44 "2003-10-14T23:29:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Revtim \* > **you can bet Bush is practically masturbating over this** Is it wrong to hope he uses toothpaste? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/45 "2003-10-14T23:43:26Z")
> [@](#): > > _by Revtim_ > > …you can bet Bush is practically masturbating over this. \ Waaay too coincidental for me, but you reckon I’m going to take up this issue anytime soon? I’ve been branded an evildoer enough to make _The Mullah_ blush. It’s got all the right stuff for a campaign blockbuster: the flag, God and kids. Oppose the Tub-thumping Triumvirate, and you might just as well shave “Osama Rules” into the back of your head. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/46 "2003-10-14T23:44:15Z")
> [@](#): > > _elucidator:_ > So - upon reviewing the In Box for the Supremes - can anyone tell me that it makes sense that this issue needs be dealt with toot sweet? Or is it plausible that they are moving this right along for the above mentioned nefarious purposes? When deciding whether to grant certiorari, the Supremes tend to use a nebulous set of criteria that includes the importance of the issue, the ripeness of the issue, whether the facts of this case lend themselves to a decision on this issue, which attorneys are asking that cert. be granted, and whatever the hell else they think about it. But one of the most important issues they look at is whether the Circuits are split on this issue. The Supremes love uniformity, and abhor the idea that a person in California has different rights under the federal Constitution than a person in Illinois. Obviously, we have a split here. But as mentioned by **Max\_Castle** , the biggest reason that this probably isn’t campaign stumping for the Republicans is that Democrats have condemned this decision in terms at least as strong as the Republicans. From what I saw, the Democrats seemed to beat their podiums with even more earnest than their distinguished colleagues, and looked especially sincere when reciting the Pledge in front of the cameras. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/47 "2003-10-15T01:51:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Age Quod Agis \* > \*\*So noone should be able to ask a boy if he’s got a girlfriend, because there is a small chance that boy may not be interested in girls? Why should people censor otherwise appropriate behavior to match your special needs? If you were offended, then with all due respect, that’s your problem. > > Grow some calluses. You don’t see me flipping out if people think that I’m gay. Why do you act like you’ve been assaulted when people think you’re straight?\*\* Jesus Christ, **Age** , get a grip yourself. **lissener** was just commenting about how certain ordinary questions or situations can create an unpleasant moment. I happen to be unemployed these days so whenever someone asks me what I do for a living it creats a bit of an awkward moment, but I’m not suggesting that people stop asking me what I do. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/48 "2003-10-15T02:45:15Z")
> [@](#): > > CNN’s article about this issue states that the suit is to ban the Pledge of Allegience from schools. Even this is dissembling. Just like prayer, the most that would/could be banned is state-led recitation of the Pledge. Individual children and anyoe else could and can recite it all they want. But of course, in upside down world, civil society must be led by the government. Liberty, you see, must be carefully ordered and organized by the local authorities. > [@](#): > > For instance the Congressional chaplain, the Federal Christmas holiday, “In God we trust” etc are constitutional. So is the pledge under the concept of “ceremonial deism” Madison, the main single author of the 1st, seems to disagree, since he certainly claimed that the chaplains were a violation. I’m not sure how they’d feel about their OWN motto “E Pluribus Unum” being replaced by “In God We Trust” either. The whole point of the FF view was that instead of pretending that government had any right or claim to exercise a religious authority, it would be a very limited affair, concerning itself only with what limited powers and applications were necessary, and religion would remain in the capable hands of the public (and the states). That’s why the motto was about CIVIC unity, not claiming religious authority or mandate, and why clauses praising God and so on were explicitly rejected as being part of the Constitution. The idea of “ceremonial deism” is, as I said, a joke. Deists had no specific ritualized “ceremonies” to their beliefs: they were usually privately thought out and idiosyncratic. The term not only makes no sense, but most of the things that are supposed to fall under it happened a century after the main Deists were plenty dead. It’s a lame attempt by Supremes to scramble out an excuse not to make an unpopular ruling. ---
**Author:** ![Jello](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@Jello](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jello)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/49 "2003-10-15T02:48:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Trinopus \* > \*\*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. > > Trinopus \*\* You may be interested in WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BARNETTE ET AL. : [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barnette.html](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barnette.html) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/50 "2003-10-15T03:41:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\* The term not only makes no sense, but most of the things that are supposed to fall under it happened a century after the main Deists were plenty dead. It’s a lame attempt by Supremes to scramble out an excuse not to make an unpopular ruling. \*\* The term isn’t supposed to reflect continuty with Deism as a philosophy. It just makes the assertion that the “God” referred to in governmental ceremonies is intended as a deistic one and not a theistic one…it doesn’t suggest a god that interferes with the universe, it doesn’t suggest a personal god…it doesn’t even really suggest a god at all. As Eugene Rostow put it, it’s something "so conventional and uncontroversial as to be constitutional.”, or, as Justice Brennan put it in the Lynch dissent: > [@](#): > > I would suggest that such practices as the designation of “In God We Trust” as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow’s apt phrase, as a form of “ceremonial deism,” protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content. For another case that was specifically on the topic of the establishment clause and the Pledge, this one a 7th circuit decision, check Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 of Wheeling Township. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/51 "2003-10-15T03:59:13Z")
“Madison, the main single author of the 1st, seems to disagree, since he certainly claimed that the chaplains were a violation.” IIRC he changed his mind about this. In any case the same First Congress which proposed the Bill of Rights also established the chaplaincy system. ``` As for ceremonial deism I don't think it means the ceremonies of deism but symbolic references to God which through repetition have lost their religious significance. Such symbolic references have always been a part of political life in the US. ``` ---
**Author:** ![CaveMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cavemike/32/16379_2.png) [@CaveMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaveMike)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/52 "2003-10-15T04:05:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SkipMagic \* > If the remaining justices of the Court are deadlocked on this and the lower court’s ruling stands, does that mean that only the states covered by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will be held responsible for disallowing a God-tinged pledge? I didn’t see anyone answer this question. [This](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031015/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pledge_of_allegiance&cid=558&ncid=716) AP article indicates that it would only apply to the states in the 9th. > [@](#): > > Scalia’s absence sets up the possibility that the remaining eight justices could deadlock 4-4. That would affirm the 9th Circuit’s ban on the religious reference, which would apply to 9.6 million schoolchildren in the nine states the court oversees: California, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Hawaii and Alaska, plus Guam. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/53 "2003-10-15T04:08:56Z")
> [@](#): > > It just makes the assertion that the “God” referred to in governmental ceremonies is intended as a deistic one and not a theistic one…it doesn’t suggest a god that interferes with the universe, it doesn’t suggest a personal god…it doesn’t even really suggest a god at all. This is nonsense, and you know it, and the court knew it when it made that argument. Diesm IS a theism, not an alternative to theism. And it clearly WASN’T meaningless to the people who enacted the laws putting it there: in fact it was put in there in a frenzy of wanting to fight them godless commies, and it certainly is not a deist god if a country is “under” it (since deists didn’t believe that the Creator necessarily had any particular interest or involvement with creation in the first place). The whole point was that we were under god, and they were not: hardly a valueless “deist” sentiment. One can call it conventional and uncontroversial at all they want as a kiss off, but nine times when the court does this, it’s simply because it can’t think of any coherent legal reason to support it’s views. It wasn’t “conventional” at the time, since it wasn’t longstanding as a practice, and it certainly was not “uncontroversial” if there was a case brought in AND one that the court actually agreed to hear. I can agree that the matter is relatively trivial, and would have more negative political fallout than would be worth it (though… did that stop them on school prayer?) But for goodness sakes, I’m not going to buy the specious and ad hoc reasoning used to justify lazily trying to avoid controversy. Worse, it’s just as insulting to religion to turn God into a meaningless term. It’s not the government’s job to decide how meaningful a religious term is, it’s the government’s job to leave the job of religious beliefs and terminology up to the people. Plenty of religious people object to “ceremonial deism” precisely because it’s the state draining their beliefs of all meaning into a ritualistic pledge to the state. This is simply not the business the state should be in. * * * On another note, Scalia recusing himself is probably not a good sign for it getting upheld. Almost certainly, he knows that it will get overturned even without him, and so feels its safe to also play it safe from criticism by staying involved, as he would need to if his vote was going to be pivotal. ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/54 "2003-10-15T04:19:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CaveMike \* > \*\*I didn’t see anyone answer this question. [This](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031015/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pledge_of_allegiance&cid=558&ncid=716) AP article indicates that it would only apply to the states in the 9th. \*\* Thanks, **CaveMike**! ---
**Author:** ![musicguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@musicguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/musicguy)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/55 "2003-10-15T05:31:26Z")
Damn, **litost** , you beat me to it !!! ---
**Author:** ![musicguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@musicguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/musicguy)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/56 "2003-10-15T05:34:37Z")
Uh, that was a response to a post on the last page. I posted before noticing that there was a second page. Just in case anyone is wondering what the hell I am talking about. I’ll go away now… ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/57 "2003-10-15T12:30:29Z")
I heard “some guy” on TV suggesting that SCOTUS would rule that the Pledge is a poem and not a prayer, so it is okay to include the words “under God.” I cannot cite this, please don’t hurt me. I believe they will remain, no matter the reasoning. I just don’t think the SCOTUS will go “against God.” I learned the Pledge of Allegiance before the words “under God” were added and it took me a while before I learned to insert them. In fact, I had a hard time remembering where they went. Now, if I were required to recite the Pledge, I would use those words automatically, and they would be as meaningless as the rest of it. If they were removed, it would take me a while to forget them, and they would still be meaningless, as would the rest of the pledge. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/58 "2003-10-15T13:53:14Z")
So far as I know, a tie vote in the US Supreme Court means that the legal principles of the lower court are affirmed and apply to the entire country, not just the circuit from which the case came. But there won’t be a tie here. In fact, I strongly suspect it will be a 8-0 vote reversing the court of appeals, with maybe a concurrence or two staking out the ends of the ideological spectrum. As much as I dislike “under God” and “In God We Trust,” there’s ample precedent establishing that simple traditional/historical acknowledgments of God are acceptable under the First Amendment. And I certainly believe there has to be _some_ place where we draw a line that permits the government to acknowledge religion. Should public schools be forbidden to requires students to read books with religious themes? If so, there goes the great bulk of literature. Do we prohibit public officials from speaking about religious subjects, or saying “God bless America”? If that’s the case, we’ve got a whole lot of unconstitutional Establishment going on in this country. I personally would draw the line to prohibit the government from officially endorsing theism over atheism, which I believe is the intended and actual effect of adding “under God” to the Pledge. But it is not entirely unreasonable to draw a line that permits “under God” and “In God We Trust.” If that’s as bad as it gets, we’ve got it pretty good. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/59 "2003-10-15T14:10:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*This is nonsense, and you know it, and the court knew it when it made that argument. Diesm IS a theism, not an alternative to theism. > And it clearly WASN’T meaningless to the people who enacted the laws putting it there: in fact it was put in there in a frenzy of wanting to fight them godless commies, and it certainly is not a deist god if a country is “under” it (since deists didn’t believe that the Creator necessarily had any particular interest or involvement with creation in the first place). The whole point was that we were under god, and they were not: hardly a valueless “deist” sentiment. \*\* First of all, Deism isn’t theism. In deism, there’s no idea of a personal god. And, yeah, the phrase was meaningful, but it didn’t have a religious meaning. The Congress wasn’t making a statement about the nature of the divine…it was just saying “we rock! In your face, Godless Commies!” ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375/60 "2003-10-15T14:13:16Z")
And also, the question isn’t what the people who put the words in the pledge intended them to mean…it’s what they mean now. The reference to God in the pledge isn’t a religious statement, and 99.9% of the people saying the pledge don’t even think about any of the words or what they mean. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-of-allegiance-case-goes-before-supreme-court/207375.md?page=4)