Wow, I didn’t even know that could happen! Has it happened a lot, if ever, before? (Secretly I’m pretty thrilled that Scalia’s mouth finally got him in trouble, and hope that he keeps barking himself out of as many SCOTUS decisions as possible.)
As for the alleged, so-called “enlightened” status of Europe, let us not forget the blatantly discriminatory religious laws of the UK, most specifically their laws of succession. No Brit has the least right AT ALL to lecture anybody in the USA on matters of religious tolerance so long as a specific religious group is explicitly excluded from the succession.
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?
Or will this apply to the rest of the country, too?
Cite? I was never required to know it. Did you serve Monty? If so, when were you required to know it?
I don’t think that this is necessarily a good issue to look to Europe for (I don’t think that we should look to them that much, they have their problems too, but that’s another issue), as some of those nations do not have separation of church and state. In fact, some of them have a state religion.
x-ray, there is probably some point when joining the military where someone asks you if you know it or you say it with others during a ceremony, but honestly, I don’t know anybody who doesn’t know it to begin with, and I’ve been in the Army for 3 1/2 years and the one and only time I can recall saying it was recently during a town hall meeting at the post middle school.
And I’m sorry to bring it up, but this also segues into the use of benedictions and prayers at just about every single ceremony that takes place. Chaplains have an important part in the military, don’t get me wrong. Its imperative to have folks in uniform, who know how to soldier, who can guide others and help them with their faith on an individual basis when times are tough and bullets are flying.
I see no reason whatsoever for prayer to the Allmighty to bless every stinkin’ silly event we have to endure.
Monty may very well get angry at me yet again for this, but it’s all an extension of the OP.
Uh, not to be too hard on you here or anything, but Marsh has nothing to do with compelling anyone to recite the pledge. Rather, it is the obvious case for the Court to cite if it decides that the Pledge–as amended by Congress in the 1950s–does not violate the Establishment Clause.
“Marsh?” I’d have thought that would have been Broslofski!
x-ray: As I’m a PN1, USN (Ret), yes, it’s obvious that I served. In my first enlistment, however, I was in the US Army & was required to know the Pledge of Allegiance in Basic Combat Training.
After Bush v. Gore, I’m sure the current Supremes could cook up a ruling to justify letting votes from registered Democrats only count as 3/5ths of a vote. :rolleyes:
CNN’s article about this issue states that the suit is to ban the Pledge of Allegience from schools. Is this actually the case, or is the suit merely to ban the forced recital of the pledge?
Isn’t “forced recital” already banned? I would imagine that, if the basis of the suit is that it’s an unlawful establishment of religion to begin with, they’d want a cessation of the recital, which I guess is a ban too.
With Scalia out, maybe they’ll deadlock. It also depends on what they think the ruling would do. It’d be really funny if athiest kids from Colorado on east still had to say it while Western kids were exempt.
The Pledge will probably remain, using some variation of the reasoning of the creche rulings–which I think amounts to, the court need not deal with trifles!
In other words, it will be “read” as a tradition tinged with religious language, but not in and of itself a violation of the establishment clause. It is my impression that those who object to nonsectarian religiosity have a tough row to hoe: sort of a “hard cases make bad law” principle.
I myself:
–am not worried about traditional invocations of this sort, as long as a reasonably nonpenalizing “out” is allowed.
–but I would rule that no entity established under color of Federal or State government (ie, public school teachers) can be required (or even directed) to lead or say a “loyalty oath” of any kind, as it is a violation of the free speech and free association clauses. And here the point is pretty pointed, innit?–we’re talking very specifically about quashing dissenting political discourse, the very core of free speech rights.
In fact, I thought loyalty oaths were generally outlawed (outside the military) by some Vietnam-era decisions. And if a pledge of allegiance isn’t a loyalty oath–witnessed sworn oaths are, after all, meant to be binding–what is it? Performance art??
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?
Since most boarding schools are private, they are allowed to enforce mandatory chapel and pledges and stuff. If you felt coerced, then you were not coerced by the state, but by your parents, who forced you to go to that boarding school. That’s not a violation of the First Amendment.
Thanks so much for your contribution. Slamming Bush v. Gore was very constructive, especially considering that you have to turn the ruling on its head to arrive at your conclusion.
When? Is this a reference to Rehnquist’s dissent in Lemmon v. Kurtzman? If so, I would love to see any evidence you have that he actually misrepresented the truth in that opinion. (This is a sincere request)
I agree that ceremonial deism is largely a farce. But the fact that some things existed from the inception of our Union is informative as to what the Founders meant by the words they used in the Constitution. For example, how can opening Congress with an invocation, or opening a session of the Supreme Court with the words "God save . . . " violate the Establishment Clause when the very people that drafted and adopted the First Amendment opened Congress with an invocation and opened the Supreme Court with the words “God save . . .”?
Well, this Brit believes that anybody has the right to criticize anybody else. It’s called “free speech”. You Americans used to be quite big on it. Of course, such criticism can lead one open to counter claims of hypocrisy, but I don’t feel at all hypocritical about discrimination in the UK royal family line of succession, given as how I had absolutely no say whatsoever in its rules.
Actually, the UK line of succession is an object lesson in how you can screw things up if you intertwine state and religion. The UK monarch is also the head of the Church of England. It obviously makes sense that the head of the CofE not be a Catholic or Moslem, but that then excludes them from being monarch. Moral: keep religion and state separate.
“But I also doubt they will be able to come up with a coherent explanation of why they did not either”
I don’t think it will be that hard. The fact is that the hyper-strict separation of state and religion has never been the law of the land. 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”
The situation hardly ever comes up, so it’s not much of a problem anyway. The national anthem is played much less than the US one, for example we only play it at international sporting matches, not before every sporting event. I cannot remember hearing of any controversy. Although I am an atheist, non-monarchist, I wouldn’t have a problem singing it (apart from an inability to sing) because it is still the anthem of my country, and I would sing it in support of my country, whatever the words actually say.
I have not sung the National Anthem for many years (despite being able to sing well enough). On the few occasions that I have been present when it is played or sung, I have refused to stand for it.
I don’t have a direct quote, but here’s a paraphrase:
“God church flag Jesus prayer faith patriotism God history Jesus history church America God flag tradition prayer Jesus faith church freedom church God faith church Jesus flag, amen. Or the terrorists win.”
Not an accurate para-phrasing, Cervaise.
The correct quote is:
"Since 9/11, God church flag Jesus prayer faith patriotism God history Jesus history church America God flag tradition prayer Jesus faith church freedom church God faith church Jesus flag, amen. War. Or the terrorists win. "