# Reciting Pledge of Allegiance in public schools ruled unconstitutional. Discuss. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644 "2005-09-14T18:31:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/241 "2005-09-18T15:41:18Z")
> [@The New Guy](#): > > Not surprising. Anyone who steps up to the plate will undoubtedly be subject to harassment and threats. So? Neudow was subject to harassment and threats, but that didn’t stop him. I’m sure that’s part of it, but it’s hard to believe there isn’t some agitating teacher somewhere who wants to make a case out of this. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/242 "2005-09-18T18:39:17Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > You are right, of course. Christians and religionists don’t represent my thoughts either, but they are more organized than atheists. I don’t know about being more organized, given all the factions, sects, and the occasional lunatic. But I will grant that some groups or individuals are more vocal and demanding. Just because Falwell or Robertson says something, doesn’t mean all of Christendom Assembled agrees. Many Christians wish they would just go away. ---
**Author:** ![The\_New\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@The\_New\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_New_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/243 "2005-09-18T19:42:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Of course it matters how the teacher handles it, and if you think the courts don’t take that into account, you simply don’t know how the courts work. I didn’t SAY they “don’t take it into account”; they take EVERYTHING into account. But they may or may not decide that it is not applicable, that it is outweighed by other factors, or as I have suggested, that it is impractical to implement in reality. Since the current ruling is that the pledge IS unconstitutional, I suggest that perhaps _you_ are the one who doesn’t know how courts work. > [@](#): > > And it’s factually incorrect to say that recitation of the pledge amounts to pledging allegiance to God. You’re not even acknowledging God if you don’t want to. I don’t know what that means. I’m talking about the version of the pledge that contains the words “under God”. That most certainly DOES amount to pledging allegience to God. If you pledge allegience to the COUNTRY, and affirm that the country is UNDER GOD, then you are by extension pledging allegience to God. You are conflating 2 issues: 1) Whether saying the pledge in the form we are discussing amounts to pledging allegience to God (which it does) and 2) Whether leading a classroom in saying the pledge amounts to coercing them to do so (which in my opinion it does, and apparently in your opinion it doesn’t). > [@](#): > > Bad analogy. “Seperat but equal” was determined to be inherently unequal. Equality was the issue, and it wasn’t being achieved. Which is precisely why it IS a good analogy. Just because a person could _conceive_ of a mitigiting factor didn’t ipso facto render the policy constitutional. One had to look at the actual facts of the case, i.e. was it _really_ equal? Again, you seem to be arguing that the mere fact that you can _conceive_ of a mitigating factor, that the pledge HAS to be constitutional. But I’m saying that if, in reality, there’s no way to effectively mitigate the problem without singling out students, that we must consider that fact. Just as people had to consider the fact that blacks were only equal _in theory_, and not in reality. > [@](#): > > Children are routinely required to do things in school that they don’t want to do, or that others will ridicule them for doing incorrectly. That, in and of itself, is not a reason to ban something. I never said it was. Please try to follow the argument. > [@](#): > > But in the pledge case, they aren’t even required to do it. I don’t know the point of that sentence. You’re just re-stating what we’re arguing about. > [@](#): > > Again, I am only doing what the courts typically do in examining a problem like this. Look at what the complaint is, and understand the motivation surrounding the complaint. Look at hypotheticals that would mitigate the problem and also giv some guidance to the legislature of what exactly would make the law past muster. You’re suggesting that courts can only take one avenue, which is not true. They might decide that the policy is irredeemable, as was the “seperate but equal” doctrine. Just because courts _consider_ something doesn’t mean they have to consider it _valid_. > [@](#): > > Nope. Some students (see above) still will not want to say the pledge, as it violates their freedom to practice their religion. You have to remember that the 1st amendment has two parts wrt religion-- the establish clausse and the free exercise clause. Wait, are you suggesting that a pledge _without_ “under God” arguably prevents people from practicing religion? That the _absence_ of requirements to affirm God in state-sponsored events is preventing free practice of religion? Because if that’s your argument, I have to say that it’s ludicrous. I have never before heard the argument that the _absence_ of an active endorsment of religion is equivalent to a _restraint_ of it. That can’t be what you meant, can it? ---
**Author:** ![The\_New\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@The\_New\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_New_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/244 "2005-09-18T19:48:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > So? Neudow was subject to harassment and threats, but that didn’t stop him. I’m sure that’s part of it, but it’s hard to believe there isn’t some agitating teacher somewhere who wants to make a case out of this. Newdow’s a pretty unique individual, wouldn’t you agree? I mean, I agree with you that I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if most people would be reluctant to take on that much abuse from theists. ---
**Author:** ![The\_New\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@The\_New\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_New_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/245 "2005-09-18T20:07:55Z")
> [@SaintCad](#): > > Note that the law does not require the students say the Pledge but that the school must conduct the exercise. O.K., but you were in grade school once, I assume. Exactly how many activities that the teacher or principal led your class in, did you consider optional, when you weren’t explicitly told by the teacher that it was optional? Zero, right? I’m just seeing this whole distinction between “leading the pledge” and “requiring students to say it” to be a rather trivial one. When I was a student, the default assumption was that if the teacher said the class is going to do something, you did it. We didn’t say, “Uh, teacher, I’m gonna opt out on that math test, O.K.?” > [@](#): > > Thus CEC 52720 make it illegal for the teacher to not lead the PLedge. A court case mentioned earlier made it optional for the students. O.K., but you still didn’t answer my question, i.e. what is this law you refer to that _bars_ teachers from asking students why they don’t want to recite the pledge? Is it that same court case? And could you help me out by being a little more specific than “a court case mentioned earlier”? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/246 "2005-09-18T20:20:11Z")
> [@The New Guy](#): > > Newdow’s a pretty unique individual, wouldn’t you agree? I mean, I agree with you that I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if most people would be reluctant to take on that much abuse from theists. If anyone believes so strongly in something, then they should be willing to stand up and do it. There is a difference between picking your fights carefully, and not fighting at all. If it’s worth fighting for, then dammit fight for it. You might lose, but at least you tried. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/247 "2005-09-18T20:28:50Z")
> [@The New Guy](#): > > I didn’t SAY they “don’t take it into account”; they take EVERYTHING into account. But they may or may not decide that it is not applicable, that it is outweighed by other factors, or as I have suggested, that it is impractical to implement in reality. Since the current ruling is that the pledge IS unconstitutional, I suggest that perhaps _you_ are the one who doesn’t know how courts work. Nice try, but would you like to place a little wager on this decision being overturned by the SCOTUS? I’m confident enought that I understand how the courts work that I’ll put my money where my mouth is. Are you? $20 says this decision is overturned. Are you in? > [@](#): > > I don’t know what that means. I’m talking about the version of the pledge that contains the words “under God”. That most certainly DOES amount to pledging allegience to God. If you pledge allegience to the COUNTRY, and affirm that the country is UNDER GOD, then you are by extension pledging allegience to God. It means what it says. Even if we accept that saying the pledge with “under God” amounts to pledging allegiance to God (which I don’t, but for the sake of argument let’s accept it), the students can omit that phrase when saying the pledge, or they can refrain from saying the pledge altogether. Hence, the law as it stands now does not force kids to pledge allegiance to God. > [@](#): > > You are conflating 2 issues: 1) Whether saying the pledge in the form we are discussing amounts to pledging allegience to God (which it does) and 2) Whether leading a classroom in saying the pledge amounts to coercing them to do so (which in my opinion it does, and apparently in your opinion it doesn’t). Wrong. I’m not conflating those two issues, I’m rejecting both of them. As will the SCOTUS when they take up this case. > [@](#): > > Which is precisely why it IS a good analogy. Just because a person could _conceive_ of a mitigiting factor didn’t ipso facto render the policy constitutional. One had to look at the actual facts of the case, i.e. was it _really_ equal? Again, you seem to be arguing that the mere fact that you can _conceive_ of a mitigating factor, that the pledge HAS to be constitutional. But I’m saying that if, in reality, there’s no way to effectively mitigate the problem without singling out students, that we must consider that fact. Just as people had to consider the fact that blacks were only equal _in theory_, and not in reality. You lost me on this one. I can’t tell when you’re referring to _Brown_, or when you’re referring to this case. > [@](#): > > I don’t know the point of that sentence. You’re just re-stating what we’re arguing about. I’m restating it because you are ignoring it. > [@](#): > > You’re suggesting that courts can only take one avenue, which is not true. They might decide that the policy is irredeemable, as was the “seperate but equal” doctrine. Just because courts _consider_ something doesn’t mean they have to consider it _valid_. Nor did I say they had to. I was responding to your claim that the consideration was “moot” when it is entirely germain to the debate we are haiving. > [@](#): > > Wait, are you suggesting that a pledge _without_ “under God” arguably prevents people from practicing religion? That the _absence_ of requirements to affirm God in state-sponsored events is preventing free practice of religion? Because if that’s your argument, I have to say that it’s ludicrous. I have never before heard the argument that the _absence_ of an active endorsment of religion is equivalent to a _restraint_ of it. That can’t be what you meant, can it? Of course I’m not suggesting that. I was simply referring to MEBuckner’s response, above, to your claim that there would be no issue if “under God” were removed from the pledge. This case would not have any standing, but there would still be an “issue”, and it would still be a 1st amendment issue, answering our question: [quote] If the words “under God” were removed, what argument would a student have that he should not be required to say the pledge?[/quote If you reason that the current situation forces kids to pledge allegiance to God and that violates the 1st amedment establishment clause, then the very same reasoning can be used to argue that the pledge (minus “under God”) still violates the 1st amendment, because the core issue is whether the kids are being forced or not. The implication of a ruling based on your arguments is that no Pledge, no matter what the wording is, can be used in schools. ---
**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:** [September 18, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/248 "2005-09-18T21:17:16Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I suppose someone has long since answered this but I’ll have a stab at it anyway. > > I think that if the Supreme Court refuses to hear an appeal the lower court ruling stands. Yeah, that had been pointed out, but thanks still. What I still wonder about, though, is why people feel the Supremes must take on the case as a political necessity. The Supreme Court Justices don’t have to worry about elections, or getting support from other policy makers, so I’m not sure where this comes from. Have they shown personal strong disagreement with the lower court’s ruling, and this idea that they must take the case comes from that? Or are people so against the ruling that they think the Supreme Court Justices _must_ feel the same way, and are projecting their beliefs onto them? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/249 "2005-09-18T21:30:37Z")
**Revtim** : Won’t it be the case that if the current precedent stands, other courts will ban similar laws, so that this won’t be contained to some small section of the coutnry? That will make it a national issue, and from a political standpoint, I don’t think the court can stand to have it on record as “being against the pledge” which is how this will be labeled. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/250 "2005-09-18T21:32:18Z")
> [@The New Guy](#): > > O.K., but you still didn’t answer my question, i.e. what is this law you refer to that _bars_ teachers from asking students why they don’t want to recite the pledge? Is it that same court case? And could you help me out by being a little more specific than “a court case mentioned earlier”? Post #231 ---
**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:** [September 18, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/251 "2005-09-18T22:01:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That will make it a national issue, and from a political standpoint, I don’t think the court can stand to have it on record as “being against the pledge” which is how this will be labeled. Again, _what political standpoint?_ What can happen to them if they get labeled as “being against the pledge”? They’re appointed for life and don’t have to worry about re-election. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/252 "2005-09-18T22:27:08Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I suppose someone has long since answered this but I’ll have a stab at it anyway. > > I think that if the Supreme Court refuses to hear an appeal the lower court ruling stands. True, but there’s a “yahbut” attached to that. Decisions of the Supreme Court are final, binding precedent for every court in the land (insofar as they apply; a state high court can render a decision that the state’s constitutional or statutory provisions **do** apply where SCOTUS has said that the Federal constitution/statutes do not). Lower federal court precedent is binding **only** in its jurisdiction. Hence the Ninth Circuit decision about the Pledge is binding only in the states comprising the Ninth Circuit; a district court decision is binding only in the state or part thereof that constitutes that district. ---
**Author:** ![The\_New\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@The\_New\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_New_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/253 "2005-09-18T22:28:51Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Nice try, but would you like to place a little wager on this decision being overturned by the SCOTUS? I’m confident enought that I understand how the courts work that I’ll put my money where my mouth is. Are you? $20 says this decision is overturned. Are you in? The Supreme Court has a conservative bias. They will rule to uphold the pledge no matter what. What does that prove? You have substituted the word “SCOTUS” for the general word “courts” in our argument. Nice try, indeed… > [@](#): > > It means what it says. Even if we accept that saying the pledge with “under God” amounts to pledging allegiance to God (which I don’t, but for the sake of argument let’s accept it), the students can omit that phrase when saying the pledge, or they can refrain from saying the pledge altogether. Hence, the law as it stands now does not force kids to pledge allegiance to God. > > Wrong. I’m not conflating those two issues, I’m rejecting both of them. As will the SCOTUS when they take up this case. We’re talking past each other. You said, “And it’s factually incorrect to say that recitation of the pledge amounts to pledging allegiance to God. You’re not even acknowledging God if you don’t want to.” We’re not agreeing on what “the pledge” means. I was talking about the version with God in it, while you are obviously talking about when God is left out of it. This is a non-issue. I suggest we move on. > [@](#): > > You lost me on this one. I can’t tell when you’re referring to _Brown_, or when you’re referring to this case. It was pretty clear; let me walk you through it: **"Just because a person could conceive of a mitigiting factor didn’t ipso facto render the policy constitutional."** \<- general statement; topic sentence for the paragraph **"One had to look at the actual facts of the case, i.e. was it really equal?"** \< - refers to segregation issue. (hence the word “equal”) **"Again, you seem to be arguing that the mere fact that you can conceive of a mitigating factor, that the pledge HAS to be constitutional."** \<- refers to the pledge issue, hence the word “pledge” **"But I’m saying that if, in reality, there’s no way to effectively mitigate the problem without singling out students, that we must consider that fact."** \<- refers to pledge issue, hence the word “students” **"Just as people had to consider the fact that blacks were only equal in theory, and not in reality."** \<- refers to segregation issue, hence the word “blacks” > [@](#): > > I’m restating it because you are ignoring it. I most certainly am not. Had I ignored your contention that students are not compelled to recite the pledge, we wouldn’t even be _having_ this conversation. > [@](#): > > Nor did I say they had to. I was responding to your claim that the consideration was “moot” when it is entirely germain to the debate we are haiving. Good, then I take it you are now admitting that _considering_ whether students can effectively opt out of the pledge does not mean a particular courts HAS to rule that way. I take it we agree, then. > [@](#): > > Of course I’m not suggesting that. I was simply referring to MEBuckner’s response, above, to your claim that there would be no issue if “under God” were removed from the pledge. This case would not have any standing, but there would still be an “issue”, and it would still be a 1st amendment issue, answering our question: Oh, O.K., I get it. You’re talking about Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose religion forbids them from participating in such ceremonies. I still don’t know that I see that as the same issue. In the one case, certain people are objecting to the _religious content_ of the ceremony. In the other case, certain people are objecting to a completely secular ceremony that happens to violate a rule of _their_ religion. They’re both issues, but are they really the _same_ issue? > [@](#): > > The implication of a ruling based on your arguments is that no Pledge, no matter what the wording is, can be used in schools. I don’t see one argument as arising out of the other. The argument against “under God” is that it violates the Establishment Clause. But the argument against the pledge _in general_ is not that it _establishes_ religion, but that it _fails_ to adhere to the laws of an established religion. Almost the exact _opposite_ argument. ---
**Author:** ![The\_New\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@The\_New\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_New_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/254 "2005-09-18T22:44:25Z")
> [@SaintCad](#): > > Post #231 Thanks, but I still don’t see where it bars teachers from asking students for a reason. I may have missed it, because the guy who wrote that is a total windbag. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/255 "2005-09-18T22:46:44Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > What I still wonder about, though, is why people feel the Supremes must take on the case as a political necessity. The Supreme Court Justices don’t have to worry about elections, or getting support from other policy makers, so I’m not sure where this comes from. The Judiciary is at the mercy of Congress to get funding and support for administrative matters. A hostile Congress, or Congress quaking in its shoes before a rabidly hostile public, might be quite capable of cutting back on the judicial budget to the point where it would be difficult to keep clerks or the adminstrative librarians or even the janitors. Beyond that, while it is a truism of every civics class that the judiciary is independent, it is also a truism, as noted by Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley, that “_No matther whether th’constitution follows th’ flag or not, the supreme coort always follows th’ iliction returns._” I am not sure that anyone has done a specific study _why_ the Court should appear to be responsive to the ways the winds of popular opinion blow, (and there have certainly been a few brave courts that decided cases in unpopular ways), but the trend has always been to not buck an opinion if it appears to be held by an overwhelming number of people, regardless of the judicial opinions of later generations. (_Overwhelming_ would be key, here. On issues where the populace is more evenly divided, the court seems to have greater latitude in arriving at independent decisions.) ---
**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:** [September 18, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/256 "2005-09-18T22:57:44Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The Judiciary is at the mercy of Congress to get funding and support for administrative matters. A hostile Congress, or Congress quaking in its shoes before a rabidly hostile public, might be quite capable of cutting back on the judicial budget to the point where it would be difficult to keep clerks or the adminstrative librarians or even the janitors. I didn’t know that; has Congress ever done this or threatened to do this? > [@tomndebb](#): > > Beyond that, while it is a truism of every civics class that the judiciary is independent, it is also a truism, as noted by Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley, that “_No matther whether th’constitution follows th’ flag or not, the supreme coort always follows th’ iliction returns._” I am not sure that anyone has done a specific study _why_ the Court should appear to be responsive to the ways the winds of popular opinion blow, (and there have certainly been a few brave courts that decided cases in unpopular ways), but the trend has always been to not buck an opinion if it appears to be held by an overwhelming number of people, regardless of the judicial opinions of later generations. (_Overwhelming_ would be key, here. On issues where the populace is more evenly divided, the court seems to have greater latitude in arriving at independent decisions.) I would guess this is simply probability, and has nothing to do with politics. If the overwhelming majority of the country feels a certain way, then likely the justices do to. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/257 "2005-09-18T23:31:23Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I guess you haven’t noticed that it was the atheists that filed the law suit against the religionist. Who is trying to force their way on the public, the atheists, of course. The words “Under God” were not in the pledge in 1953. They were added, in 1954, specifically to exclude athiests and communists (who are assumed to be athiests under the McCarthyist thinking of the time) from being part of America. It should have been ruled unconsitutional at the time. It’s time to fix the error. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/258 "2005-09-19T06:33:43Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#): > > They were added, in 1954, specifically to exclude athiests and communists (who are assumed to be athiests under the McCarthyist thinking of the time) from being part of America. Well, more to the point, atheists were assumed to be Communists. > [@lekatt](#): > > Your rights are not being violated in any way. If you don’t want to say the pledge then don’t, if you don’t want to hear the pledge carry a pair of ear plugs or go to a private school that don’t say the pledge. > [@catsix](#): > > The problem here is that because the Pledge of Allegiance assumes the existence of a god in order to claim that the United States is one nation under god, you have created a dichotomy wherein people who are atheists are in the same league as people who are unwilling to pledge allegiance to their country. Why should my lack of belief in a diety mean that I have to back out on the Pledge of Allegiance? Dropping the words ‘under god’ would make the Pledge inclusive of _every American_. These posts were from several days ago, but I think it’s a point worth re-emphasizing: Many people object to the very idea of pledging allegiance to the flag, and they certainly ought not be forced to do so if they believe a pledge of allegiance to a flag is an inappropriate expression of patriotism, or if they have some philosophical objection to the whole idea of patriotism (because they believe only God deserves that sort of reverence, or because they believe our loyalty ought to be to the whole human race). However, another objection to the pledge as it stands is that it excludes patriotic citizens who don’t believe in God but who do want to voluntarily join in a symbolic affirmation of their love of their country and its ideals. Whatever the Supreme Court rules, the pledge _ought_ to be restored to its pre-McCarthyite form, so that all Americans who _want_ to can engage in this civic ritual without having to choose between their patriotism and their religious convictions. We wouldn’t tell Jews “Oh, you can just leave out the ‘under Jesus Christ’ bit when everyone is saying the pledge”, and we certainly wouldn’t consider it acceptable to say “Oh, if you Jews don’t like saying ‘one nation under Jesus Christ’, well, you don’t have to say the pledge…I mean, if you don’t _want_ to pledge allegiance to this great nation, suit yourself”. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/259 "2005-09-19T11:30:05Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I didn’t know that; has Congress ever done this or threatened to do this?I would guess this is simply probability, and has nothing to do with politics. If the overwhelming majority of the country feels a certain way, then likely the justices do to. They could, but I don’t think they would want to appear that infantile. Scarier still,is this [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/31/AR2005073100696\_pf.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/31/AR2005073100696_pf.html) _“Roberts’s 27-page memo in 1982 arguing that Congress had power to strip the Supreme Court or the lower federal courts of jurisdiction over desegregation and other types of cases”_ Why play games with the money when you can change the rules of the game! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/260 "2005-09-19T11:56:54Z")
> [@](#): > > We wouldn’t tell Jews “Oh, you can just leave out the ‘under Jesus Christ’ bit when everyone is saying the pledge”, and we certainly wouldn’t consider it acceptable to say “Oh, if you Jews don’t like saying ‘one nation under Jesus Christ’, well, you don’t have to say the pledge…I mean, if you don’t _want_ to pledge allegiance to this great nation, suit yourself”. I’m not so sure,Scalia seems to think the majority can tell the minority to quit complaining. \*Scalia, J., dissenting McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY et al. June 27, 2005 If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word “God,” or “the Almighty,” one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.\* [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZD.html](http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZD.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644.md?page=14)