# 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:** 14
**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 19, 2005, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/261 "2005-09-19T14:57:31Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > I’m not so sure,Scalia seems to think the majority can tell the minority to quit complaining. Can you point out specifically what is incorrect in that quote? Those are not only the beliefs of Scalia, btw, but a simple affirmation of what SCOTUS precedent currently means on the subject-- ie, “ceremonial deism”. I’d like to see “under God” taken out of the pledge, and I think it would be better public policy to do so. But, as long as the act is constitutional, the majority \*\*can \*\*tell the minority to “quit complaining”. That’s simply called democracy. ---
**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 19, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/262 "2005-09-19T16:48:56Z")
**John Mace** , is the funding issue that **tomndebb** mentioned the political pressure you feel would force the Supreme Court to take the case? As **crowmanyclouds** mentioned, I think that would likely seem too infantile a response for the Supreme Court to worry about. ---
**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 19, 2005, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/263 "2005-09-19T17:03:12Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > **John Mace** , is the funding issue that **tomndebb** mentioned the political pressure you feel would force the Supreme Court to take the case? As **crowmanyclouds** mentioned, I think that would likely seem too infantile a response for the Supreme Court to worry about. I wasn’t thinking of funding, but the of the “court stripping” as I think it’s called. It’s equivalent to the nuclear option being tossed aroung in the Senate-- Congres can rule that the Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over a certain piece of legislation. I don’t know the legal status of that action, but I believe it is untested. Or, that there could be some other challenge to their authority. They have it pretty damn good right now, power-wise, and to lose that power would be a big blow. Also, the Supremes are human and thus not unaffected by public opinion (except maybe Scalia 🙂 ). If they go too far outside the mainstream, they’ll be marginalized and generally disrespected-- not only by the people, but by their fellow jurists. I would certainly agree that they are \*\*much \*\*less open to political pressure than are legislators, but they are not immune from it either. Most people do like to be well thought of. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/264 "2005-09-19T17:20:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Emphasis added to show where you’ve made an incorrect assumption. Just mentioning the word “God” is not an act of establishing religion. I guess we just disagree. Most people seem to agree (perhaps you don’t?) that if instead of “under God” the pledge said “under Jesus Christ”, then it definitely would NOT be constitutional. Really, what’s the difference? Just that “under God” fits with 3 main religions rather than just one? ---
**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 19, 2005, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/265 "2005-09-19T17:55:46Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I guess we just disagree. Most people seem to agree (perhaps you don’t?) that if instead of “under God” the pledge said “under Jesus Christ”, then it definitely would NOT be constitutional. Really, what’s the difference? Just that “under God” fits with 3 main religions rather than just one? What’s the third one? I can only think of 2 - Christianity and Judaism. Or are you counting Catholicism seperately from Christianity? I’m betting John would consider “under Jesus Christ” constitutional as well, so long as they don’t grab you and physically force you to move your lips and expel air from your lungs. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/266 "2005-09-19T17:55:59Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I wasn’t thinking of funding, but the of the “court stripping” as I think it’s called. It’s equivalent to the nuclear option being tossed aroung in the Senate-- Congres can rule that the Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over a certain piece of legislation. I don’t know the legal status of that action, but I believe it is untested. Or, that there could be some other challenge to their authority. They have it pretty damn good right now, power-wise, and to lose that power would be a big blow. That would be a disaster. It would destory the Checks and Balances system, and would itself be a trashing of the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/267 "2005-09-19T18:11:50Z")
> [@The New Guy](#): > > What’s the third one? I can only think of 2 - Christianity and Judaism. Islam. (Allah is simply Arabic for God and Arab Christians pray to Allah.) > [@SteveG1](#): > > That would be a disaster. It would destory the Checks and Balances system, and would itself be a trashing of the Constitution. One can argue the extent of damage to the system of checks and balances, but it would not _trash_ the Constitution because it is in the Constitution. So far, Congress has never attempted to execute that provision in any major way and the issues it raises are many, (to say nothing of the problem with having someone decide what it exactly means), but it is actually included in the Constitution. Article III, Section 2 (Excerpt): > [@](#): > > In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. _In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, **with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make** _. ---
**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 19, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/268 "2005-09-19T18:26:32Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Islam. (Allah is simply Arabic for God and Arab Christians pray to Allah.) I guess technically you could say God is the translation of Allah, but English-speaking Muslims would tend to use “Allah” rather than “God”, even when speaking English, wouldn’t they? So really, “God” only fits 2 religions. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/269 "2005-09-19T19:46:15Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Islam. (Allah is simply Arabic for God and Arab Christians pray to Allah.) > One can argue the extent of damage to the system of checks and balances, but it would not _trash_ the Constitution because it is in the Constitution. So far, Congress has never attempted to execute that provision in any major way and the issues it raises are many, (to say nothing of the problem with having someone decide what it exactly means), but it is actually included in the Constitution. > > Article III, Section 2 (Excerpt): You learn something new every day. ---
**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 19, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/270 "2005-09-19T20:34:34Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > That would be a disaster. It would destory the Checks and Balances system, and would itself be a trashing of the Constitution. Not necessarily. This wouldn’t be a blanket overruling of _Maybury vs Madison_, but only for the \*\*specific \*\*legislation in question. And to do that, Congress would have to have a lot of political capital to spend-- ie, they have to make sure they don’t piss off the electorate. Similar to the “nuclear option”, it could just as easily backfire. The ulitimate check and balance is us-- ie, we the people. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/271 "2005-09-19T23:58:10Z")
> [@The New Guy](#): > > I guess technically you could say God is the translation of Allah, but English-speaking Muslims would tend to use “Allah” rather than “God”, even when speaking English, wouldn’t they? So really, “God” only fits 2 religions. What planet did you derive that malarkey from? I’ve heard English-speaking muslims use the word _God_ when speaking about their deity. ---
**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 20, 2005, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/272 "2005-09-20T00:07:49Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > What planet did you derive that malarkey from? I’ve heard English-speaking muslims use the word _God_ when speaking about their deity. Not on TV programs like “24” or in movies. 🙂 Actually, it’s not at all uncomon to hear, even on TV: “God is Great” and “God willing”. Very common. OTOH, “praise be to Allah” seems to be the norm for some reason. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/273 "2005-09-20T00:28:55Z")
This is a serious question, so don’t think I’m being clever or snide. Does it really matter if we say God, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Creator, Great Architect etc? It is still the same Being. If I remember, when directly asked for his name in the Bible, God answered “I AM”. He was saying names and labels were unimportant to him (?). ---
**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 20, 2005, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/274 "2005-09-20T01:18:58Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Not necessarily. This wouldn’t be a blanket overruling of _Maybury vs Madison_, but only for the \*\*specific \*\*legislation in question. And to do that, Congress would have to have a lot of political capital to spend-- ie, they have to make sure they don’t piss off the electorate. Similar to the “nuclear option”, it could just as easily backfire. The ultimate check and balance is us-- ie, we the people. That’s what scares me,congress wouldn’t do it unless they knew it would be popular! In an age where seemingly rational, civilized people can be led by their leaders to commit genocide,striping a minority of a constitutional right or two is a piece o cake. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/275 "2005-09-20T01:33:05Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > This is a serious question, so don’t think I’m being clever or snide. Does it really matter if we say God, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Creator, Great Architect etc? It is still the same Being. If I remember, when directly asked for his name in the Bible, God answered “I AM”. He was saying names and labels were unimportant to him (?). We’ve had entire threads dedicated to figuring out whether all religions do or do not pray to the same divine entity. You’re not going to get a quick answer that does not bring an objection from someone. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/276 "2005-09-20T02:04:02Z")
You’re probably right. I better leave it alone. ---
**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 20, 2005, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/277 "2005-09-20T02:09:41Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > What planet did you derive that malarkey from? I’ve heard English-speaking muslims use the word _God_ when speaking about their deity. If I’m incorrect, I welcome your input, but I don’t see any reason for you to be rude about it. ---
**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 20, 2005, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/278 "2005-09-20T03:00:33Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Can you point out specifically what is incorrect in that quote? Those are not only the beliefs of Scalia, btw, but a simple affirmation of what SCOTUS precedent currently means on the subject-- ie, “ceremonial deism”. > > I’d like to see “under God” taken out of the pledge, and I think it would be better public policy to do so. But, as long as the act is constitutional, the majority \*\*can \*\*tell the minority to “quit complaining”. That’s simply called democracy. My problem with it is this, What if the 1st amendment had a dog clause “no dogs, of any kind, on any of the furniture, at any time” My reading of Scalia is (I cite him as a/the leader of the school of interpretation he favors), first read the words. If the wording is clear,game over ! If the text is ambiguous, yielding several conflicting interpretations, Scalia turns to the specific legal tradition flowing from that text – to “what it meant to the society that adopted it.” Dogs ?, members of the species Canis ? The sofa,is that furniture ? Scalia notes that he will sometimes refer to Hamilton’s and Madison’s Federalist papers, but “I do so… not because they were framers and therefore their intent is authoritative and must be the law; but rather because their writings, like those of other intelligent and informed people of the time, display how the text of the Constitution was originally understood” “according to the “common sense” meaning and definition of the document’s words at the time they were written”, the ordinary meaning of the words. So the dog clause should be easy to rule on. At most we might need a quick look at the dictionary (in Scalia,s case from the period ) to see if a sofa is historically defined as furniture, and what a dog is. But alas no. Enter "historical practices"from which we get “ceremonial deism”. Washington writes how he was forced to share his bed, with his favorite bird dogs, during the bitter cold nights at Valley Forge.Something Martha would have never allowed. Franklin waxes poetically on the joys of a crackling fire, a good book, and cuddling with a warm puppy on the couch. Despite the clear text of the dog clause, as understood by the people of the time. We have exceptions allowing for it’s violation. So now we have a “ceremonial dogism”. Washington and Franklin let dogs on the furniture, and who cares if Martha complained (she never wrote it down) The clause actually means,some dogs, on some furniture, some times. Have the words respecting, establishment, and religion changed their definitions that much since the 1780’s ? Does the constant historic violation of an amendment erase it from the constitution. ---
**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 20, 2005, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/279 "2005-09-20T03:18:44Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > \ > > Enter "historical practices"from which we get “ceremonial deism”. > > \ I didn’t really follow your dog analogy, but I wanted to point out that “ceremonial deism” dates back to the 1960s, and was first used by the SCOTUS in 1963. Scalia joined the SCOTUS in 1986. Would you want him to ignore precedent? IOW, Scalia certainly didn’t invent the term. It’s not some whacky phrase, but a well established legal doctrine, even if it can by fuzzy, and the SCOTUS has been inconsistent in its application. This would be true if Scalia had never lived, and if Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy had been on the SCOTUS instead. ---
**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 20, 2005, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/280 "2005-09-20T03:46:51Z")
It’s his jumping to it that I don’t get. Why look for examples of ceremonial deism unless your trying to justify it ! Do you think the three words in question (respecting, establishment, religion) have a substantially different meaning today ? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644.md?page=15)