# 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:** 22
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/421 "2005-09-26T04:50:45Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Let’s try to stick with the specifics of what we’re talking about. Scott was asserting that by leaving in “under God” some felt like outsiders and by taking it out nobody did. I was merely noting that wasn’t true or the crux of this arguement. How is it not true? Also, how is it not the crux of the arguement? I think you haave let the OP get away from you. From the article lonked to in the OP: > [@](#): > > “All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis,” Newdow told The Associated Press. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/422 "2005-09-26T04:57:06Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] > [@](#): > > Granted, but you used the same weak abd strong explanation I did from Wikipedia. > I thought I already admitted it. My objection was that you hadn’t acknowledged that some atheist do have a belief. > > Are you going for “correct on a tecnicality” Still no good. It would be incorrect to say all atheism is a belief just as it was incorrect for you to infer that all atheism is not a belief. I neither inferred nor implied that. If you’ll scroll up you’ll see that what I said was that atheists “don’t _necessarily_ have a positive belief” that gods don’t exist. It is not a definitive characteristic of “atheism,” but a subcategory. > [@](#): > > As for doctrine, from webster 2 a : **something that is taught** b : \*\*a principle or position \*\* _or_ the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief. > > If you acknowledge that strong atheists have a belief rather than simply a lack of a belief, then that single primary belief asserted as the absolute truth for everyone can legitimately be called their doctrine. > As I said, I was nit picking only because you seemed to be presenting your definitions as the only valid ones. I addressed all this in my last post. Strong atheism is not a “teaching” and is not a part of any larger body of beliefs. It is not a “doctrine” in the sense that people who study and write about religion use the word. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/423 "2005-09-26T05:08:05Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > No, it isn’t the fact that you don’t agree so you must be blind, it is that you seem to agree on every point save one, that it really feels bad to be constanly reminded of your outsider statis, and that this is avoidable. > > Now, personally, I felt iritated everytme I saw an overwhelming amount of Christmas related TV, and nothing Jewish, when I was a child. However, despite what you may think, I am not proposing that a stop be put to this, or to all claims of being offended. Instead, I am repeting Newdow’s claims that children are being made to feel like outsiders due to something easily avoidable. I can understand the feeling you describe. I don’t believe that feeling is the crux of the arguement. I also don’t believe that preventing someone from feeling left out or uncomfortable is a powerful reason since 1. nobody is forced to recite the pledge much less the two objectionable words in it. 2. someone will probably feel bad or left out either way. In that sense someone feeling bad is unavoidable. The arguement is about the 1st amendment and the POA. The sub catagories are numerous. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/424 "2005-09-26T05:15:34Z")
You don’t see that the wording of the original pledge excludes no one? You don’t see how the fact that- Oh, never mind. ::Picnhes bridge of nose, takes two aspirin and a glass of water and goes to bed. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/425 "2005-09-26T05:30:08Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I can understand the feeling you describe. I don’t believe that feeling is the crux of the arguement. I also don’t believe that preventing someone from feeling left out or uncomfortable is a powerful reason since 1. nobody is forced to recite the pledge much less the two objectionable words in it. 2. someone will probably feel bad or left out either way. In that sense someone feeling bad is unavoidable. > > The arguement is about the 1st amendment and the POA. The sub catagories are numerous. Once more, it is not the recitation of the PoA by citizens which is the issue, it is the government endorsing monotheism that’s the issue. Just because the government (or the teacher in the classroom) can’t say “under God” doesn’t mean that no one else is free to. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/426 "2005-09-26T05:55:02Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I don’t think it can be called “authoritative” because it’s never anything more than an individual, personal belief. It does not stem from any sort of organized group or school. It is “authoritative” only in the most tautological way. i.e. it is necessary to be a strong atheist in order to be a strong atheist. It’s the beginning and the end all by itself. A “doctrine” really refers to something which it is necessary to believe in order to belong to a larger category. For instance, it is necessary to be a monotheist in order to be a Muslim. Generally speaking, a single, unaffiliated belief is not a “doctrine.” The word actually means “teaching.” Atheism- even strong atheism- is not a _teaching_ but just an individual conclusion. I don’t want to bog down in semantics but this kind of terminology does happen to figure into my academic background, such as it is, and people who study religion do not call atheism a “doctrine.” That’s just not how they use the word. As I said, I was nit picking. As far as most common use, I believe you are correct. > [@](#): > > Well, thank you, and putting aside the head-butting we’ve had in a few recent threads, I still think that overall on this board I probably agree with you more than I disagree. Butting heads occasionally is part of the fun. > [@](#): > > My issue isn’t really that I think “under god” is an especially egregious establishment violation, I just don’t like setting a precedent and creating a category for “ceremonial deism” which has no real definition (or constitutional basis) because fear that it may become a haven for more serious violations later on. Given it’s origin and the offensive actions of some fundamentalist groups I tend to agree. I stated before that in order to keep the playing field level. **Lekatt** called this country a Christian nation. I object. I think the founders made a concerted effort to make sure it wasn’t that. It is a nation first and the fact that it’s citizens are predomimantly Christian is a statistic. I think that’s an important difference. > [@](#): > > That’s exactly my position. Go figure! > [@](#): > > Yes. The difference would be that there would not be a governmental authority endorsing it. I see. My next question is, would the teacher be allowed to say “under God” if she or he chose to? Are believers required to give up a certain amount of their right to express their beliefs in order to work certain jobs? > [@](#): > > I should say that I was speaking rhetorically about “leaving my own kids out of it.” In actuality, my oldest daughter attends a Catholic school, so obviously I don’t personally have a problem with my kids being led in prayer. All I want is for that choice to be made by my wife and I, not by the government, and I want to protect the rights of those kids who are at the mercy of public schools. I’m sure there are incidents of cruelity and I acknowledge social pressure to conform but the voluntary nature of the POA relieves this for the most part. Still, to best serve all the public it seems best to make theistic references voluntary and protected rather than sanctioned by the federal government. That may mean we hear them just as often. > [@](#): > > Absolutely. My objection extends only to what the government can do, not private citizens. Then there’s the question of state and local governments. Can a small town put up a nativity scene on the town square? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/427 "2005-09-26T06:24:26Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I neither inferred nor implied that. If you’ll scroll up you’ll see that what I said was that atheists “don’t _necessarily_ have a positive belief” that gods don’t exist. It is not a definitive characteristic of “atheism,” but a subcategory. Well the quote was in post 398 > [@](#): > > Atheism is not a belief but a LACK of belief my point was that some Atheism, even if it’s a subcategory, _is_ a belief. Since you said mentioning God in the POA denies all other forms of belief it seemed reasonable that you saying “Atheism is not a belief” meant all atheism. But we’re just messing with semantics again and it’s not nessecary. > [@](#): > > I addressed all this in my last post. Strong atheism is not a “teaching” and is not a part of any larger body of beliefs. It is not a “doctrine” in the sense that people who study and write about religion use the word. I know you did. I wrote my post before I saw that one. I conceded that in it’s most common and widely accepted use you are correct. I point out that most common and widely accepted are not the same as exclusive. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/428 "2005-09-26T06:48:03Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Once more, it is not the recitation of the PoA by citizens which is the issue, it is the government endorsing monotheism that’s the issue. Just because the government (or the teacher in the classroom) can’t say “under God” doesn’t mean that no one else is free to. I get that. So if 90% of the students decide to include it it’s okay as long as it’s not sanctioned by government? Wouldn’t that place the same social pressure on minorities. I have mixed feelings about what the teacher is allowed. I see the seed of a movement to make a discussion of religion in our public schools very non PC. I think that’s really shortchanging our kids education. I read a article in a Christian newsletter about a teacher being fired for his beliefs and how this represented Christianity being persecuted. Turns out he was witnessing in math class and had been warned repeatedly. He deserved to be fired. OTOH I read another article about a teacher who wore her cross to school and was asked not to. When she refused she was suspended. I thought that was inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/429 "2005-09-26T06:49:07Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > You don’t see that the wording of the original pledge excludes no one? You don’t see how the fact that- > > Oh, never mind. ::Picnhes bridge of nose, takes two aspirin and a glass of water and goes to bed. Great, now we are both relieved. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/430 "2005-09-26T09:01:30Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I am very skeptical of the concept that removing theistic references makes things neutral and equal to all beliefs. I maintain that removing all general theistic references is giveing preference to the belief of atheism and is not nessecarily neutral and equitable to all. Damn it, I go away for a weekend, and this thread goes berserk. I hope I’ll get a chance to respond in greater length to dangling posts tomorrow. Anyhow, I can’t let this slide. So… there’s a town near New York City which has some Yankees fans and some Mets fans. It has a town song. One year, there are a majority of Yankees fans, and they get “Yankees Rule! Mets Suck!” added to the town song. A few years later, some Mets fans object to this. They would like “Yankees rule! Mets suck!” removed from the town song. Would removing this phrase be: (a) fair or (b) unfair to the poor beleagured Yankees fans? One of the recurring arguments people keep making are things like “removing ‘under god’ from the pledge would make society more secular… and there are lots of OTHER things that people have proposed that would also make society more secular, like forbidding schoolkids from wearing red and green, that are stupid. Let’s mock how stupid they are. hahaha. Now, what were we discussing again?” and “well, first you’re going to remove ‘under god’ from the pledge, then you’re going to forbid anyone from ever being offended at all, PC PC PC, self esteem self esteem self esteem, strawman strawman strawman”. PLEASE either demonstrate that anyone in this thread supports banning red and green clothes in December, or intends to forbid all prayer in pubilc by private citzens, or anything of that sort, or STOP BRINGING UP THESE EXTREME EXAMPLES!!! Thank you. Oh, and: > [@CosmosDan](#): > > I get that. So if 90% of the students decide to include it it’s okay as long as it’s not sanctioned by government? Wouldn’t that place the same social pressure on minorities. Yes. But there are (at least) two problems with teachers leading the pledge with ‘under god’ in it. One is the peer pressure. Which is bad, and we should alleviate it if possible. Alleviating it won’t fix all of the world’s problems, but saying “fixing A won’t fix B or C, so let’s not bother fixing A” is silly. The other is that ‘under god’ being in the pledge, which is an official thing officially endorsed and written down and enshrined by the US government, makes a statement about what the official USA position is. This makes those who don’t believe in God feel like they are not really included, and it gives ammunition to those who would want non-believers excluded. This should NOT be the case. If there’s a school where gangs of bullies beat up skinny kids, and there’s a paragraph in the school charter saying “bullies should beat up skinny kids”, then for god’s sake, take that paragraph out of the charter! That won’t immediately stop all bullying, but damn it, that’s no reason to just leave it in. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/431 "2005-09-26T09:07:19Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > How long does that take? Because it’s been around for an awfully long time and people don’t seem to regard it as meaningless. I regarded all such rote recitations to be nothing more than some utterly meaningless series of phonemes since I was a child, and I soon learned to despise them as a result. That includes the Pledge and the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostle’s Creed and all other such inanities. Being forced to recite them simply made me lose respect for them more and more each time. I would have made a poor Nazi (and it _did_ make me a poor Catholic). I can only hope that’s true for the children who are now faced with such nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/432 "2005-09-26T09:17:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It seems clear, to me, that the First Amendment simply prohibits the governement from adopting a formal state religion. You’ll recall: > > “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …” > > How does acknowledging a nameless God run afoul of that statement? Now, now: You seem too well informed to not know the answer to that! The Courts have long viewed just about any public formality which shows a preference to one religious viewpoint over another to be a violation of the Establishment Clause, even though no State Religion is actually being established. Surely I didn’t need to remind you of that? ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/433 "2005-09-26T09:20:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But where does the pledge say “God” = true? It does not say that. You are making that up out of thin air. > > It says “…one nation under God…” The government is not supposed to “establish religion”, there is nothing that says it can’t take a stance. As an atheist, I wish there was something like that. But the plain fact is there isn’t. As I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, the Courts have long viewed just about any public formality which shows a preference to one religious viewpoint over another to be a violation of the Establishment Clause, even though no State Religion is actually being established. For exactly this reason, the Pledge must be ruled unconstitutional if the decision is to be honest. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/434 "2005-09-26T13:04:47Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] > [@](#): > > One of the recurring arguments people keep making are things like “removing ‘under god’ from the pledge would make society more secular… and there are lots of OTHER things that people have proposed that would also make society more secular, like forbidding schoolkids from wearing red and green, that are stupid. Let’s mock how stupid they are. hahaha. Now, what were we discussing again?” and “well, first you’re going to remove ‘under god’ from the pledge, then you’re going to forbid anyone from ever being offended at all, PC PC PC, self esteem self esteem self esteem, strawman strawman strawman”. PLEASE either demonstrate that anyone in this thread supports banning red and green clothes in December, or intends to forbid all prayer in pubilc by private citzens, or anything of that sort, or STOP BRINGING UP THESE EXTREME EXAMPLES!!! Yes please stop. Your extreme example of Mets and Yankees isn’t the same thing at all. > [@](#): > > Thank you. No, thank YOU! > [@](#): > > Yes. But there are (at least) two problems with teachers leading the pledge with ‘under god’ in it. One is the peer pressure. Which is bad, and we should alleviate it if possible. Alleviating it won’t fix all of the world’s problems, but saying “fixing A won’t fix B or C, so let’s not bother fixing A” is silly. The other is that ‘under god’ being in the pledge, which is an official thing officially endorsed and written down and enshrined by the US government, makes a statement about what the official USA position is. This makes those who don’t believe in God feel like they are not really included, and it gives ammunition to those who would want non-believers excluded. This should NOT be the case. Yes there are problems. More than those two. Another one would be how do we protect the teachers right of free speech and freedom of religion while protecting the rights of the kids and their parents?You may think the answer is obvious but please excuse us poor dolts who don’t agree. The problem I have with the peer pressure arguement is that peer pressure works both ways. The arguement that is presented is that we can easily prevent unwanted peer pressure. No we can’t. We can only shift it around a bit. As for me, my opinion has shifted slightly. I still don’t believe that “under God” is unconstitutional, or that spending the taxpayers money on anything that smacks of theism is either, I do think the federal government should strive to be as neutral as possible and best serve all citizens while defending the rights of citizens to worship and express their religious beliefs. In this particular case that would mean “under God” not being sanctioned by the government but the right to insert it defended. That might mean , considering the ratio of people who support it, that nothing would change. What it would probably mean is that in a generation or two fewer people would be saying it > [@](#): > > If there’s a school where gangs of bullies beat up skinny kids, and there’s a paragraph in the school charter saying “bullies should beat up skinny kids”, then for god’s sake, take that paragraph out of the charter! That won’t immediately stop all bullying, but damn it, that’s no reason to just leave it in. I thought you wanted to stay away from extreme ridiculous examples 😕 ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/435 "2005-09-26T13:13:36Z")
Given the nature of this discussion does that mean that a Christian president {not the phoney we have now but a sincere Christian} should not be allowed to swear in on the Bible? That’s even more specific than “Under God” Should all federal buildings that contain references to our religious heritage be reodne and those references removed, since they are maintained by the taxpayers money? Should a Christian Congress person be allowed to openly express their beliefs in a public forum? What if they are addressing school kids? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/436 "2005-09-26T16:29:45Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I thought you wanted to stay away from extreme ridiculous examples It’s hardly ridiculous. God and thuggish behavior are practically synonyms. Even a casual knowledge of religion and it’s history should tell you that religious belief tends to produce intolerant and often violent behavior. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Given the nature of this discussion does that mean that a Christian president {not the phoney we have now but a sincere Christian} should not be allowed to swear in on the Bible? That’s even more specific than “Under God” Nope, no swearing on Bibles, not here or in courtrooms. It’s overtly religious and doesn’t do any good anyway. When was the last time religion promoted honesty ? Never, as far as I can tell. Also, what makes you think he’s a ( religious ) phony ? Disgusting as he is, he seems sincerely religious. In fact, that’s the obvious motivation for much of his bad behavior. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Should all federal buildings that contain references to our religious heritage be reodne and those references removed, since they are maintained by the taxpayers money? Yes. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Should a Christian Congress person be allowed to openly express their beliefs in a public forum? What if they are addressing school kids? If it’s not a state sponsered event/location, they can say what they want. Personally, I don’t think letting a professional liar talk to children is ever a good idea. I find it significant that your idea of religious freedom seems to center so much on pushing it onto other people. Why can’t the religious just leave the rest of us alone ? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/437 "2005-09-26T16:45:08Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > One of the recurring arguments people keep making are things like “removing ‘under god’ from the pledge would make society more secular… and there are lots of OTHER things that people have proposed that would also make society more secular, like forbidding schoolkids from wearing red and green, that are stupid. Let’s mock how stupid they are. hahaha. Now, what were we discussing again?” and “well, first you’re going to remove ‘under god’ from the pledge, then you’re going to forbid anyone from ever being offended at all, PC PC PC, self esteem self esteem self esteem, strawman strawman strawman”. PLEASE either demonstrate that anyone in this thread supports banning red and green clothes in December, or intends to forbid all prayer in pubilc by private citzens, or anything of that sort, or STOP BRINGING UP THESE EXTREME EXAMPLES!!! > > Yes please stop. Your extreme example of Mets and Yankees isn’t the same thing at all. Except that that wasn’t an example. That was an analogy. Don’t you see the difference between: “Well, here are 5 examples of things THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN REAL LIFE, and despite the fact that no one in this thread has endorsed any of them, and despite the fact that they are only superficially similar to the ‘under god’ discussion, I’m going to keep bringing them up and intimating that everyone arguing against ‘under god’ is also arguing for these extreme nutcasey things” and “here’s a totally made-up situation which is admittedly silly and ridiculous, but which is designed to boil down a particular part of an issue to its most simple parts”? I mean, those are CLEARLY two entirely different types of things, and I have no idea how you can conflate them. So, once again, you have two subgroups of people, they have an official song/statement/slogan/pledge/motto, then one of them, the majority, gets “our belief rules!” inserted into the official song/statement/slogan/pledge/motto, and then a few years later, the other subgroup tries to get it removed. Is that: (a) fair or (b) unfair? > [@](#): > > Another one would be how do we protect the teachers right of free speech and freedom of religion while protecting the rights of the kids and their parents? What’s so difficult about that? Whatever mechanisms we currently have in place to protect the teachers’ right of free speech would continue to operate. If those mechanisms are insufficient, then they are ALREADY insufficient, and that’s a problem that needs to be solved anyhow, but is not directly related to the pledge. (Note, by the way, that this is a tricky issue… I mean, I’d personally say that it’s OK for a teacher to wear a necklace with a cross on it, or other similar small religious symbols, and mention in passing what his or her faith is, but there’s a continuum of activities from that all the way up to outright trying to convert students in class, and there has to be a line somewhere, and reasonable people won’t always agree on where it is. Which is why we have courts.) > [@](#): > > You may think the answer is obvious but please excuse us poor dolts who don’t agree. The problem I have with the peer pressure arguement is that peer pressure works both ways. huh? What does that have to do with anything? > [@](#): > > The arguement that is presented is that we can easily prevent unwanted peer pressure. No it isn’t. Who has argued that? Who said that removing “under god” would instantly make the Christian and Atheist kids join hands and sing on the hillsides? > [@](#): > > I do think the federal government should strive to be as neutral as possible and best serve all citizens while defending the rights of citizens to worship and express their religious beliefs. In this particular case that would mean “under God” not being sanctioned by the government but the right to insert it defended. Very close to 100% precisely my opinion as well > [@](#): > > That might mean , considering the ratio of people who support it, that nothing would change. The trickiest question for me here is teachers. I assume we both agree that when they’re off duty, teachers should be able, in the privacy of their own homes, to say “under God” while saying the pledge. But should they be able to say it while leading the class? I mean, I suspect you’d agree that it’s OK for teachers to spend their saturday mornings wandering around knocking on doors spreading the gospel, but it is NOT ok for them to do that during class hours, so it’s obviously the case that what teachers can do while operating in their official capacity is more limited than what they can do, in general. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/438 "2005-09-26T16:52:30Z")
I disagree with **Der Trihs** on basically every one of these questions, interestingly. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Given the nature of this discussion does that mean that a Christian president {not the phoney we have now but a sincere Christian} should not be allowed to swear in on the Bible? That’s even more specific than “Under God” That’s up to the president himself. If he himself is a Christian, then he should certainly swear that way if that’s what has the most solemn meaning to him. > [@](#): > > Should all federal buildings that contain references to our religious heritage be reodne and those references removed, since they are maintained by the taxpayers money? If you mean things like the Smithsonian history museum, which might have an exhibit about the impact religion has had on our country throughout history, particularly if it’s an honest and even-handed one (ie, “before the civil war, biblical quotes were used as a justification for slavery, but at the same time, many leading abolitionists were motivated by their Christian beliefs”), then absolutely not. And in general, I don’t really have a problem with things like this, because whatever the design of murals in the lobby of the commerce department is, that’s not something that’s intruding every morning into every citizen’s life, nor is it something with the same official imprimateur that the pledge has. On the other hand, I think the 10 commandments should sure as heck not be on display in courtrooms. Can you be a bit more specific? > [@](#): > > Should a Christian Congress person be allowed to openly express their beliefs in a public forum? 100% absolutely yes. > [@](#): > > What if they are addressing school kids? In private? Ie, a church invites a congressman, who happens to be Christian, to speak to its youth group? He should be allowed to say any damn thing he wants. At a public school in a mandatory assembly for all students? His restrictions should be basically the same as a teacher… ie, mention the existence of the beliefs in passing, not be allowed to proselytize. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/439 "2005-09-26T17:05:38Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I disagree with Der Trihs on basically every one of these questions, interestingly. Noooo ! My life is over ! 🙂 > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > If you mean things like the Smithsonian history museum, which might have an exhibit about the impact religion has had on our country throughout history, particularly if it’s an honest and even-handed one (ie, “before the civil war, biblical quotes were used as a justification for slavery, but at the same time, many leading abolitionists were motivated by their Christian beliefs”), then absolutely not. And in general, I don’t really have a problem with things like this, because whatever the design of murals in the lobby of the commerce department is, that’s not something that’s intruding every morning into every citizen’s life, nor is it something with the same official imprimateur that the pledge has. On the other hand, I think the 10 commandments should sure as heck not be on display in courtrooms. Can you be a bit more specific? Ok, I agree with your example of the Smithsonian; I forgot about that sort of thing. In fact, I’ll say that I have no problem with state institutions like schools having even handed educational programs about religion. When you get right down to it, the people who oppose that the most aren’t the atheists, it’s the fundementalists. People who believe they know the One True Way and everybody else will burn forever aren’t likley to support teaching “false religion”. Besides, in all honesty I think a good “History of religion in America” course would produce more atheists, agnostics and liberal religionists than fundies; the behavior of the more extreme Christians in this country has not been very nice. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/440 "2005-09-26T17:52:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think what he says is exceedingly explicit. To me, the DofI basically seems like this: "Men have rights. They come from God. [No further explanation]. Now, George has violated those rights. Here are MANY MANY examples of how, and they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on. So we reject him." The vast body of the document is not talking about inalienable rights, or talking about how those rights come from God, or demonstrating a linkage there or anything, it’s talking about what a weaselhead George was. Replacing “Men have rights. They come from God” with “Men have rights. They just do.” or something like that, wouldn’t alter much of the document at all. To me, the “they come from God” part isn’t the revolutionary part, the revolutionary part is “we’re consciously choosing to disassociate ourself from our mother country, we’re carefully explaining why, and we’re doing it is a group of concerned and equal citizens, not as a dictatorial junta”. > [@](#): > > Strike that. I’m not sure of what your actually asking. Maybe this will answer it anyway. If someone has a noble idea and founds an organization, and that organization flourishes, then is seems perfectly fitting and appropriate that if this organization were to craft a pledge of some sort, that they would pay a degree of homage to that seed idea. But what if that pledge was crafted, did not mention that notion at all, and then 60 years later, a mention of it was added not to pay homage to the founders, but to differentiate the organization from its rival organization? You keep talking about the relationship between the pledge and the founders as if there is one, when, at least in a strictly directly and practical sense, there isn’t at all. The founders didn’t write the pledge. The guy who wrote the pledge didn’t add “under god”. And the stated motivation for adding “under god” wasn’t “oh, this pledge just isn’t paying sufficient homage to our great founders”. > [@](#): > > Maybe that’s a question better answered by an Atheist. I think it depends on the degree to which Atheism is in conflict with Natural Law theory. I must admit that I’m a bit skeptical about the importance of Natural Law theory, as I’m a quite patriotic, well read, generally knowledgeable trivia buff who’s read WAY more about history than the average American and took US History AP, and you’ve mentioned Natural Law theory more times in this debate that the sum total of all the times I’ve heard it mentioned in my life, up until now. > [@](#): > > The problem is, as we’ve touched on, concerns those inalienable rights that we were endowed with. For an atheist, who/what does the endowing? Good question. Although, honestly, both of these arguments are fundamentally unconvincing: Atheist: Men are created equal and have the right to life liberty and the P of H. Q: How do you know that? Atheist: I just do and NaturalLawGuy: Men are created equal, and are endowed by a nonspecific nonChristian God with the right to life, liberty and the P of H. Q: How do you know that that’s what God wanted/meant/created/endowed? NaturalLawGuy: I just do Maybe there’s a better deist argument to be made for Natural Law, but if so, TJ sure as heck didn’t make it in the declaration. > [@](#): > > I thiink the first part of this is like an argument against the value of screwdrivers because peolpe sometimes turn them around to bang in nails. Anything can be contorted. But the value of a thing should be quantified in the best case scenario, not the worst. Well, that’s yet another side issue. But if I said to you “does religion make society better or worse, in general”, it would be quite disingenuous of you to say “well, religion led to Natural Law theory, which led to the DofI, which led to the USA, which is awesome, so it makes it better, end of argument”. > [@](#): > > I would be very interested in seeiing you assert it. Seriously. Give it a shot. OK. Here goes. Ready? Men have rights. There, I asserted it. Maybe you thought I was saying something else? > [@](#): > > My take is that unless someone’s rights are being violated, let the majority rule. Even if it’s a majority of one. A reasonable position. Of course, if we all agreed on whether or not some citizens’ rights were being violated by the current pledge, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. As you yourself pointed out two sentences later. > [@](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > And really, the question of religion vs philosophy here is a bit silly. Even if you came up with a 100% effective argument and I said “wow, that was some argument there, ok, you’re right, belief in God can be philosophical without being religious”, that wouldn’t at all change my stance on the pledge. > > WHY NOT? I thought this whole discussion was based on your objecting to the PLedge on religious grounds. This seems like a good place to take a step back and explain my entire position. I think it should be the official position of the USA that it values its citizens equally. This means that the officially governmentally sanctioned rituals and realities of American life should be, whenever possible, set up to be inclusive rather than exclusive. So if there were an official bar-mitzvah-like ritual that happened when citizens turned 18 and became official adults, it would be crucial that this ritual be doable by short people, tall people, men, women, fat people, skinny people, people with most common handicaps, etc. Basically, I don’t really care what the constitution says about the pledge. Or rather, I don’t particularly want to argue that, because it’s pretty clear to me that the constitution doesn’t 100% inarguably say no or yes to “under God”. If it did, we wouldn’t be having this argument. Constitutional law is a big and slippery area, and it’s quite possible for reasonable people to disagree. What I DO want to argue about is, even if it is constitutional, is it something that as Americans we should support? A few notes: -It’s one thing to try to be inclusive. It’s another thing to try to be inclusive of EVERY SINGLE PERSON. If some cult in Texas is upset because they believe in wearing hats and the portraits on currency have no hats, screw them. I trust you can see the distinction between every person in the US who doesn’t feel comfortable saying “under God” in the pledge, and a cult. -There are certain classes (race, religion, gender, orientation) which are frequently given special protection against discrimination. Does that mean it’s OK to discriminate based on, say, height, or left- vs right- handedness? I’d say no. And when you think about it, the reason that race is a protected class is because history teaches us that lots of people have traditionally discriminated based on race. If there were thousands of years of a tradition of height-based discrimination, you can bet your ass that height would be a protected class also. -The US certainly doesn’t value ALL citizens equally. Convicted felons and sex offenders, for instance, are not equal. But they were equal until proven non-equal. So, that’s my position, and I hope you can see why I think that the religion-vs-philosophy question is tangential at best. Now let me ask you a few questions: Should congress pass a law saying “it is the official position of the United States of America that a higher power exists”? Would such a law violate the constitution? > [@](#): > > Sorry, when in Rome… Yes, they are equal under the law, but all societies have norms. Expecting them to change themselves to accomodate you is quite self-important. If you start walking around in swim fins and a propeller hat, you are equal under the law, but don’t ask me to change the regulations regarding the size of steps because they are not accomodating to your big, flappy feet. But I do think you have the right to expect them to be tolerant and accepting of your rites and mores, assuming they are not crimes by or laws. The question is… is it society as a whole which is mocking me for walking around in swim fins and a propellor hat, or is the government which is doing it? If people don’t like me, or do things differently than me, then fine, hey, that’s part of being a person, I’m not asking the government to protect me from that. What I AM asking is that the government not OFFICIALLY SANCTION AND ENCODE IN LAW such mocking/disparagement. > [@](#): > > I didn’t follow you here. (Talking about the Bob and Sue argument). So, if someone says to you “I believe that the universe was created by a 50,000-year-old mute clown on a unicycle”, that’s certainly not a belief that belongs to any known organized Religion. But is it still a religious belief? And if so, why is that a religious belief, but “I believe in a higher power, but know no more than that” NOT a religious belief? And what about “I don’t believe in a higher power, but do believe in following the teachings of Yogi Rajneesh Dippadappa, and joining with his followers every thursday evening to sing the sacred songs”? > [@](#): > > I do not think they intended that to mean that everyone had the right to be shielded from religions that were not there own. Today though, we have Christmas plays banned (goodbye Bob Cratchet), carols, and my favorite, in one school district I know of the children were prohibited from wearing red and green around the holiday. Do you think that the Founders, assuming your more right than wrong about what they believed, would have been okay with this? As I’ve said many times, those extremes are silly and wrong. > [@](#): > > I don’t want to look it up, but I recall I did say something like that. You countered with something. Then I responded with “You are right.” Why are you objectinig to my admitting fault and agreeing with your point? You know, I was wondering about that too, but I’m writing this while I’m at work and should be working, and don’t have the energy to go back and try to figure out what happened. I strongly suspect it was just a miscommunication, and if it was actually me being a jerk, I apologize. > [@](#): > > Which would be fine if that expressed the founder’s beliefs. How about this: We say the Pledge as is, and the teacher says something to the effect. “Well, now we’re going to have a moment of quiet time for each of us to think, on our own, about how they got here.” Well, given that I already disagree with the pledge, I obviously also disagree with that. And in general, that’s the kind of thing which might sound fine and neutral in isolation, but which I worry is actually kind of the equivalent of Intelligent Design, that is, if it actually were proposed in the current USA, it would almost certainly be because Christians wanted Christian things to happen in school, realized they couldn’t get them, so recouched them in seemingly non-Christian language. I wish I had more time to respond in greater depth, but these posts are already long enough as it is… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644.md?page=23)