# 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:** 25
**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 27, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/481 "2005-09-27T17:29:44Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > A few decades later, there’s been a spike in the minigolfer birth rate, and there are now more minigolfers than bowlers. The minigolfers, still bitter about the above debacle, call a town meeting, and in this town meeting, they propose that all schools shall officially have teacher-led minigolf as the only PE activity for all schoolchildren. But it won’t be MANDATORY. Children not wishing to participate will be able to sit quietly on the sidelines and not play. The minigolfers win this vote and the law is passed. > > Is this fair or unfair? Judging from past experience, I believe that cosmosdan would agree that such a situation would be unfair. However, should you point out that the situation is just what happened to non-Christians, then his eyes will roll. “Sure, so maybe you CLAIM that it feels bad to sit by the sidelines, and I know who bad my daughter felt when the exact same thing happened, but it is just not that way when it comes to religion.” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/482 "2005-09-27T17:40:36Z")
**Scott** , you’re getting way too emotionally involved, here. Now you are making up replies for other posters who are active and quite capable of responding, themselves. I suggest you cool it. ---
**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 27, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/483 "2005-09-27T17:45:20Z")
Say what? What is wrong with pararphrasing people? I- Ah, nevermind. While I review of his past posts does show this to be accurate, > [@cosmosdan](#): > > The arguement that some have presented is that the term “under God” puts an undue burdon on students with different beliefs or their parents who don’t wish them to be exposed to that minute degree to the beliefs of others. I don’t agree. I guess I will indeed “cool down” ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/484 "2005-09-27T18:39:03Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > :dubious: > > So, which is it: > > “No one can prove or disprove God” > > or > > “God can not be proved” is “false”? It is either one or both depending on the situation. God is, and always has been personal. If you seek to prove God’s existence through science you will fail. If you seek to prove God individually you can be successful. The relationship between God and man is personal. I know He exists because I have experience Him. But I can’t prove that to others. There are millions like me who have experienced God. You don’t need to die to experience God. Some experience Him when relaxed and contemplative, others during severe stress. There is no certain rule to this. But to say God doesn’t exist is not true. This has nothing to do with religion or any other kind of organization. I know you will want to say we didn’t really experience God. But you are wrong, and I can’t prove you wrong. The closest we come to proof is what researchers like Dr. Wharton have to say about the experiences. > [@](#): > > Dr. Tom Wharton: > “I have trouble believing that the hallucinations of a dying brain can create an experience as life-changing as some that I’ve heard,” Wharton said, referring to the skeptic’s view that neurophysiological processes are responsible for the phenomena. > > “What impresses me is that the people who have experienced these things seem to have validity, a meaning to their lives, a better outlook,” he said. “They are calmer, more positive, more convinced of their purpose. They are comforted and can comfort others.” ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/485 "2005-09-27T18:41:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t think it is helpful to the debate to cite someone’s pitting—especially when you do so with the implication that she is not aware of it. I think your attempt to just throw crap at **Lekatt** is cheap and disengenuous. I’m surprised you would do that. Just because someone started a pit claiming someone—anyone—to be an idiot doesn’t necessarily make it so. The fact that **Lekatt** may hold a bunch of opinions that you or I might not agree with does not make his/her opinion automatically invalid. If his/her points are so unsound, it should be failrly easy for you to reveal that fact by attacking them on their merits. It would also make for a better debate thread. Thank you for posting here. Yes, I agree with everything you say. ---
**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 27, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/486 "2005-09-27T20:59:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If his/her points are so unsound, it should be failrly easy for you to reveal that fact by attacking them on their merits. It would also make for a better debate thread. Well I think it would be fairly easy to disprove the claims being made, save for the fact that every bit of experience I have shows me that lekatt will ignore every point, and go on to make the thread all about him. Thus, you can expect me not to reply to him in the future. Anyway, going back to the subject, I when I was a child, I felt like I was not part of society ever year around Christmas. (Yes, cosmosdan, I really **do** expect you to believe that it was that bad.) The fact that my school had Christmas activities only made it worse. Now, had the school based reinforcement of Christianity been eliminated, I would still have felt bad, since the rest of society would still enforce the idea that “Oh, of course **everyone** is Christian. What else is there?” However, it would have been a different easier to bear kind of feeling. Since popular society was expressing it, there would be nothing I can do about it. Freedom of speech, and all that. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/487 "2005-09-27T22:23:42Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > I’m afraid you are terribly, woefully mistaken. The Founders created this country not under Christian or even theistic ideals or beliefs (even if you wish to insist that most founders were Christians), but rather as a 100% direct adoption of the philosophy and ideals of the (non-theistic) Enlightenment. The Deist “God” of the Enlightenment was not a religious symbol or even really a deity, per se. It was instead a purely abstract “first cause” or “creator” that no longer had any interaction with the universe nor even posessed any existential attributes. > > It is impossible to understand or even speak credibly about the Founders without understanding the full effect of the Enlightenment on them, the non-theistic nature of the Enlightenment, and that we were founded quite intentionally not as a Christian or theistic state but rather as the first Enlightenment state. I think it is you who are terribly, woefully mistaken. The Enlightment no doubt played a large role in the philosophy which birthed the nation. But to say that they intended the new nation to be a purely rationalistic, non-theistic state is pure fantasy. If you’d like to rebut this, it might be helpful if we started with what you mean by Deism, or what you think it meant to the Founders. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/488 "2005-09-27T23:15:29Z")
**Diogenes** , Sorry for the trady reply… > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Why does that have to be answered? It is not necessary to have to answer the question of how the universe came to exist in order to lack a belief that it was created by a god. I was using that question because it seems to be at the foundation for all theistic views. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Atheists have no belief in GODS. Scientific theories are not religious beliefs and have no reference to theistic or atheistic belief one way or the other. It might help my understanding if you could answer this? Is Atheism primarily a belief system that thinks the world can be fully understood (eventually) and because it can, there is no use for God. Or do they start with the opinion that there is no God, so we will (eventually) be able to understand the world? In other words, what came/comes first: the belief that there is no Creator? Or the rationalistic look at the world? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > This is an overly simplistic characterization of the atheist position. Atheists have no positoive beliefs that gods did it, but they don’t necessarily have a positive belief that they didn’t. It’s a logical default assumption in the lack of a shred of a evidence, just like it’s a logical default to assume that goblins don’t exist. That doesn’y mean that a lack of belief in goblins is a “religious” belief. Your description sounds more like agnosticism. Where would you draw the line between the two? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > When the government says that our country is “under God,” then the government is saying that one god exists and that all otrher paradigms are false. The government has no right to say that. Why not? Monotheism is at the foundation of our country. Again, I refer to the D of I.) If you and others sharing a certain belief set started a country tomorrow, you cbuild it upon whatever philosphical pillars you’d like. Now, you may think the Founder’s idea a poor one and want to change how we address things today, but that doesn’t change history. And since monotheism is at this country’s foundation, I think it is is completely proper to have us reminded of that fact. I think it is also helpful. I’m not religious in the least, but I do think it healthy for us to realize that there is something more powerful than us. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > IT wouldn’t change the actual Constitution one bit, so it wouldn’t change my mind whatsoever. No, but it might shed light on what scope they intended the First Amendment to have. ---
**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 27, 2005, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/489 "2005-09-27T23:41:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It might help my understanding if you could answer this? Is Atheism primarily a belief system that thinks the world can be fully understood (eventually) and because it can, there is no use for God. Or do they start with the opinion that there is no God, so we will (eventually) be able to understand the world? Primarily, it is atheism. Two words. A, without. Theism, meaning any kind of god belief. It is not a opinion, but a lack of an interest. Sure, some atheists may have an explination of how the universe began, while other s don’t see the need for such an explination. However, there is no primary belief set or starting place. Personally, I started out not because of a need to explain how to understand the word, but instead with disgust at God’s senseless slughter of innocent babes, during the flood. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/490 "2005-09-28T00:49:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > **Diogenes** , It might help my understanding if you could answer this? Is Atheism primarily a belief system that thinks the world can be fully understood (eventually) and because it can, there is no use for God. Or do they start with the opinion that there is no God, so we will (eventually) be able to understand the world? > > In other words, what came/comes first: the belief that there is no Creator? Or the rationalistic look at the world? I was raised as an Episcopalian. The best way I can describe it is to think of Santa Claus. As a child you believe without thinking too much about it. As you get older you start to rationalize how he gets down the chimney, can be in more than one store at once, visits all those children, etc. At some point you realize that there is an easier explanation: your parents do it all. Religion was like that for me. At some point I realized that believing in God did not make things any simpler. The world just made more sense without God. To me atheism isn’t a “belief system” any more than there is a “belief system” for someone who doesn’t believe in Santa Claus. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/491 "2005-09-28T03:07:43Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Bluntly, no. Analogies are SUPPOSED to be somewhat extreme, in that they are designed to boil a complex issue down to a particular subissue, in this case whether it is “fair” for UG to still be in the pledge. And, for goodness sake, what’s extreme about a town with Yankees fans and Mets fans? You want extreme, I’ll propose an analogy involving Christians killing and eating Atheist babies. THAT is extreme. We’re getting into some unessecary tangents here. I thought your offered analogy was extreme becuase of > [@](#): > > they get “Yankees Rule! Mets Suck!” added to the town song. Something closer might be “Yankees are great” This doesn’t say Met’s Suck. It doesn’t say only the Yankees can be great. It doesn’t say Yankees are the greatest. It says that most of the people in town think that Yankees are great. Which happens to be true. For those Met’s fans who truly don’t believe that Yankees are great, they can just not say it. Is \*that \* fair? > [@](#): > > It’s a bit hard to keep track of who’s said what in a thread this long and active, but I believe you’ve expressed great concern that schoolkids still be allowed to say “under God” if you want to. In other words (unless you can show me a different interpretation), you’re afraid that the mean old atheists, not satisfied with having removed “under God” from it’s rightly sanctified place in the pledge, are next going to go and start passing laws forbidding people from choosing to express their religious faith. Which seems both somewhat extreme and totally unjustified. It is hard to keep track in this thread. Some posts are very long and it’s getting harder to go back and look up previous posts. I am concerned but not for the reasons you assumed. As we have agreed, it is tricky sometimes to find the balance beween seperation of church and state and defending peoples freedom of religion. My concern is not that mean ole atheists will push federal laws against religion. I’m concerned is that these rights will suffer from a lack of defense. I’m concerned that it will become politically incorrect to allow a religious expression. My hope is that now if an atheist is punished or assaulted for expressing their lack of belief that some Christian who gets it would rush to that persons defense rather than shrug and say “It’s not my problem” or worse yet, “Serves him right” I know that doesn’t always happen. I also hope that atheist would be as determined in defending the religious freedoms of all believers. > [@](#): > > OK, let me make my analogy better. There’s a town. Some of the people in the town like bowling. Some of the people in the town like minigolf. There’s a bowling alley and a mini golf course. Some go to one. Some go to the other. It’s all good. Now suddenly a new lot becomes available for development. Two different companies put in bids for what to erect there. One proposes an Awesome New Bowling Alley. One proposes an Awesome New Mini Golf Course. The town holds a meeting to vote what to put there. The bowlers outnumber the minigolfers 55% to 45%, so they carry the vote. A bowling alley is erected. > > Is this fair or unfair? I’m not sure these analogies are at all helpful but I’ll give it a shot. In this case , fair. > [@](#): > > A few decades later, there’s been a spike in the minigolfer birth rate, and there are now more minigolfers than bowlers. The minigolfers, still bitter about the above debacle, call a town meeting, and in this town meeting, they propose that all schools shall officially have teacher-led minigolf as the only PE activity for all schoolchildren. But it won’t be MANDATORY. Children not wishing to participate will be able to sit quietly on the sidelines and not play. The minigolfers win this vote and the law is passed. > > Is this fair or unfair? Gee that _seems_ unfair. Perhaps they could modify the PE program so that even though minigolf was the main focus of the program, those who chose not to participate were allowed to play any sport they chose. Would _that_ be fair? > [@](#): > > In both cases, it’s just majority rule. But there’s a difference betweeen majority rule which decides a public policy issue that needs to be decided, and majority rule which enforces the beliefs/actions of the majority, in an officially societally mandated way, onto the minority. There is a difference, which is why, as I understand it, neither the words, “under God” or the pledge are mandatory. None of your analogies have been representative of the real discussion. Perhaps we can abandon them. > [@](#): > > It’s called being a decent human being and an American. It is my responsibility as an American to defend the rights of all Americans. 50 years from now, if Atheists are a majority, and someone proposes adding “and there is no God” to the pledge, I will vote against it. Now you’re talking. Seriously. The fact is that many sub groups do not defend the rights of groups they consider to be “not one of us” It’s a responsibility we too often shirk. I’m glad to hear you’re someone who understands and takes it seriously. > [@](#): > > What’s your point? Yes, there’s gray area. Well my point was that you contradicted yourself within the same post. > [@](#): > > If everyone agreed with precisely where the separation of church and state lines should be drawn, this would be a short and simple debate. But there’s ambiguity now. Demonstrating that removing UG would lead to a situation in which there’s ambiguity is hardly an argument against doing so. I agree. It wasn’t presented as such. > [@](#): > > Good question. We could both spend all day coming up with hypothetical situations that blur the lines. I claim that UG-in-the-pledge is NOT such a situation. Again, what’s your point? The point is exactly that where the lines are drawn are not clear. IMO, The first amendment prohibits the federal government from naming any specific religion as the official religion of this nation, period. Beyond that where the lines are drawn will probably shift based on the mood of the country. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/492 "2005-09-28T03:11:56Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I was raised as an Episcopalian. The best way I can describe it is to think of Santa Claus. As a child you believe without thinking too much about it. As you get older you start to rationalize how he gets down the chimney, can be in more than one store at once, visits all those children, etc. At some point you realize that there is an easier explanation: your parents do it all. > > Religion was like that for me. At some point I realized that believing in God did not make things any simpler. The world just made more sense without God. > > To me atheism isn’t a “belief system” any more than there is a “belief system” for someone who doesn’t believe in Santa Claus. Ahhhh, now thats a simple and easy to understand analogy. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/493 "2005-09-28T04:08:34Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Anyway, going back to the subject, I when I was a child, I felt like I was not part of society ever year around Christmas. (Yes, cosmosdan, I really **do** expect you to believe that it was that bad.) The fact that my school had Christmas activities only made it worse. Now, had the school based reinforcement of Christianity been eliminated, I would still have felt bad, since the rest of society would still enforce the idea that “Oh, of course **everyone** is Christian. What else is there?” > > However, it would have been a different easier to bear kind of feeling. Since popular society was expressing it, there would be nothing I can do about it. Freedom of speech, and all that. **Scott** I didn’t intend to minimize anyone’s experience. When I used the word minute I was refering only to the pledge and the very general and brief reference to a belief someone doesn’t agree with. ---
**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 28, 2005, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/494 "2005-09-28T04:23:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > **Diogenes** , Sorry for the trady reply… > > I was using that question because it seems to be at the foundation for all theistic views. It may be but my point was that atheists do not lack for _non_theistic explanations of how the universe began. > [@](#): > > It might help my understanding if you could answer this? Is Atheism primarily a belief system that thinks the world can be fully understood (eventually) and because it can, there is no use for God. Or do they start with the opinion that there is no God, so we will (eventually) be able to understand the world? > > In other words, what came/comes first: the belief that there is no Creator? Or the rationalistic look at the world? Atheism isn’t a belief system, it’s just a lack of one belief. Every atheist is different, For me, the default is that to assume that things have natural explanations until proven otherwise. I make no assumption that the universe will necessarily ever be fully understood, but I have never seen any reason to believe that anything in it requires a supernatural explanation. > [@](#): > > Your description sounds more like agnosticism. Where would you draw the line between the two? Technically, agnosticism is the belief that humans _cannot know_ whether God exists. It is distinguished from weak atheism in that agnosticism is really only an epistemic position, rather than an actual statement of personal belief. It is a position on what it is possible to know rather than a belief about what is true. Technically, one can be an agnostic and still believe in God…or not. Popularly speaking, though, agnosticism gets used synonomously with weak atheism. So much so that I tend to define myself as agnostic rather than atheist because people perceive the latter as conveying an active belief that God does not exist and the former as a more neutral or undecided position. I would call myself agnostic in both the technical sense and “weak atheist” sense. > [@](#): > > Why not? Monotheism is at the foundation of our country. Again, I refer to the D of I.) If you and others sharing a certain belief set started a country tomorrow, you cbuild it upon whatever philosphical pillars you’d like. Now, you may think the Founder’s idea a poor one and want to change how we address things today, but that doesn’t change history. > > And since monotheism is at this country’s foundation, I think it is is completely proper to have us reminded of that fact. I think it is also helpful. I’m not religious in the least, but I do think it healthy for us to realize that there is something more powerful than us. The Declaration of Independence was written before the Unired States existed and is not the basis for US law. It is not a legal or authoritative document. The basis for US law is the Constitution and the Constitution (quite deliberately) makes no mention of God. Furthermore, Jefferson’s conception of a “Creator” was not the personal God that most people would associate with monotheism. Jefferson (like most of the other founders) was a Deist, not a “theist” in a religious sense. He did not believe that the creator intervened in the universe or in human affairs. > [@](#): > > No, but it might shed light on what scope they intended the First Amendment to have. They explicitly said in other writings that they intended to create a “wall” between government and religion. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/495 "2005-09-28T04:29:18Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > In rereading my statement I understand how you got that impression. That was not my intended meaning and I should have chosen my wording more carefully. Thank you. You are a most gracious debater. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/496 "2005-09-28T05:55:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > From your opening line you seem to imply that these as-of-yet-unidentified “actions” enjoy the same protection as those enumerated. They may or may not. If one of them is brought to the fore it may then be deemed a “right” and having be so delared, be protected. Until then, a particular ‘action’ does not enjoy the same protection as a “right”. You are missing the point. You stated as if a fact that there are no rights other than those explicitly declared in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You said: > [@magellan01](#): > > If a particular right is not covered in the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) it enjoys no such protection. What I said in reply is that we **know** there are additional rights not enumerated: that’s what the Ninth says. We **KNOW** this, even though one cannot state with certainty what those rights are. > [@magellan01](#): > > Like the right of a majority to decide to encourage children to recite a Pledge that pays homage to the Founding of this country? Didn’t you just say that there are no rights not enumerated in the Constitution/Bill of Rights? Didn’t you just contradict yourself? In any case, You know and I know that that is no right. It is simple power. Furthermore, the majority does and did not have the right to add the patently religious phrase “under God” to such a Pledge, since it is a violation of the Establishment Clause. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/497 "2005-09-28T06:09:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think it is you who are terribly, woefully mistaken. The Enlightment no doubt played a large role in the philosophy which birthed the nation. But to say that they intended the new nation to be a purely rationalistic, non-theistic state is pure fantasy. That’s an absurd assertion, and doesn’t accurately portray my views as stated. You erected a strawman. The fact is the Enlightenment played such a vast and vital role in the origin of the Founders and the Founding that one can cite an Enlightenment source for **EVERY** fundmanental ideal of our Nation. Hell, the Founders even took the very _structure_ of our government almost word-for-word from Enlightenment philosophers! I once took a course in The Enlightenment, and we students discovered that every single fundamental statement of our Founding documents and principles can be directly traced back there. Every one. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/498 "2005-09-28T06:47:00Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I was raised as an Episcopalian. The best way I can describe it is to think of Santa Claus. As a child you believe without thinking too much about it. As you get older you start to rationalize how he gets down the chimney, can be in more than one store at once, visits all those children, etc. At some point you realize that there is an easier explanation: your parents do it all. So I take it you have an explanation for the first cause of all things that is not God. I don’t want to hijack the thread, but in the end that’s what it comes down to, doesn’t it. You may have an explanation that makes sense to you, I haven’t found one yet. I’ve thought about it a lot, and have concluded (for myself) that there is, and must be, a Creator. That said, I enjoyed your post. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/499 "2005-09-28T07:17:01Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The Declaration of Independence was written before the Unired States existed and is not the basis for US law. It is not a legal or authoritative document. The basis for US law is the Constitution and the Constitution (quite deliberately) makes no mention of God. The D of I preceded the nation only in that it created the nation. The Founders believed that the document itself imbued the US with sovereignty, including the ability to declare war and craft peace. The D of I is not a document that states our laws, but it is an authoritative document. It formally states the philosphical underpinnings that the country was formed upon. The Constitution does not mention God because it was a _practical_ document. Even it’s preamble is practical and to the point: “We the People of the United States, in Order to…” gets right to it. Additionally, if one is unsure as to what a passage in the Constitution means, it is one of the documents he or she can look to to possibly find clarification. I’d say it should be the first place we look, for two reasons. First, it is a philosophical document (the first half), which is most likely to reveal intent. Second, it is not the words of one man. While Jefferson may have been it’s author, all the rest agreed with the words, which we can see by their signatures. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Furthermore, Jefferson’s conception of a “Creator” was not the personal God that most people would associate with monotheism. Agreed. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Jefferson (like most of the other founders) was a Deist, not a “theist” in a religious sense. He did not believe that the creator intervened in the universe or in human affairs. Please define how you are using the terms Deists and Theist. And is that the same meaning you think the founders would have ascribed to the terms at the time? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > They explicitly said in other writings that they intended to create a “wall” between government and religion. I honestly can’t understand how anyone can look at body of the Founders writings and conclude, that **on balance** , that they were not mainly Christians. Or, at the very least, that to a man they believed in a God, Creator, Supreme Being, etc. As I’ve noted earlier in one of my posts in this thread, many of the quotes given to prove hostility to religion are often taken out of context. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/500 "2005-09-28T07:32:19Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > You are missing the point. You stated as if a fact that there are no rights other than those explicitly declared in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights… I said “…no such protection”. I was merely drawing a distinction between those rights enumerated and others. [QUOTE=ambushed] Didn’t you just say that there are no rights not enumerated in the Constitution/Bill of Rights? Didn’t you just contradict yourself? I was employing a little sarcasm. You said: > [@ambushed](#): > > That’s highly debatable, if not outright false. The Ninth Amendment, even though it has not been used by the courts, clearly represents a very strong desire on the part of the drafters to make plain that there ARE other rights enjoyed by the People that are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Then, I replied: > [@magellan01](#): > > Like the right of a majority to decide to encourage children to recite a Pledge that pays homage to the Founding of this country? Get it? 😃 > [@ambushed](#): > > Furthermore, the majority does and did not have the right to add the patently religious phrase “under God” to such a Pledge, since it is a violation of the Establishment Clause. That is what the debate is. And the answer depends on 1) How you interpret the Establishment Clause and 2) whether you think “under God” refers exclusively to a particular religion. I’ve explained my position in depth earlier in this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644.md?page=26)