# 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:** 10\ **Page:** 30
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/581 "2005-10-05T17:13:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > ☹ Tsk, tsk. Not that you need them, **cosmodan** , but there are better coattails. 😃 For the record, **cosmodan** , the above post was typed and sent before your most recent, which I will get to. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/582 "2005-10-05T17:16:57Z")
**Herr ambushed** : This will be my last response to you. Aside for your mistaking this for the pit, you’re limited understanding of debate and logic make this both unpleasant and unrewarding. I wouldn’t have even responded this time, but I thought I’d just correct a few of your statements for your benefit. It seems that I have hit a nerve with you and anger has been known to stifle rational thought. > [@ambushed](#): > > That is a _flagrantly_ unfair and even moronic statement! I made that argument precisely _ **BECAUSE** _ I read it in authoritative sources, that one of which I provided in detail! You refer to Jacoby as an authorative source? That alone shows you are incapable of seeing that there is another side, never mind grasping it. For your education in this vain I offer: http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long10.html Additionally, can you not see how weak and intellectually dishonest it is to make a claim like you did about the framers fighting tooth and nail over the issue and when asked for proof you simply, and lamely, offer the same argument sputtered by someone else making the same argument. What was required of you here was to either supply quotes from the constitutional convention (ideal), or the ratification debates. The first doesn’t exist. (Assuming you wouldn’t make such a claim without basis in fact, I went back and reread Madison’s notes, which I shared with you.) The latter fell to you to hunt down to support your assertion. > [@ambushed](#): > > See _Jacoby_ yourself. I’m not going to keep typing passages from her book, **especially** since you essentially (and stupidly) asserted that you would not believe any sources that agree with my position!! …How about trying to be more intellectually honest with us? Most of this I just addressed, but I will note here the last word: us. You’ve done this a few times—tried to get a crowd to rally around you. This, too, is a sign of weakness. It reminds me of the scrawny “tough” kid who is quick to pick a fight and when confronted says (pointing to his larger-sized friends behind him) “Hey, you can’t talk to US that way.” It’s also a fallacious argument. See _Argumentum ad Populum_ at http://www.virtualsalt.com/think/matfall2.htm > [@ambushed](#): > > You have _never_ even provided us with a single, unambiguous bit of evidence for your position! A _position_ doesn’t require _evidence_. It simply requires rationale, which if you reread my post in this thread you will find, with support for that rationale swhere appropriate. The fact that you do not know this says much. Scrawny tough kid: “Oh yeah, why am I right? Well I’m just saying what HE said.” (Points to bigger friend.) > [@ambushed](#): > > I agree with the other posters who have already answered that. It’s getting kinda funny, isn’t it? > [@ambushed](#): > > First, I repeat that the Universe is acausal in its basic structure, so it is relatively easy to accept that the beginning of the Universe was acausal and uncaused. I sympathize that such is impossible for the human mind to fully accept, yet quantum theory is BY FAR the most well-proved scientific fact there is. And that is almost infinitely better proved than the God hypothesis. You might want to look up the phrase “circular argument”. And I didn’t expand on the philosophical origins of the universe and first cause because, as I’ve stated earlier in the thread, 1) I don’t want to hijack it and 2) based on other threads on that topic, I realize there will be no resolution. I understand your position, I respect it (not to be confused with “you” any longer), and am happy to move on. Those last two sentences of yours speak for themselves. > [@ambushed](#): > > Bullshit. Please stop denying reality. You said – fully in context – that: “[you] would be in agreement if [you] felt “under God” promoted a specific religion, or even religion in general. … Now if we stop there, there is as of yet no hint of religion. Yes, polytheism is excluded, as is Atheism.” Do you not know what the word “context” means. It means you should have gone back and looked at what surrounded it, what came before and AFTER it. Sheeze! > [@ambushed](#): > > No, that’s: “1: relating to – OR manifesting faithful devotion to – an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.” (bolding mine) Oohhh, what do we have here? A valid point. I was reading the sentence differently, as in “(relating to or manifesting) faithful devotion to…” I grant you that your interpretation is as valid as mine. Overall, this is a moot point. Because, as I have shown you, the way I was using the word is 100% valid. In fact, all the other definitons I provided do support my use. And, immaterially, not yours. > [@ambushed](#): > > No, it comes back to YOU privately re-defining the term to mean something other than the definition that all the other debaters are using. You keep ranting about philosophy, but clearly you know nothing about it. In a philosophical debate (or a theological one, for that matter), ALL PARTIES MUST RIGIDLY USE EXACTLY THE SAME DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS THAT THE OTHERS ARE USING! You are the ONLY one using your private definition, and since EVERYONE ELSE are using a different one, reason dictates that YOU should be the one to adapt to everyone else’s usage. **Me:** “under God” is not a religious statement. **Normal Person:** That doesn’t sound right. What do you mean by religious? **Me:** I use it in the way it is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as found on [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com). Here it is: 1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 1.b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. **Normal Person:** Oh, I see, I think it can also mean refering to belief that there is a God(s), without any homage being paid. **Me:** No, I meant it in the full sense of the word. **Normal Person:** Okay, proceed with your point. > [@ambushed](#): > > I repeat (it would be so nice if you actually read my posts), that the courts have ruled that displaying a public preference for one religious viewpoint over another is a violation of the establishment clause, EVEN IF NO ACTUAL STATE RELIGION IS ESTABLISHED! How many times do we have to tell you this? I hate to admit this, but for some reason you make me laugh. First, do you mean to say that you think this debate is about _what_ a particular court has ruled on the issue and not what the ruling _should_ be? Two, while you’re on that website looking up _Argumentum ad Populum_, check out _Argumentum ad Verecundiam_. That’s it, **ambushed**. Schools out. But you do still owe me an apology, or a retraction, for accusing me of lying. You can include it with your apologies for the numerous instances of rude and uncalled-for language. I’ll be waiting with bated breath. But we are done. **Not Normal Person:** Yay!!!, I win, I win, I win. Who cares about some stupid-head asterisk." ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/583 "2005-10-05T17:54:50Z")
[Moderator Mode] Everyone calm down! Since this has degenerated into a feud over whether other posters are arguing correctly, it is probably time for several of you to walk away for a while until you can focus on the topic and not on the posters. Since both sides appear to have engaged in just a bit of disingenuity and manipulation of meanings on a few occasions, I think everyone needs to reconsider their approach. **Ambushed** , while it may be just inside the boundary of “attacking the argument, not the poster” to refer to one’s opponents’ arguments as “moronic,” you’re really stepping on the line to refer to them as “assholish.” **magellan01** , putting words in one’s opponents mouth (keyboard), even when thinly disguised as “not normal poster” looks more like a parting personal shot than an argument. [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/584 "2005-10-05T18:59:55Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > For the record, **cosmodan** , the above post was typed and sent before your most recent, which I will get to. For the record…it’s cosmos…with a second S, not cosmo. Common error and no biggie. I’m just saying. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/585 "2005-10-05T22:36:49Z")
**Cosmosdan** , sorry about the omitted “s”. I’ll include an extra one in the future to make up for it. 😃 > [@cosmosdan](#): > > …Words can have various shades of meaning but in honest debate it isn’t reasonable to choose the most obscure meaning, or to just make up a new one and claim it to be valid. We’re not discussing just what you decided it means but what the words mean to the general public since both the constitution and pledge effects them. I think you’ll see that I addressed this in a reply that got posted around the same time yours did. I maintain—stubbornly, if you so desire—that saying one believes in (a) God, is not necesarily a religious statement. And I am NOT trying to allude to some obscure meaning of “religion” as can be seen in the definitions I supplied from American Heritage. Here are some others. You’ll see that I attempted to find the most reputable sources. And I don’t want to cull and present what I think fits my point. I’ll let you be the judge. Cambridge http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=religion\*1+0&dict=A Merriam-Webster http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion Oxford http://www.askoxford.com/concise\_oed/religion?view=uk Another American Heritage definition http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/R0140600.html Definition from Columbia Encylopedia http://www.bartleby.com/65/re/religion.html I’m trying to use the word precisely as they define it. Others would insist that I not, and prefer that I use it to mean merely a “belief in God”, requiring nothing else. Tell me, why must I do that? I feel like I’m in Superman’s Bizzaro World. Additionally, I’ve heard many times, I think even on these boards, an exchange similar to this: Bob: Are you religious? Joe: No. But I’m spiritual. Bob: What does that mean? Do you believe in God? Joe: Well not in the Christian God as the father of Jesus. But I believe that there is…something…much greater than us that has a hand in things. That is just one more example to the others I’ve offered and to which you alluded to here: > [@cosmosdan](#): > > In a previous post you stated that someone could believe and never act on that belief. I think that’s true. You stated in that such a person would not be considered religious. Again I agree. _However_ as it relates specificly to this thread, when said person is asked “Do you believe in God?” and answers “Yes I do” That question and the answer are religious in nature. In a similar way the term “under God” does not impose any specific action or belief on anyone, but it is a religious term by any fair and reasonable defeinition intended to be understood by others. I disagree. I believe in God and I am not religious. When you say the question and the answer are religious in nature you’re laying the foundation for a circular argument. Or preventing the debate. The debate is, is a “yes” answer to the queston “Is there a God” inherently or necessarily religious? If the answer is “yes”, there is no debate. But the answer is “no”, as you’ve admitted. If you would like to say that many people equate a belief in God with the practice of some religion, I will agree. But my point is that that is fallacious. Why is that important? Because that fallacious reasoning is then being used to decide other issues. I think you agree that “Creator” can mean many different things to many different people. So why not interpret it in the least secular way instead of the most? As has been pointed out by many in this thread, Jefferson chose to omit any mention specific to the _Christian God_ (father of Jesus, head of the Trinity, etc.). But, conversely, he did choose, just as intentionally, to use other terms: “CREATOR…Nature’s GOD…Supreme Judge of the World…Protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE”. I agree that this was done in order to not have their appeal be religious in nature and to be embracing of other religions. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > As with the word atheism, we discussed the difference beween soft and hard. Hard Atheism can be accuratly described as a belief but in general and most common is the “lack of belief” definition. Concerning the word religion, nobody is trying to force any definition on you, but merely point out that in a public forum you might want to consider the definition understood by let’s say 95% of the english speaking world. I’ve addressed this above. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I previously stated that it does not promote a _specific_ religion and I stand by that. If the question is does it promote a religious idea or concept then the answer has to be yes. The question earlier was does the 1st amendment prohibit the government from expressing a non specific but religious concept? I don’t think the 1st amendment by itself does that, but if the courts have interpreted it since then to mean that {I asked for specific cases, did I ever get that?} then that is a pretty dam valid interpretation and sets legal prescedent for future cases. As I’ve mentioned, I am not arguing what the courts have or have not decided. Their decisions are law. Period. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought the purpose of the debate is to present what one thought the courts _should_ do. I’d also point out that the courts are not infallible. The fact that they are overturned, and have overturned themselves, is proof of that. I mean the people on them are not Gods.😃 > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I can’t seem to understand how you are defining it. Are you saying the term religion only relates to specifc religion? Are you saying religion requires an overt act in support of religious belief and “under god” does not? PLaceing UG officially in the pledge is an overt act by the government. I reread your last few posts and I don’t understand. You posted definitions from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com). I fail to see how any of them support your position. You stated UG does not promote specific religion {agreed} or religion in general. {??} It doesn’t promote organized religion or any structured belief set. Does it promote a religious concept or idea? Certainly. Is belief in God philosophical? Yes. Can it be strictly philosophical and not religious in content? I doubt it. That last point is incisive. If someone tells you he believes in God and nothing else, any religious beliefs you assign to him is pure conjecture. As with myself, I believe in God, but a practice no religion. If you look at the definitions I’ve linked to you’ll see that religion, as I’ve been using it, requires more than just a belief in God. Whether it be action, worship, reverence, etc. You’ll see that they all say somehting like “…belief in God AND…” (emphasis mine). **Cosmosdan** , thanks for your serious analysis and thoughtful questions. We might never see eye-to-eye on this particular issue, but I hope that I make as much of an attempt as you have to understand someone’s seemingly hairbrained position in the future. And treat them as fairly. ---
**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:** [October 6, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/586 "2005-10-06T00:19:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I disagree. I believe in God and I am not religious. When you say the question and the answer are religious in nature you’re laying the foundation for a circular argument. Or preventing the debate. The debate is, is a “yes” answer to the question “Is there a God” inherently or necessarily religious? If the answer is “yes”, there is no debate. But the answer is “no”, as you’ve admitted. If you would like to say that many people equate a belief in God with the practice of some religion, I will agree. But my point is that that is fallacious. > …As with myself, I believe in God, but practice no religion. > If you look at the definitions I’ve linked to you’ll see that religion, as I’ve been using it, requires more than just a belief in God. Whether it be action, worship, reverence, etc. You’ll see that they all say something like “…belief in God AND…” (emphasis mine). The problem here is the same one that developed with the definition of atheism. Atheists argued that the dictionary definition of atheism was not adequate. I think the definition of religion is too narrow. Does the definition require more than just a belief, or simply assume that something more is required? Maybe the definition is simply out of date? > [@](#): > > If someone tells you he believes in God and nothing else, any religious beliefs you assign to him is pure conjecture. I would describe that person as follows Theist / {Type=} undetermined (since I don’t know) I would describe magellan01 as Theist / {Type=} iconoclast (as in nonconformist/individualist) I am Theist / {Type=} iconoclast / {Subtype=} prehistoric (my “religion” is a personal attempt to recreate the religion of early man (ie Clan of the Cave Bear) Magellan01, you and I get to check the _other_ box on all the forms. ---
**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:** [October 6, 2005, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/587 "2005-10-06T00:51:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think you agree that “Creator” can mean many different things to many different people. So why not interpret it in the least secular way instead of the most? As has been pointed out by many in this thread, Jefferson chose to omit any mention specific to the _Christian God_ (father of Jesus, head of the Trinity, etc.). But, conversely, he did choose, just as intentionally, to use other terms: “CREATOR…Nature’s GOD…Supreme Judge of the World…Protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE”. I agree that this was done in order to not have their appeal be religious in nature and to be embracing of other religions. Are these not references to the “god” of the enlightenment? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/588 "2005-10-06T02:11:55Z")
**magellan01** For what ever reason your links didn’t work but I do appreciate the effort. I looked up quite a few definitions on my own and I believe I understand the crux of your arguement. I can agree that the term religion or religious in general means something more than simple belief. I agree that when someone expresses belief in a deity that tells you very little about their belief system, meaning, what moves their day to day ethical and moral decisions. I have pretty serious spiritual beliefs and if someone asked me if I was religious my reaction is “no, not in any traditional sense of the word” Yet if asked if my beliefs were religious in nature I would answer yes since my beliefs involve the existance of a higher power and reincarnation. Regarding Under God in the pledge. Is that promoting religion _in general_? Even though I understand your point I still disagree in this case. There is the overt act of putting UG in the pledge by the government. Under the direct pressure and influence by a more specific belief wouldn’t you say? I would have to call that the promotion of a religious concept. Also by expecting children and adult citizens to recite this addition to the original pledge it is eliciting a religious concept from our citizens. Thats just concerning the definition. I do agree that the intent of the founders is not so clear. My original position was that the 1st amendment was intended to prevent any specific religion from becoming the official religion of the nation, and a general non specific reference to God wasn’t much different than the references in the DOI. That remains somewhat true but amended by some pretty strong arguements presented here. You are right, the decisions of judges doesn’t make it right, just the law. Your opinion is still valid but consistant judgements by a series of judges is a pretty valid arguent as well. IMHO, it seems best to honor the beliefs of all citizens, for the government to not be the sponsor of statements that are even generally religious. As defender of religious freedom the government does have the responsibility to examine and define the rights of states, cities and towns. If any child is ridiculed or harassed in school for choosing not to include UG then the school should take swift action to show that behavior is unacceptable. If a child is ridiculed for praying openly the same thing should happen. Our culture and society is changing and we must expect to change with it. We all have a belief system. Some may be heavily influenced by their spiritual beliefs and others by personal philosophies. Either way what matters is the moral and ethical choices made by those individuals. I tend to think thats should be the approach of the government. Defend the right of individuals to choose how they establish their belief system but address only the moral and ethical choices resulting from those choices. Thanks for taking the time to explain to me. It certainly leaves a lot of other tthings up for discussion. Does a town have the right to put up a nativity scene around Christmas time? Do areas that tend to be heavily Muslim or something other than Christian then have the right to openly and publically display their beliefs and traditions? I hope it leads to more knowledge about other beliefs and traditions rather than more animosity. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/589 "2006-01-03T05:31:57Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > The Founders can be made to seem violently anti-religious, if you carefully pick the right quotes. They can be made to look extremely devout by using the same trick. Cherry picking. What they were fully against was the idea of a State religion. They were against the sort of repression and persecutions that happened in Europe due to the State or King telling people what their religion (or lack of it) will be. It is entirely possible and likely that none of them cared what church you go to, or if you go to church. I can support that from personal experience. George Washington was an Anglican before the war and an Episcopalian from 1784 on, when the church established itself as a national church separate from the Church of England. He was a vestryman, did not receive communion often if at all. His personal faith appears to have been that of the late 18th century Anglican layman – sincere but not “God-intoxicated” and leaving room for Reason as a proper way to the understanding of God. But I’ve seen careful quotations from writings by or about him used to suggest that he was at best an agnostic or that he was a Schaefferian fundamentalist – neither of which proves to be true when you read what little the man actually said about his beliefs. _Cuius regio, eius religio_ was a living memory to many of the FF; the Toleration, Testm and Occasional Conformity Acts were in place in the country whose rule they had just thrown off. They most emphatically wanted, as men of the Enlightenment, for liberty of conscience in the selection of what if any belief an American might espouse. Like many another hard-won liberty, it seems that today’s “conservatives” are raring to throw that freedom away. And they have the audacity to speak of “values”? ---
**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:** [January 3, 2006, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644/590 "2006-01-03T06:03:29Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I can support that from personal experience. George Washington was an Anglican before the war and an Episcopalian from 1784 on, when the church established itself as a national church separate from the Church of England. He was a vestryman, did not receive communion often if at all. His personal faith appears to have been that of the late 18th century Anglican layman – sincere but not “God-intoxicated” and leaving room for Reason as a proper way to the understanding of God. But I’ve seen careful quotations from writings by or about him used to suggest that he was at best an agnostic or that he was a Schaefferian fundamentalist – neither of which proves to be true when you read what little the man actually said about his beliefs. > > _Cuius regio, eius religio_ was a living memory to many of the FF; the Toleration, Testm and Occasional Conformity Acts were in place in the country whose rule they had just thrown off. They most emphatically wanted, as men of the Enlightenment, for liberty of conscience in the selection of what if any belief an American might espouse. > > Like many another hard-won liberty, it seems that today’s “conservatives” are raring to throw that freedom away. And they have the audacity to speak of “values”? Wow. You resurrected a 3 month old thread in order to post that? Can you name some of “today’s ‘conservatives’” who want to throw away the liberty of conscience in the selction of what if any belief an American might expouse? Reasonable people can disagree about how much religion should be allowed in the public sphere. That doesn’t mean that those who think more should be allowed want to stifle other views. Perhaps you meant a few extremists on the right, but surely not “today’s ‘conservatives’” as a group. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reciting-pledge-of-allegiance-in-public-schools-ruled-unconstitutional-discuss/321644.md?page=29)