I vote we just dump the fucking Pledge altogether.
That can’t be true. SaintCad has already established that no one cares who says or does not say anything.
Of course it is. No teacher should be allowed to tell the class what religion a student is, or if the student is an atheist. Such a teacher should be disciplined and most likely would be disciplined. Unless, of course, you can show us an example of when such a situation actually happend. Can you?
Another strawman. No one is arguing that the current situation is free of problems. What we are arguing is that it’s not the role of the court to create a problem-free environment. It’s common practice for the jocks to pick on the non-jocks, but that doesn’t mean the court should eliminate sports programs.
Well, frankly, that’s your problem and something you need to deal with. I don’t agree with the pledge either. As I’ve said many times, I’m an atheist. But my agree with or not agreeing with the pledge is completely beside the point in terms of deciding whether it (or it’s recitation) is constituional or not. Your entire argument is about whether this is good public policy or not. I agree with your 100% that it’s NOT good public policy. But it’s not the role of the court to determine public policy as long as that policy is in accordance w/ the consitution.
Tom: Is there some reason you do not include the poster’s name in your quotes? It’s really hard to follow the line of argument when the rest of us can’t tell whom you are responding to.
So you’ve resorted to the Red Herring method of fallacy? Not very creative. Even the hyperbole (I said most of my students, not “no one”) is not very original.
Others were pointing out their experiences in their own classes as students and you’ll notice I didn’t call them out. However, three posters stated unequivocally how students today react to the Pledge. I pointed out what my students do and simply asked if you three were teachers. You answered no and that you were basing your statements not on personal experience but the experience of others. I will give you credit, at least you answered - I’m still waiting for the other two to respond as to whether or not they teach.
Amen! Ooops, I mean Good Job!
I think of it as a gesture, and tradition, and rather silly. How many of us mouthed the words (wrong words) in grade school, with no idea what it said.
I pledge a regents to the flag of the United States of America, and to the public for which it stands, one nation invisible…
Except that the constitutionality and whether it’s good public policy are inextricably linked for this issue, as I understand it. The only reason it’s unconstitutional is beacuse, while it clearly invovles a law respecting an estabilshment of religion, in falls under the umbrella of “ceremonial deism”, aka, in doesn’t matter because it’s not a big deal. So arguing that it IS a big deal, even in a relatively non-constitutional sense, is the same as arguing that it’s not constitutional.
I think.
Really? My initial point was probably stated too broadly, (although, as I have already noted, I am addressing the broader issues of all religious entabglement, not just the PoA recitation), but I have clarified that with the explicit note that responses may vary.
On the other hand, catsix made no declaration that the situation was universal, she simply indicated how the pressure would be brought in those cases where it would be employed. Der Trihs was speaking from personal experience.
I have seen no recognition on your part that your experience may not be universal.
:rolleyes: Preventing people from harming/coercing/harassing/exploiting one another is the sole justification for the legal system’s existence. Yes, the courts are supposed to keep Student A from harassing Student B ( assuming no lesser authority deals with it first ), so that Student B will not feel he has no option but to pick up a gun and deal with the problem himself.
Your defense of jock bullies fails to inspire me. If the only way to stop them is to eliminate sports, then sports should go ( not that I think it is the only way ). Thuggery does not become more ethical just because a jock does it.
Back to the OP, creating a situation when people are harrassed into falsely acknowledging a god they disbelieve in or oppose strikes me as the establishment of a state religion, which is certainly unconstitutional.
SaintCad, I’m afraid years of experience as a teacher fail to convince me. Like everybody else, I had years of experience as a student, and I remember quite well how clueless teachers were about how life was like for the students. Judging from the various news stories I read about student violence, bigotry, harassment and bullying, I see no evidence they have become kinder and gentler since I was one. Not saying the pledge = different, and I remember vividly how students react to the different. That completely ignores the likelihood of true-believer parents and teachers egging them on, or just turning a blind eye.
Emphasis added to show where you’ve made an incorrect assumption. Just mentioning the word “God” is not an act of establishing religion. Your interpretation of the establishment clause appears to be that it requires a complete and abosolute seperation of Church and State. If you are unwilling to concede that point, then we probably just have to agree to disagree on the matter.
In practical matters, and given the politics of the situation, I think you are correct that “it’s not a big deal” plays a key role in how this plays out. But that is not central to the argument that forbidding schools to use the pledge is not justified by the establishment clause. And for some people, it is a big deal. But, frankly, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles in this case. The constitution doesn’t guarantee that you (the collective “you”) won’t be upset by things that the government does.
That is simply a factually incorrect statement. The courts do NOT step in to prevent harrassment except in as much as said harrassment is against the law. The courts do not pre-emptively eliminate condidtions that might lead to harassment. Can you point to one situation where that was ever done?
And knock it off with the “rolleyes” if you want to continue this discussion. Nothing I’ve said is out of the mainstream of legal thinking in this country. You can “rolleyes” me if I say somthing whacky, but I haven’t thus far done that.
That certainly is the perogative of the school administrators, but not of the courts. The courts could not forbid schools from having sports programs in the interest of preventing harassement. Do you see the difference? If not, then I don’t see much point in continuing our discussion. Let’s just say we agree to disagree and move on to the next subject.
That’s a good line of reasoning, although I would have said “coerced” instead of “harassed”. But let’s not quibble on that point. The problem is, you have not proven that that is actually the situation. The courts have ruled that no one can be required to say the pledge, and have explicityly upheld the rights of students to refrain for saying it.
What would your position be if the schools played a recording of the Pledge over the PA system at the start of the school day instead of having students recite it? Would that be constitutional, in your view?
And neither did I despite how you chose to interpret it. I was merely pointing out an example that the assumption that not saying the Pledge leads to ridicule is not true in all cases. I also pointed out that my statement about how students react was based on 1) my personal experience as a teacher required by law to lead the Pledge. and 2) was based on my classes not the general term “students” implying every student. Claiming that catsix was indicating how the pressure is employed implies that she believes that this situation exists, but what is her basis for that claim?
You seem to neglect that I **never ** claimed that such ridicule doesn’t exist - I merely asked what personal experience you three were basing your claims on. Experience as a teacher today? A teacher 10 years ago? When I was in school 17 years ago . . .? All of these are valid positions, but certainly the experiences of teachers/students, 20 yrs ago/10 yrs ago/today, etc. will color everyone perspective of the topic (even mine).
OK then let me make this statement:
I freely acknowledge that the experiences of my students over my nine years of teaching may not be absolutely identical with every other student including themselves that has ever attended school, are attending school, or will attend school. So help me god.
Is that nitpicky enough? I tried to sign in blood but it made my monitor messy.
You’re supposed to sign on the keypad.
That’s not a strawman. I certainly wouldn’t disagree if you wanted to call it hyperbole, but I wouldn’t call it a strawman.
But you’re taking what I said ultra-literally, when I obviously did not mean it that way. Of course not every teacher is going to literally gasp, for example, and not every teacher is going to make students stand in the rain.
BUT - the point is that if the pledge is recited as a group event as part of a class for which attendance is mandatory, there really is no effective way of allowing students to opt out of saying the pledge without singling them out and ostracizing them. If a student leaves the class, he is singled out. If he remains, but does not participate in the activity, he is still singled out. If the alternative to participating in the activity is to be ostracized, and is worse, then he is effectively compelled to participate. YOU may have an extremely narrow definition of “compelled”, but that doesn’t mean everyone has to share your definition.
Besides which, I don’t see how this option would be presented to the students. I imagine it varies from school to school, but presumably a teacher would say, “Class, let’s all stand for the pledge of allegience.” Every student knows that when a teacher tells you to do something, that it is not optional.
“Tommy, please go to your seat.” - not optional.
“Susie, put the toy away.” - not optional.
Do teachers say, to the whole class: “Class, we’re having the pledge of allegience now, but you don’t have to say it”? I doubt it. I imagine a student who wished to opt out would have to have some kind of special dispensation arranged for by his parents, and those types of arrangements tend to ostracize students and set them up for ridicule by their classmates.
So again, the distinction between “compelled” and “complelled for all practical purposes” is miniscule, IMO.
But you used that hypothetical to bolster your case. At any rate, you’ve modified it so let’s move on:
So what you are objecting to is not the pledge itself, but to the way it is handled, and there are ways to mitigate that other than banning the pledge outright. Suppose that the teachers are given directions to lead the pledge as you describe it above explicitly saying every day that participation is optional. The state prepares a card which the teachers read so that there’s no interpreation on the teacher’s part. Would you still object to have the pledge in school? IOW, are there any conditions that you can imagine imposing on the schools that would make it OK to use the pledge? What are the minimum req’ts you’d agree to?
Wouldn’t it be easier to simply remove “under God?” What purpose does it serve to keep it in there?
We could Mirandize the students every morning:
You have the right to not say the Pledge
If you choose to not say the Pledge, you will not be sent into the rain
If you choose to not say the Pledge, the teacher will not point and say “Everyone laugh at the atheist”
etc.
In all seriousness, the Pledge is optional and students who do not want to say it shouldn’t say it. If those students are being ostrasized, ridiculed, coersed into saying the Pledge, etc., the fault does not lie in the words “under god” but is an implication of the teacher in the classroom. Let me ask this: if the words “under god” were taken out and a students still did not say the Pledge and was ridiculed, hazed, etc. would this honestly be a different issue?
Yes, if Congress chose to do so, or the people wanted it removed. (Note: “the people”, not just “people”)
Doesn’t matter. The court gets to determine if a law is constiutional, not if that law serves a purpose.
Perhaps we need an amendment: Congress shall make no law which does not serve a purpose. 
In case you haven’t noticed, the courts’ latest position is that it isn’t Constitutional.