So? Neudow was subject to harassment and threats, but that didn’t stop him. I’m sure that’s part of it, but it’s hard to believe there isn’t some agitating teacher somewhere who wants to make a case out of this.
I don’t know about being more organized, given all the factions, sects, and the occasional lunatic. But I will grant that some groups or individuals are more vocal and demanding. Just because Falwell or Robertson says something, doesn’t mean all of Christendom Assembled agrees. Many Christians wish they would just go away.
I didn’t SAY they “don’t take it into account”; they take EVERYTHING into account. But they may or may not decide that it is not applicable, that it is outweighed by other factors, or as I have suggested, that it is impractical to implement in reality. Since the current ruling is that the pledge IS unconstitutional, I suggest that perhaps you are the one who doesn’t know how courts work.
I don’t know what that means. I’m talking about the version of the pledge that contains the words “under God”. That most certainly DOES amount to pledging allegience to God. If you pledge allegience to the COUNTRY, and affirm that the country is UNDER GOD, then you are by extension pledging allegience to God.
You are conflating 2 issues: 1) Whether saying the pledge in the form we are discussing amounts to pledging allegience to God (which it does) and 2) Whether leading a classroom in saying the pledge amounts to coercing them to do so (which in my opinion it does, and apparently in your opinion it doesn’t).
Which is precisely why it IS a good analogy. Just because a person could conceive of a mitigiting factor didn’t ipso facto render the policy constitutional. One had to look at the actual facts of the case, i.e. was it really equal? Again, you seem to be arguing that the mere fact that you can conceive of a mitigating factor, that the pledge HAS to be constitutional. But I’m saying that if, in reality, there’s no way to effectively mitigate the problem without singling out students, that we must consider that fact. Just as people had to consider the fact that blacks were only equal in theory, and not in reality.
I never said it was. Please try to follow the argument.
I don’t know the point of that sentence. You’re just re-stating what we’re arguing about.
You’re suggesting that courts can only take one avenue, which is not true. They might decide that the policy is irredeemable, as was the “seperate but equal” doctrine. Just because courts consider something doesn’t mean they have to consider it valid.
Wait, are you suggesting that a pledge without “under God” arguably prevents people from practicing religion? That the absence of requirements to affirm God in state-sponsored events is preventing free practice of religion? Because if that’s your argument, I have to say that it’s ludicrous. I have never before heard the argument that the absence of an active endorsment of religion is equivalent to a restraint of it. That can’t be what you meant, can it?
Newdow’s a pretty unique individual, wouldn’t you agree? I mean, I agree with you that I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if most people would be reluctant to take on that much abuse from theists.
O.K., but you were in grade school once, I assume. Exactly how many activities that the teacher or principal led your class in, did you consider optional, when you weren’t explicitly told by the teacher that it was optional? Zero, right?
I’m just seeing this whole distinction between “leading the pledge” and “requiring students to say it” to be a rather trivial one. When I was a student, the default assumption was that if the teacher said the class is going to do something, you did it. We didn’t say, “Uh, teacher, I’m gonna opt out on that math test, O.K.?”
O.K., but you still didn’t answer my question, i.e. what is this law you refer to that bars teachers from asking students why they don’t want to recite the pledge? Is it that same court case? And could you help me out by being a little more specific than “a court case mentioned earlier”?
If anyone believes so strongly in something, then they should be willing to stand up and do it. There is a difference between picking your fights carefully, and not fighting at all. If it’s worth fighting for, then dammit fight for it. You might lose, but at least you tried.
Nice try, but would you like to place a little wager on this decision being overturned by the SCOTUS? I’m confident enought that I understand how the courts work that I’ll put my money where my mouth is. Are you? $20 says this decision is overturned. Are you in?
It means what it says. Even if we accept that saying the pledge with “under God” amounts to pledging allegiance to God (which I don’t, but for the sake of argument let’s accept it), the students can omit that phrase when saying the pledge, or they can refrain from saying the pledge altogether. Hence, the law as it stands now does not force kids to pledge allegiance to God.
Wrong. I’m not conflating those two issues, I’m rejecting both of them. As will the SCOTUS when they take up this case.
You lost me on this one. I can’t tell when you’re referring to Brown, or when you’re referring to this case.
I’m restating it because you are ignoring it.
Nor did I say they had to. I was responding to your claim that the consideration was “moot” when it is entirely germain to the debate we are haiving.
Of course I’m not suggesting that. I was simply referring to MEBuckner’s response, above, to your claim that there would be no issue if “under God” were removed from the pledge. This case would not have any standing, but there would still be an “issue”, and it would still be a 1st amendment issue, answering our question:
[quote]
If the words “under God” were removed, what argument would a student have that he should not be required to say the pledge?[/quote
If you reason that the current situation forces kids to pledge allegiance to God and that violates the 1st amedment establishment clause, then the very same reasoning can be used to argue that the pledge (minus “under God”) still violates the 1st amendment, because the core issue is whether the kids are being forced or not.
The implication of a ruling based on your arguments is that no Pledge, no matter what the wording is, can be used in schools.
Yeah, that had been pointed out, but thanks still.
What I still wonder about, though, is why people feel the Supremes must take on the case as a political necessity. The Supreme Court Justices don’t have to worry about elections, or getting support from other policy makers, so I’m not sure where this comes from. Have they shown personal strong disagreement with the lower court’s ruling, and this idea that they must take the case comes from that? Or are people so against the ruling that they think the Supreme Court Justices must feel the same way, and are projecting their beliefs onto them?
Revtim: Won’t it be the case that if the current precedent stands, other courts will ban similar laws, so that this won’t be contained to some small section of the coutnry? That will make it a national issue, and from a political standpoint, I don’t think the court can stand to have it on record as “being against the pledge” which is how this will be labeled.
Post #231
Again, what political standpoint? What can happen to them if they get labeled as “being against the pledge”? They’re appointed for life and don’t have to worry about re-election.
True, but there’s a “yahbut” attached to that. Decisions of the Supreme Court are final, binding precedent for every court in the land (insofar as they apply; a state high court can render a decision that the state’s constitutional or statutory provisions do apply where SCOTUS has said that the Federal constitution/statutes do not). Lower federal court precedent is binding only in its jurisdiction. Hence the Ninth Circuit decision about the Pledge is binding only in the states comprising the Ninth Circuit; a district court decision is binding only in the state or part thereof that constitutes that district.
The Supreme Court has a conservative bias. They will rule to uphold the pledge no matter what. What does that prove?
You have substituted the word “SCOTUS” for the general word “courts” in our argument. Nice try, indeed…
We’re talking past each other. You said, “And it’s factually incorrect to say that recitation of the pledge amounts to pledging allegiance to God. You’re not even acknowledging God if you don’t want to.”
We’re not agreeing on what “the pledge” means. I was talking about the version with God in it, while you are obviously talking about when God is left out of it. This is a non-issue. I suggest we move on.
It was pretty clear; let me walk you through it:
"Just because a person could conceive of a mitigiting factor didn’t ipso facto render the policy constitutional." <- general statement; topic sentence for the paragraph
"One had to look at the actual facts of the case, i.e. was it really equal?" < - refers to segregation issue. (hence the word “equal”)
"Again, you seem to be arguing that the mere fact that you can conceive of a mitigating factor, that the pledge HAS to be constitutional." <- refers to the pledge issue, hence the word “pledge”
"But I’m saying that if, in reality, there’s no way to effectively mitigate the problem without singling out students, that we must consider that fact." <- refers to pledge issue, hence the word “students”
"Just as people had to consider the fact that blacks were only equal in theory, and not in reality." <- refers to segregation issue, hence the word “blacks”
I most certainly am not. Had I ignored your contention that students are not compelled to recite the pledge, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
Good, then I take it you are now admitting that considering whether students can effectively opt out of the pledge does not mean a particular courts HAS to rule that way. I take it we agree, then.
Oh, O.K., I get it. You’re talking about Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose religion forbids them from participating in such ceremonies. I still don’t know that I see that as the same issue. In the one case, certain people are objecting to the religious content of the ceremony. In the other case, certain people are objecting to a completely secular ceremony that happens to violate a rule of their religion. They’re both issues, but are they really the same issue?
I don’t see one argument as arising out of the other. The argument against “under God” is that it violates the Establishment Clause. But the argument against the pledge in general is not that it establishes religion, but that it fails to adhere to the laws of an established religion. Almost the exact opposite argument.
Thanks, but I still don’t see where it bars teachers from asking students for a reason. I may have missed it, because the guy who wrote that is a total windbag.
The Judiciary is at the mercy of Congress to get funding and support for administrative matters. A hostile Congress, or Congress quaking in its shoes before a rabidly hostile public, might be quite capable of cutting back on the judicial budget to the point where it would be difficult to keep clerks or the adminstrative librarians or even the janitors.
Beyond that, while it is a truism of every civics class that the judiciary is independent, it is also a truism, as noted by Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley, that “No matther whether th’constitution follows th’ flag or not, the supreme coort always follows th’ iliction returns.” I am not sure that anyone has done a specific study why the Court should appear to be responsive to the ways the winds of popular opinion blow, (and there have certainly been a few brave courts that decided cases in unpopular ways), but the trend has always been to not buck an opinion if it appears to be held by an overwhelming number of people, regardless of the judicial opinions of later generations. (Overwhelming would be key, here. On issues where the populace is more evenly divided, the court seems to have greater latitude in arriving at independent decisions.)
I didn’t know that; has Congress ever done this or threatened to do this?
I would guess this is simply probability, and has nothing to do with politics. If the overwhelming majority of the country feels a certain way, then likely the justices do to.
The words “Under God” were not in the pledge in 1953. They were added, in 1954, specifically to exclude athiests and communists (who are assumed to be athiests under the McCarthyist thinking of the time) from being part of America.
It should have been ruled unconsitutional at the time. It’s time to fix the error.
Well, more to the point, atheists were assumed to be Communists.
These posts were from several days ago, but I think it’s a point worth re-emphasizing: Many people object to the very idea of pledging allegiance to the flag, and they certainly ought not be forced to do so if they believe a pledge of allegiance to a flag is an inappropriate expression of patriotism, or if they have some philosophical objection to the whole idea of patriotism (because they believe only God deserves that sort of reverence, or because they believe our loyalty ought to be to the whole human race).
However, another objection to the pledge as it stands is that it excludes patriotic citizens who don’t believe in God but who do want to voluntarily join in a symbolic affirmation of their love of their country and its ideals. Whatever the Supreme Court rules, the pledge ought to be restored to its pre-McCarthyite form, so that all Americans who want to can engage in this civic ritual without having to choose between their patriotism and their religious convictions. We wouldn’t tell Jews “Oh, you can just leave out the ‘under Jesus Christ’ bit when everyone is saying the pledge”, and we certainly wouldn’t consider it acceptable to say “Oh, if you Jews don’t like saying ‘one nation under Jesus Christ’, well, you don’t have to say the pledge…I mean, if you don’t want to pledge allegiance to this great nation, suit yourself”.
They could, but I don’t think they would want to appear that infantile.
Scarier still,is this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/31/AR2005073100696_pf.html
“Roberts’s 27-page memo in 1982 arguing that Congress had power to strip the Supreme Court or the lower federal courts of jurisdiction over desegregation and other types of cases”
Why play games with the money when you can change the rules of the game! :eek:
I’m not so sure,Scalia seems to think the majority can tell the minority to quit complaining.
*Scalia, J., dissenting
McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al.
v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY et al.
June 27, 2005
If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word “God,” or “the Almighty,” one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.*
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZD.html