The Hindu Pledge Case

The mayor of San Francisco started it. He decided that since California’s constitution said no one could be denied “equal protection of the laws,” that meant he could not deny marriage licenses to men who want to marry men. What a notion!

   After that, fundamentalist Mormons from Utah and Arizona headed west. They set their sites on Temecula, California, and made it their new home. Several years after the mayor of San Francisco made his decision, the city council of Temecula made theirs. They began issuing marriage licenses to men with several brides. If a man can marry a man, then surely a man can marry several women. 

   A few years later, a group of immigrants took action. The school board in Union City, California -- a town that had become a haven for Hindus -- altered the Pledge of Allegiance. They voted to require public school teachers to lead willing students in a pledge to "one nation under the gods." And they had reason on their side. If monogamists and monotheists can do their thing, then --  by golly -- polygamists and polytheists can do theirs. 

   A century ago, immigrants from Europe transformed New York City into a confederation of ethnic neighborhoods: Italian, German, Irish, etc. Today, immigrants from Asia are transforming the San Francisco Bay area into a confederation of ethnic communities: Japanese, Chinese, Fillipino, etc.

   According to Census 2000, less than half the people living in California are what you might call European-Americans. One-third of those living in San Francisco are Asian, and one-third of those living in Daly City, right next door to San Francisco, are Fillipino. 

   The fastest growing group of immigrants in California between 1990 and 2000 were Asian Indians – Hindus – adherents to this world’s third-largest religion. Hindus now make up 10% of the population of a number of cities in the Bay area. Like other immigrant groups, they tend to hang together, to form their own communities, to preserve their culture and pass it on to their children. 

   Imagine a few years from now. Silicon Valley is booming, just as it was during the1990s, when so many well-educated Hindus moved to the Bay area. Computer companies and bio-tech companies are hiring at a brisk pace, and another wave of immigrants are drawn from India to the Bay Area. 

   After a few years, most of those living in Union City are Hindu, and 80% of the students at Delaine Eastin Elementary School are the children of Hindu parents. One evening, there’s a school board meeting and there’s so much talk about the controversial Pledge of Allegiance. Back in 2004 (in the case of *Elk Grove Unified School District v. Michael Newdow*), the Supreme Court ruled that it was OK to lead students in a pledge to "one nation under God." But that version of the pledge doesn’t sit well with most folks in Union City. They’re teaching their children about many gods, and they don’t want them to recite a pledge that says there’s only one god.

   The school board alters the pledge. Now students pledge their allegiance to "one nation under the gods." There’s nothing unlawful about this and there’s nothing unconstitutional about it either: if it’s OK to have public school students recite a pledge to a nation under one god, what could be wrong with a pledge to a nation under many gods?

   Of course, this doesn’t sit well with Mr. Jones, a long-time resident of Union City, a devout Catholic whose daughter attends Delaine Eastin Elementary. He doesn’t want his daughter reciting a pledge to many gods; he doesn’t even want her to hear such a pledge, but what can he do? The matter was settled back in 2004. 

   Back then, the U.S. Solicitor General argued that the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t endorse a religious belief. The Elk Grove school district argued that the pledge doesn’t take a stand on the existence of the gods. And they both argued that since the girl isn’t required to say the pledge, there’s nothing unconstitutional about it. The court agreed.

   What’s fair is fair. Equal rights for all. If it’s no infringement of one man’s rights to ask his daughter to pledge allegiance to a nation under one god, then it’s no infringement of another’s rights to ask his daughter to pledge allegiance to a nation under many gods, right? If two men can marry one another, then a man can have six wives, right? After all, this is America, and diversity is honored.

=========
Click here to read Mr. Thorne’s amicus brief in the case of Elk Grove v. Newdow:

Sure. But government employees shouldn’t ask either, as it gives the impression of the government sanctioning a particular class of religion. Which is why kids shouldn’t be required to recite a pledge with any gods in a government-funded public school.

I don’t see why not. All long as all parties agree, and as long as all the legal issues have been ironed out (which may be difficult to do), then I don’t have a problem with it.

Moving this to Great Debates.

Polygamy IMO would be a headache legally. How do you disburse assets in a 15 person marriage, I shudder to think.

But as long as no minors are involved and everyone obviously agrees to the marriage I cannot see a moral argument against polygamy.

[QUOTE]
What’s fair is fair. Equal rights for all. If it’s no infringement of one man’s rights to ask his daughter to pledge allegiance to a nation under one god, then it’s no infringement of another’s rights to ask his daughter to pledge allegiance to a nation under many gods, right? QUOTE] Why anyone is pushing to impose an authoritarian-like “pledge” of “allegiance” on school children is beyond me. I believe in socializing the little tykes to support the society in which they are raised, but I see no reason to have them making idolatrous pledges to a piece of cloth.

::: shrug :::

As to the rest of the xenophobia in the OP, it will mostly work itself out, eventually.

This thread is ridiculous.

The core of Vedantic philosophy is monotheistic. Multiple gods are all nothing but manifestations of the One God. So, the scenario you mentioned will devolve into an acrimonious debate between Hindu theologians eventually leading to a large-scale Bay Area civil war before the Feds finally move in and arrest everyone as “unlawful combatants” and the Supremes eventually will take up the case and rule the detentions unconstitutional. By then, Bay Area would have regressed economically and amidst the brutal stench of poverty, violent Hindu gangs will arise with Kali as their inspiration. Dressed as blood-thirsty females with mutiple arms they will be on the hunt for money, drugs and sex and within a time frame of just 25 years, mainstream culture will absorb them and the “Hindu” way of life will be the rage. Sitcoms will sprout with the “Hindu” character, a new musical form that mixes traditional Hindu hymns with jazz will evolve, and down the line, we will be back to where we were… only TV will be a little different.

This is a non sequitur (latin for “it does not follow”).

Allowing same sex unions does not logically compel us to allow polygamous unions. As far as I can tell, there exists no rational reason to deny marriage licenses on the basis of gender. Every argument that you can use against gay marriage could be used with equal effectiveness to deny certain straight couple the same rights. Gays can’t have kids with each other? Neither can the elderly, but we still let old people marry. The governing majority has traditionally viewed it as being immoral? This used to be the case with interracial marriage also.

Banning polygamous marriages has a rational basis other than prejudice behind it. Imagine if a husband became a vegetable as a result of a car wreck, and his two wives argue with each other whether life support can be terminated. The State has an interest in preventing hopless decisionmaking deadlocks such as this, and only allowing one person to be the decisionmaker in this case by only allowing one person to be married to another person at any given time.

How can you deny a man the right to follow his religious beliefs: have half a dozen wives. As for the problem about what happens when a man with many wives becomes a vegetable, that sounds like the same problem of what to do when an unwed orphan becomes a vegetable.

Look, if sexual deviants can get married, when can’t good, religious folks get married?

Why are you changinmg your discussion from social mores and norms to sexual deviance? It is pretty late in the discussion to begin talking about people who wish to have sex with sheep or trees.

Stick to the social issues (in which you are not doing that well) rather than taking on a new burden of a whole separate range of issues.

'Far as I’m aware, we don’t prevent anyone from having as many religious marriages as they like. It’s when he wants them recognized by the law or tries to arange them with children that he comes into difficulty.

We already let sexual deviants marry, with no bearing on polygamy. If my partner and I can only achieve sexual satisfaction by covering eachother in ketchup and wiping it off with sanitary napkins, we’re still allowed to get married. Weren’t you supposed to be arguing about same sex marriage, though?

I’m very much for gay marriage being legalized, and the polygamy issue is often brought up as a “ha-ha, look, you’re a hypocrite for allowing one sort of marriage and not another”. I really have nothing against polygamy, except that we would have to create legal rules for how it works and there are obvious issues we’d have to resolve. There’s nothing in a marriage between two people that gives obvious rules for a marriage between five people or a marriage between a hundred people.

Is there a limit to how many people you can marry? If not, can’t you see large numbers of people marrying – even in the hundreds or thousands? Does this mean that an employer that provides health care to spouses is legally required to provide health care to someone’s multiple spouses? How does this all work? I just want to know what I’m agreeing to or what I’m taking issue with!

Good points. But if we allow men to marry one another, can we tell a man he can have only one wife because we don’t have laws that deal with polygamy?

Everyone seems to be missing the main point: if Christians can expect atheist kids to say the existing Pledge of Allegiance, what happens when the Hindus take over and expect the Christian kids to say their Pledge? Also, what happens to all the arguments presented by Ted Olson when that case comes to court?

This thread merely shows why existing marriage laws are woefully inadequate, and why the Pledge of Allegance shouldn’t bother naming any gods at all.

We already have laws prohibiting polygamy. (We have even threatened military action to enforce them.)

What we did not have until the last couple of years were laws prohibiting the marriage of two people of the same sex. That “prohibition” was enforced by social mores. Now the mores are being challenged and people are rushing out to create laws to prohibit the changes in society. Given the balance of obligations and privileges granted under existing marriage laws, I have not seen any need to pass the new laws in some wild attempt to prevent a change in customs. The customs that exist have resulted in harm to some individuals while no one has demonstrated any harm that will result from the change to those customs. So I oppose the hasty passage of laws that will impose unnecessary constraints on people without any benefits to society.

Laws against homosexual behavior have been around for quite some time. We have laws against polygamy as well. But, you can imagine the argument: if laws against homosexual behavior (e.g., sodomy) are unconstitutional, then ditto for laws against polygamy. On top of that, polygamy is sanctioned by some religions and to tell folks that they can’t practice their religious beliefs . . . well . . . you know?

Much more fascinating, me thinks, is the situation in Union City . . . the Catholic man who doesn’t want his daughter exposed to the Hindu Pledge . . . and the arguments presented by the Solicitor General in the Newdow case.

Also of interest is the transcript of the oral arguments. Review some of Olson’s rhetorical skills in this case and others, and you wonder how the guy ever got the job. I mean . . . the man has one heck of a tough time conjuring complete sentences.

I can imagine a lot of things. I was pointing out, however, that your statement that we currently have no laws against polygamy was inaccurate. Mostof the laws against homosexuality have been overthrown. It remains to be seen that similar actions (based on whatever arguments) will overthrow anti-polygamy laws.

Fifteen states have laws against oral sex, as well, and six more against homosexual oral sex. While we’re at this, why don’t we make the only legal sex penis-vaginal? Is it legal to allow oral sex between a man and woman, but not between men or women? If that is the case, arrest every man and woman in the world, aside from a handful of fundamentalist religious folk. FFS, it is illegal to sell sex toys in 2 states, and we’re talking about legal precedent about homosexuality? How far do you want the government stepping into your bedroom? In that case, shouldn’t pre-marital sex also be illegal? How fundamentalist do you want to get, here, if you are using fundamentalism as your defense?

Or is your slippery slope tied only to your own beliefs?

It’s interesting to me that if you read the Amicus he wrote for the Pledge case it doesn’t say what you might think. From the OP, I concluded that he would be against taking out the phrase ‘under God.’

But… from his conclusion to the Amicus: “Atheists and agnostics and polytheists and others are often confronted with an official lie – that this is a nation under
God – and there’s really no need for it at all, certainly not at school.”

Trying to be a Devil’s Advocate?

I am SO glad this board is going to subscriptions. At least in a few more weeks, it’ll cost the OP $5 a year to flog his sad little amicus brief.