# Will the Supreme Court reverse the Pledge of Allegiance case? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2003, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258 "2003-02-28T23:01:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2003, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/181 "2003-03-11T03:16:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*BTW, as an atheist, I don’t find it “unjust” to have to say the word “God” or to see that word on my coins. Since I’m an atheist, saying “God” is no more problematical than cheering the Boston Red Sox, even though I’m Yankee fan. \*\* Bully for you. But the Constitution makes no mention of sports fan behavior. Nor are you required to pay for your food using Red Sox caps, or recite a Pledge of Allegiance to Fenway Park in school. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2003, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/182 "2003-03-11T03:23:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*Pardon us, we’d forgotten that since January 20, 2001, the First Amendment to the Constitution stopped being a part of the “supreme law of the land.” Those of us who were raised to an idealistic respect for democratic institutions tend to forget details like that. :rolleyes: \*\* **Polycarp** and **mhendo** , it’s interesting to know that your Consitutional interpretation would not permit schools to lead recitations of the P fo A, because it mentions God. Thank you for sharing. However, the Supreme Court has not made any such ruling. And, the 9th Circuit Court ruling has, I believe, been stayed. So, AFAIK it is not illegal for teachers to lead students in reciting the P of A. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/183 "2003-03-11T04:00:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **Polycarp and mhendo, it’s interesting to know that your Consitutional interpretation would not permit schools to lead recitations of the P fo A, because it mentions God. Thank you for sharing.** Actually, i was simply drawing attention to the inappropriateness of your baseball analogy in this discussion about the separation of church and state. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2003, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/184 "2003-03-11T04:03:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\ ***Polycarp** and **mhendo** , it’s interesting to know that your Consitutional interpretation would not permit schools to lead recitations of the P fo A, because it mentions God. Thank you for sharing. > > However, the Supreme Court has not made any such ruling. And, the 9th Circuit Court ruling has, I believe, been stayed. So, AFAIK it is not illegal for teachers to lead students in reciting the P of A. \*\* **December** , I beg your pardon. You are, of course, entirely right in your first paragraph and much of your second. Of course, you would not recognize _Barnette_, since, although it is the law of the land, to you it constitutes “judicial lawmaking” and everybody is completely aware that no Congressman, Senator, or President has ever been swayed from his noble course of upholding the Constitution by something as venal as fishing for votes in the election by espousing an unconstitutional but popular-with-the-voters stance. And I do find it surprising to find that I as a Christian am taking a stance that says people should not be forced to proclaim allegiance to God as he was conceived of by the Founding Fathers or the Congress of 1954 – presumably in Christian terms – while you as an atheist are demanding that the government has the power to do so. This thread is so rich in irony of that sort, the Chicago Reader should mine it and sell the ore to Chicago Bridge and Iron for enough to make the board self-sustaining! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2003, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/185 "2003-03-12T01:44:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*However, the Supreme Court has not made any such ruling. And, the 9th Circuit Court ruling has, I believe, been stayed. So, AFAIK it is not illegal for teachers to lead students in reciting the P of A. \*\* It does violate the Constitution. Which is a law. Hence my position that people are ignoring a law that they don’t like. Furthermore, there is a big difference between professing to hold certain values, which one occasionally fails to live up to, and proclaiming to hold a value which one just violated half a second ago. And then to do this this five days a week. The latter most certainly is hypocrisy. When I speak of atheists being denied justice in this country, I am referring not simply to the violations of the Constitution, but the fact that when someone tries to stop the violations, the reactions from the government range from apathy to outright contempt. The Senate voted **unaminously** to condemn a perfectly valid court decision. Maybe I just don’t know enough history, but I can’t think of any other unaminous congressional vote. IIRC, neither the decision to force Iraq out Kuwait nor the decision to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor were unaminous. But those uppity atheists clamoring for their rights? **That** warrants a unaminous vote. As an atheist, I am deeply insulted by my “representatives” declaring that asserting my rights is “stupid” and “asinine”. When the Attorney General, the highest ranking member of the United States Department of “Justice”, states **blatant lies** about a case involving atheists, I think that it is a reasonable conclusion that I, as an atheist, shouldn’t expect justice from this country. Much less respect. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2003, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/186 "2003-03-12T02:03:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > It does violate the Constitution. Which is a law. Hence my position that people are ignoring a law that they don’t like. That’s not quite precise. What you really mean is:\* It does violate the Constitution **in your opinion.** \* The conclusion is that people are ignoring your opinion of what is Constitutional. So what? > [@](#): > > Furthermore, there is a big difference between professing to hold certain values, which one occasionally fails to live up to, and proclaiming to hold a value which one just violated half a second ago. And then to do this this five days a week. The latter most certainly is hypocrisy. I take your point, but I do not agree – particularly as the Current Pledge has not been declared un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court. Until that occurs, I don’t see hypocrisy. > [@](#): > > The Senate voted **unaminously** to condemn a perfectly valid court decision. The 9th Circuit Court decision was perfectly valid in your opinion. It was invalid in the Senate’s opinion. They have a right to their opinion, just as you have a right to your opinion. Soon, the Supreme Court will decide, and we will all follow their decision. > [@](#): > > I think that it is a reasonable conclusion that I, as an atheist, shouldn’t expect justice from this country. Much less respect. I agree that we atheists don’t get respect. Offhand, I cannot think of an avowed atheist who is in any significant elected office. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2003, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/187 "2003-03-12T08:02:10Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s not quite precise. What you really mean is: It does violate the Constitution in your opinion. The conclusion is that people are ignoring your opinion of what is Constitutional. So what? I don’t think it’s necessary to precede all of my opinions with the phrase “in my opinion”. And I don’t really think it is just my opinion. That’s really stretching the meaning of the word “opinion”. As for so what: so I find this insulting and hypocritical, and I think it means that the PoA goes **against** your wanting children to be taught to be virtuous. > [@](#): > > I take your point, but I do not agree – particularly as the Current Pledge has not been declared un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court. Until that occurs, I don’t see hypocrisy. Something does not have to be declared wrong by the SOCAS to be wrong. The Pledge claims that there is justice for all, while perpetrating an injustice. Injustice exists indepedently of the SOCAS declaring it to exist, and I don’t see why we need the SOCAS to rule. If I complained that someone had robbed me, would you say “Well, he hasn’t been convicted yet, so you shouldn’t complain about what he did.” > [@](#): > > They have a right to their opinion, just as you have a right to your opinion. Soon, the Supreme Court will decide, and we will all follow their decision. The Senate has the right to their opinion. And I have the right to find their opinion extremely insulting. And if by “follow”, you mean “agree”, I will not think that this is Constitutional, regardless of what the SOCAS decides. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2003, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/188 "2003-03-12T15:09:16Z")
I’m definitely with you on this one, The Ryan. I am 100% certain that: [ul][li]The Pledge was originally merely a cute exercise in a patriotic display, back before the government got involved in it.[/li][li]Once the government got involved in pushing it, the Pledge became an example of coercion as to someone’s belief.[/li][li]The Pledge then got tinkered with some more so as to show that this country’s “not those danged godless commies!”[/li][li]That change then made it a governmental sponsorship of a particular religious belief, to wit: a belief in deity.[/li][li]The 9th Court did the right thing.[/li][li]They should’ve tossed in a prohibition on “In God We Trust” on our money also. I guess the plaintiff decided to tackle one thing at a time, though[/ul][/li] An interesting thing, unless I’m incredibly mistaken here, is that even if the Supreme Court upholds the “Under God” in the Pledge, the plaintiff can still agitate for reform of it. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2003, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/189 "2003-03-12T17:05:48Z")
**Monty** , I think it’s important to note, once again, that the 9th Circuit did not outlaw the Pledge, and explicitly declined to do so – it declared unconstitutional the act of a given school district in requiring that teachers lead students in the Pledge, on the grounds that with the words “under God” present doing so was the act of a government body (the school district) coercing individuals to make a religious affirmation (that this is “one nation under God”). And that it was founded on two Supreme Court decisions, one regarding mandating the Pledge and one dealing with coercive behavior regarding a school’s use of a religious action (in this case, an invocation at a commencement ceremony). And, **December** , the rights of the U.S. Senate to interpret and shape the Constitution are delimited to their determination of whether a bill under consideration for enactment as law is in their estimation consonant with the text, together with their right to propose amendments to it. Their views on the Ninth Circuit’s action are nearly as binding as their official resolution appointing March as Drink More Milk Month. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2003, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/190 "2003-03-12T21:01:01Z")
Poly: I’m sure you know that I know the difference among (a) the Pledge of Allegiance as originally written, (b) the Pledge of Allegiance as amended the first time, and © the Pledge of Allegiance as amended to include “under God.” Yes, I also realize that the 9th Court’s decision addressed merely the “under God” portion; however, the big hullaballoo over it all right now is over version ©. Cheers! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258.md?page=9)