# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2003, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/141 "2003-03-03T17:12:42Z")
I understand perfectly about “ceremonial deism” and I think the justice who came up with that one should receive the “Judicial Pulling Things Out of Your Ass Award.” It’s a mighty slender reed to cling to when you’re arguing logically with people who don’t share your beliefs, but it’s the only one you have, really. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/142 "2003-03-03T18:01:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **Evil Captor** \* > I understand perfectly about “ceremonial deism” and I think the justice who came up with that one should receive the “Judicial Pulling Things Out of Your Ass Award.” It’s a mighty slender reed to cling to when you’re arguing logically with people who don’t share your beliefs, but it’s the only one you have, really. I completely agree, **Evil Captor** , and I suspect that Justice Brennan, who was the author of the dictum that first coined it, would agree with you. Anyone familiar enough with what he said and wrote in retirement to address that suspicion? > [@](#): > > Thanks for the interesting discussion. Sorry I didn’t turn up earlier. **Cervaise** , your concise recent statement especially spoke to me. **Dinsdale** , I concur. **Cervaise** , I failed to comment because I agreed with it, but that was a masterful brief statement, and you deserve more praise than you got for it. Turning to **Dinsdale** ’s other comment, I think there is a very significant difference here, which I tried and failed to convey to **December** on the confirmation-of-Estrada thread. Quite simply, it’s quite possible to say that you feel that rulings with the force of law that have been in place for years should stand unless they flagrantly conflict with your reading of the Constitution, as Justice O’Connor appears to believe. You can say that you found your jurisprudence on a literal reading of the text, on the intent of the writers, on a broad reading of the concepts that the literal phrasings appear to refer to (Is formally reciting the Pledge because it’s compulsory in your school while holding your right arm in a Nazi salute a statement equivalent to speech of your beliefs about being forced to recite the Pledge? Why or why not?). You can say that a judge should attempt to rule equitably based on his reading of the Constitution, regardless of what the legislature found to justify their acts, or should give great deference to the legislature’s finding of Constitutional justification for their passage of the law. And none of these prejudges any case, although they may give strong indications of how you might rule in a given case. What is improper in questioning a candidate for the bench or in a sitting justice’s public remarks would be directly addressing an issue that is likely to come before the court. Much as I despise Justice Scalia’s judicial activism, discussion of church and state in abstract terms was not a prejudgment of how he might rule in a particular SOCAS-based case. Sitting judges, and Supreme Court Justices in particular, owe the legal community guidance in how they read prominent issues when their comments can be so structured as not to prejudge cases. And Justice Scalia appears to me to have stayed carefully within the lines, though he approached them fairly closely. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/143 "2003-03-03T19:23:04Z")
December, assuming that you’re saving up on the rest of your next reply, let’s look at something Ashcroft said in response to the 9th’s ruling: [http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/pledge.of.allegiance.reut/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/pledge.of.allegiance.reut/index.html) “The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag,” Ashcroft said. “We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge.” [poison-questions-hat-on]Wouldn’t you agree that Ashcroft, who cannot possibly be unaware of the real ruling of the case, is purposefully trying to mislead people into thinking that this ruling prevents them from “voluntarily reciting the pledge”? And that this issue changes anything about the rights of citizens to pledge to the flag? Is it okay to so cynically mislead the public on an issue like this?[/posion-off] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/144 "2003-03-03T19:41:22Z")
I have often, on these boards, defended Mr. Ashcroft. But I agree with **Apos** that we should expect, from our Attorney General, a more clear statement of the case he opposes. He has every right to oppose the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, but he ought to describe the prospective effects of the ruling correctly and completely. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Realhoops](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8dc957/32.png) [@Realhoops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Realhoops)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2003, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/145 "2003-03-03T20:24:55Z")
… I had a question when I read the article about Ashcroft’s statements. How does the U.S. Justice Department have “standing” to appeal the 9th Circuit ruling? Can somebody help me to understand how they can appeal a ruling that, afaik, they were not at all involved in at the lower levels? I’m sure there’s an obvious explanation, but federal law is not my strong suit. Thanks, in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2003, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/146 "2003-03-03T20:44:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Realhoops \* > **… I had a question when I read the article about Ashcroft’s statements. How does the U.S. Justice Department have “standing” to appeal the 9th Circuit ruling?** Just off the top of my head, it’s because the President and Congress are defendants in the case. And the federal defendants were involved in the lower levels. (From the panel decision) > [@](#): > > The United States Congress, the United States, and the President of the United States (collectively, “the federal defendants”) joined in the motion to dismiss filed by the school district defendants. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/147 "2003-03-04T04:01:12Z")
From [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/pledge.of.allegiance.reut/index.html) > [@](#): > > SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) – A ruling by a U.S. appeals court could force millions of students to stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance within days if the controversial decision is not overturned by a higher court, legal experts said Saturday. > > Public schools with some 9.6 million students in nine states have until March 10 to stop reciting the pledge after the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals backed its prior ruling that the words “under God” in the pledge are a government endorsement of religion. > > The nine states included in 9th Circuit are California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii. > > If Friday’s decision by the 9th Circuit Court is not stayed by the appellate court or by a U.S. Supreme Court order, it will take effect and may set up a challenge in the high court, the experts said. This article answers the question raised by several posters. The 9th circus court ruling bans the Pledge, rather than replacing it with the prior version. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/148 "2003-03-04T05:32:54Z")
First, **December** , for all your fulminations about “judges making law,” you should realize what exactly the #@#%$ it is that judges **do** in cases involving judicial review – they estop the execution of a law when it is, in their considered view, operating in a manner contrary to the U.S. Constitution. It remains “a law” in a very minimalistic sense, as does a law superseded by another law passed by a later sitting of the legislature – it is present on the statute books but of no practical effect, like the Constitutional prohibition on an amendment restricting the importation of slaves before the year 1808. Second, with a link to the actual decision, you’re basing your statements on a CNN reporter’s summary. I took the time and trouble to read the [actual opinion](http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1AC18E7FEB98DB6D88256CDB000AFCF4/%24file/0016423.pdf?openelement). In it the 9th Circuit majority bases its decision on _Lee v Weisman_, [505 US 577](http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Lee/). The majority opinion there is amazingly brief and exceptionally clear, and so I quote it in full: > [@](#): > > Principals of public middle and high schools in Providence, Rhode Island, are permitted to invite members of the clergy to give invocations and benedictions at their schools’ graduation ceremonies. Petitioner Lee, a middle school principal, invited a rabbi to offer such prayers at the graduation ceremony for Deborah Weisman’s class, gave the rabbi a pamphlet containing guidelines for the composition of public prayers at civic ceremonies, and advised him that the prayers should be nonsectarian. Shortly before the ceremony, the District Court denied the motion of respondent Weisman, Deborah’s father, for a temporary restraining order to prohibit school officials from including the prayers in the ceremony. Deborah and her family attended the ceremony, and the prayers were recited. Subsequently, Weisman sought a permanent injunction barring Lee and other petitioners, various Providence public school officials, from inviting clergy to deliver invocations and benedictions at future graduations. It appears likely that such prayers will be conducted at Deborah’s high school graduation. The District Court enjoined petitioners from continuing the practice at issue on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. > > Held: > > Including clergy who offer prayers as part of an official public school graduation ceremony is forbidden by the Establishment Clause. Pp. 586-599. > > (a) This Court need not revisit the questions of the definition and scope of the principles governing the extent of permitted accommodation by the State for its citizens’ religious beliefs and practices, for the controlling precedents as they relate to prayer and religious exercise in primary and secondary public schools compel the holding here. Thus, the Court will not reconsider its decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 . The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees, at a minimum, that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which “establishes a [505 U.S. 577, 578] [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.” Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678 . Pp. 586-587. > > (b) State officials here direct the performance of a formal religious exercise at secondary schools’ promotional and graduation ceremonies. Lee’s decision that prayers should be given and his selection of the religious participant are choices attributable to the State. Moreover, through the pamphlet and his advice that the prayers be nonsectarian, he directed and controlled the prayers’ content. That the directions may have been given in a good-faith attempt to make the prayers acceptable to most persons does not resolve the dilemma caused by the school’s involvement, since the government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds. Pp. 587-590. > > © The Establishment Clause was inspired by the lesson that in the hands of government what might begin as a tolerant expression of religious views may end in a policy to indoctrinate and coerce. Prayer exercises in elementary and secondary schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 ; School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 . **The school district’s supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places subtle and indirect public and peer pressure on attending students to stand as a group or maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction.** A reasonable dissenter of high school age could believe that standing or remaining silent signified her own participation in, or approval of, the group exercise, rather than her respect for it. **And the State may not place the student dissenter in the dilemma of participating or protesting.** Since adolescents are often susceptible to peer pressure, especially in matters of social convention, the State may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use direct means. The embarrassment and intrusion of the religious exercise cannot be refuted by arguing that the prayers are of a de minimis character, since that is an affront to the rabbi and those for whom the prayers have meaning, and since any intrusion was both real and a violation of the objectors’ rights. Pp. 590-594. > > (d) Petitioners’ argument that the option of not attending the ceremony excuses any inducement or coercion in the ceremony itself is rejected. In this society, high school graduation is one of life’s most significant occasions, and a student is not free to absent herself from the exercise in any real sense of the term “voluntary.” Also not dispositive is the contention that prayers are an essential part of these ceremonies because, for many persons, the occasion would lack meaning without the recognition that human achievements cannot be understood apart from their spiritual essence. This position fails to acknowledge that what [505 U.S. 577, 579] for many was a spiritual imperative was for the Weismans religious conformance compelled by the State. It also gives insufficient recognition to the real conflict of conscience faced by a student who would have to choose whether to miss graduation or conform to the state-sponsored practice in an environment where the risk of compulsion is especially high. Pp. 594-596. > > (e) Inherent differences between the public school system and a session of a state legislature distinguish this case from Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 , which condoned a prayer exercise. The atmosphere at a state legislature’s opening, where adults are free to enter and leave with little comment and for any number of reasons, cannot compare with the constraining potential of the one school event most important for the student to attend. Pp. 596-598. I have bolded and underscored the two sentences above which the 9th Circuit made special reference to. From the 9th Circuit decision: > [@](#): > > In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation “under God” is not a mere acknowledgement that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase “one nation under God” in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and – since 1954 – monotheism. A profession that we are “a nation under God” is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. The school district’s practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the pledge, including the religious values it incorporates. > > The Supreme Court recognized the normative and ideological nature of the Pledge in _Barnette_, 319 U.S. 624. There, the Court held unconstitutional a school district’s wartime policy of punishing students who refused to recite the Pledge or salute the flag. _Id._ at 642. The Court noted that the school district was compelling the students “to declare a belief”… > > The school district’s policy here, like the school’s action in _Lee_, places students in the untenable position of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting. > > [In a passage too long to transcribe, the Court takes note of the Supreme Court’s _dicta_ regarding the pledge, and carefully distinguishes its decision from their references to it.] > > In light of Supreme Court precedent, we hold that the school district’s policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the inclusion of the added words “under God,” violates the Establishment Clause. In the last paragraph of the decision, which I choose not to take the time to transcribe, the court mentions in passing Newdow’s petition to have the 1954 act declared unconstitutional, **and declines to rule on it**. In short, the 9th Circuit did not declare the Pledge unconstitutional; it held that requiring a teacher-led recital of the pledge, even with students free to opt out and stand mute, in a public school, was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause, because it was a governmental act placed coercive force on those students to publicly affirm a particular mandated religious statement. Not the 1954 amendment adding “under God” to the Pledge, but the California school district’s requirement that teachers lead students in the Pledge, was what was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. And the court specifically declined to rule on the 1954 Federal law. And, as a bottom line, though it may have escaped you, in a free country such as America has been for the last 225+ years, there is a large distinction between a mandatory practice and a voluntary practice. Every schoolchild in America can choose tomorrow morning to recite the Pledge, as my grandkids proudly did (BTW, they learned it from their father, an ex-Marine, not in school). The school may not compel them to recite it. I realize the idea that freedoms of this sort are precious and important to protect is a concept foreign to some points of view. But it is one which my great-great-great-great-grandfather went to war to secure from George III, and it’s one I’ll gladly fight for today – much more gladly than to insure that some tinpot dictator does not use WMDs somewhere, or sell them to fanatics. In short, **december** , you and CNN are guilty of falsely reporting what you have not read. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/149 "2003-03-04T05:56:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*The 9th circus court ruling bans the Pledge, rather than replacing it with the prior version. \*\* Freudian slip? But, yeah, what **Poly** said. (and which I’m actually a lot more ok with as a ruling than the original). I do predict, though, that the ruling is going to be stayed by either the 9th circuit or the Supremes till the Supremes have a chance to rule on it. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/150 "2003-03-04T06:41:34Z")
December, let’s try one more time. Isn’t the statement: “A ruling by a U.S. appeals court could force millions of students to stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance within days…” simply untrue? No student is being forced to do or stop doing anything: making these sorts of statements cynically prejeduced misrepresentations. The only people whose behavior is being restricted by this decision are teachers/government officials. How can reducing the power of the government to ASK you to do something reduce the freedoms of any citizen to do whatever they please? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/151 "2003-03-04T10:52:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > In short, **december** , you and CNN are guilty of falsely reporting what you have not read. **Apos** and I went through this point already. You and **Apos** are technically correct. But, it’s a quibble. What the CNN wording showed is that the phrase _“banning the Pledge”_ is widely used as shorthand for _“banning school officials from leading students in reciting the Pledge.”_ As I wrote earler, this usage makes sense, because the way the Pledge is used in schools is in group recitations led by school officials. So, it’s insignificant that students are still permitted to recite it voluntarily. **Apos** had earlier suggested that voluntary prayer in school is a parallel. I don’t agree. I would assume that many religious students do pray voluntarily in school. As the joke goes, \*as long as their are exams, there will be prayer in the schools. \* But, in practice, there is virtually no voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. Rreciting the Pledge is always a group activity, while prayer is done as a group or by an individual. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/152 "2003-03-04T20:07:07Z")
By analogy to that train of thought, the following two ideas are true: 1. I live in a Southern state. Once the evil institution of slavery was prevalent here, but the Thirteenth Amendment abolished it. It therefore becomes evident that, because I am prohibited from forcing a black man to do work for me, I am therefore barred from hiring him in a mutual, voluntary contract to do work for which I’m willing to pay him (supposing I had the money and he wished to work for me). 2. The rules of this board prohibit me from saying in Great Debates what I think of a supple mind who insists on subverting every argument into a way to deprive citizens of their freedoms. Therefore, I must be banned from this board. “The way the Pledge is used in schools” is illegal, as defined by the Supreme Court, IIRC before either of us were born. You may not coerce a person into doing what he takes a moral stance against doing, or as a public official inculcate into small and malleable minds what you believe they ought to do. That is the province of their parents and whomever their parents choose to assist in the moral upbringing of their children. As an honorary grandfather, I look forward to teaching Amanda, Brandon, and Jordan to love a country that cherishes those freedoms, and to love a God whose primary call is to love Him with all that we are and to love our neighbors as ourselves. But I’m doing that with the consent of my son and his wife, not because I have the weight of government authorizing me to do so. And if as a public official I attempted to do that to **David B** or **Persephone** ’s kids, they’d be 100% within their rights to say, “Back off, bucko!” ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/153 "2003-03-04T20:35:45Z")
—But, in practice, there is virtually no voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools.— —Reciting the Pledge is always a group activity, while prayer is done as a group or by an individual.— But this is not because it is banned: it is because kids don’t want to do it and parents, apparently, don’t want to make them: which is their right. And who said it had to be done in schools, led by teachers? Again: this IS the same argument made for school prayer: if teachers don’t lead school prayers, it’ll never happen AS A GROUP: which is the way they wanted it. But, of course, if people want to gather as a group to pray or recite the pledge, they are free to do so. The only difference is that they can no longer force people who have no interest in doing so to stand around with them. To be clear, the statement: “My kids aren’t reciting the pledge after this decision” is certainly going to be a true statement for most kids. But the statement “My kids aren’t reciting the pledge after this decision, _and I don’t like that_!” is utterly ridiculous. And it’s even more ridiculous to complain about the lack of pledge recitation and then blame the court decision. —Apos and I went through this point already. You and Apos are technically correct. But, it’s a quibble.— It’s hardly a quibble when the confusion is being deliberately exploited for deception in order to try to mislead and outrage people! When the Attorney General outright lies about a legal matter, tells people that their kids are being _prevented_ from reciting the pledge, that’s not good. That’s not excusable as “a quibble.” ---
**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 4, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/154 "2003-03-04T20:38:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > Rreciting the Pledge is always a group activity, while prayer is done as a group or by an individual. december: Please hurry your publisher up with that nifty dictionary which only you appear to be using. The one Merriam-Webster issues has this to say about prayer: > [@](#): > > Main Entry: [1]prayer > Pronunciation: 'prar, 'prer > Function: noun > Usage: often attributive > Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French preiere, from Medieval Latin precaria, from Latin, feminine of precarius obtained by entreaty, from prec-, prex > Date: 14th century > 1 a (1) : an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought \ (2) : a set order of words used in praying b : an earnest request or wish > 2 : the act or practice of praying to God or a god \ > 3 : a religious service consisting chiefly of prayers — often used in plural > 4 : something prayed for > 5 : a slight chance \ I see nothing in there about prayer being individual. ---
**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 4, 2003, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/155 "2003-03-04T20:43:44Z")
Drat. I blew the 2nd part of the post. Try #2! Strike “I see nothing in there about prayer being individual.” From MW again: > [@](#): > > Main Entry: [1]pledge > Pronunciation: 'plej > Function: noun > Etymology: Middle English, security, from Middle French plege, from Late Latin plebium, from (assumed) Late Latin plebere to pledge, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German pflegan to take care of —more at PLIGHT > Date: 14th century > 1 a : a bailment of a chattel as security for a debt or other obligation without involving transfer of title b : the chattel so delivered c : the contract incidental to such a bailment > 2 a : the state of being held as a security or guaranty b : something given as security for the performance of an act > 3 : a token, sign, or earnest of something else > 4 : a gage of battle > 5 : TOAST 3 > 6 a : a binding promise or agreement to do or forbear b (1) : a promise to join a fraternity, sorority, or secret society (2) : a person who has so promised I see nothing in there about the pledge having to be a group activity. In short, the currently established PoA is a prayer. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/156 "2003-03-04T20:53:17Z")
I my writing really that unclear? **Monty** , prayer is often said individually. E.g., some people pray before they go to bed. Some students pray to themselves during an official “moment of silence.” Prayer is also often done as group, e.g., in a church service. Some types of pledges are typically said individually, but not the Pledge of Allegiance. In my experience and in my reading, when the Pledge of Allegiance is spoken in school, it’s always part of an official group activity. ---
**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 4, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/157 "2003-03-04T22:20:39Z")
It’s very clear that you’re making up definitions for words, december. Just because prayer is often said individually does not mean that a group deistic exercise is not a prayer. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2003, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/158 "2003-03-05T00:21:25Z")
—december wrote— > [@](#): > > Some types of pledges are typically said individually, but not the Pledge of Allegiance. In my experience and in my reading, when the Pledge of Allegiance is spoken in school, it’s always part of an official group activity. That is merely a tradition. It means nothing. As has been noted numerous times, the ruling does not stop anyone from reciting the PofA. Because once upon a time, it was recited in a group **led** by the teacher, and now for students to give up on it and consequently for parents to complain since a teacher cannot do the same is ridiculous. In all of this, the alternate constitutionally _correct_ POV is blatantly missing. If parents complain as a result of this ruling, think about the atheist-parent whose daughter, incapable of making any adult decisions especially involving her theistic beliefs, is forced to make a choice in joining the whole class in a teacher-led pledge. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2003, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/159 "2003-03-05T02:38:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > That is merely a tradition. It means nothing. As has been noted numerous times, the ruling does not stop anyone from reciting the PofA. Because once upon a time, it was recited in a group **led** by the teacher, and now for students to give up on it and consequently for parents to complain since a teacher cannot do the same is ridiculous. In all of this, the alternate constitutionally _correct_ POV is blatantly missing. If parents complain as a result of this ruling, think about the atheist-parent whose daughter, incapable of making any adult decisions especially involving her theistic beliefs, is forced to make a choice in joining the whole class in a teacher-led pledge. It means that, until this ruling is stayed or overturned and as long as Congress hasn’t enacted a different P of A, students will not be reciting the P of A in school in actual practice. Many citizens consider it important that students recite the P of A in school; for them, this is a bad result. **Monty** , I agree with you that just because prayer is often said individually does not mean that a group deistic exercise is not a prayer. That wasn’t my point. My point was that the P of A isn’t recited individually and voluntarily by students. Therefore the fact that the 9th circus court decision allows them to do this will have no practical effect. If the P of A recitation isn’t permitted to be led by teachers and principals, it won’t be recited in school. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258/160 "2003-03-05T02:41:08Z")
> [@](#): > > _Polycarp:_ > “The way the Pledge is used in schools” is illegal, as defined by the Supreme Court, IIRC before either of us were born. You may not coerce a person into doing what he takes a moral stance against doing, or as a public official inculcate into small and malleable minds what you believe they ought to do. If you’re saying that the Pledge is illegal because it is coercive, could you please explain to me how the Pledge is coercive? I’m still under the impression that participation was voluntary. If you’re not saying it’s coercive, could you please tell me when the Supreme Court found it illegal? All due respect (and **Polycarp** , your opinions have certainly proven to be worthy of respect), but the statements you list in the second sentence above are both incorrect. The government _may_ coerce a person into doing what he takes a moral stance against doing (the draft, Amish kids going to public schools, integration of schools, etc.), and the government _may_ inculcate into small and malleable minds what they believe they ought to do (requiring kids to attend school, classes on citizenship, Kansas school board on evolution, the ability of teachers to punish students for inappropriate behavior in class, etc.). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-supreme-court-reverse-the-pledge-of-allegiance-case/158258.md?page=9)