But....aren't there more urgent things the Congress should be doing?
My Gosh if congress is dealling with such petty matters as semantics instead of economy, high gas prices,immigration, AMT, the attack on the constitution....
Are you in favor of them spending precious time for this...
since I don't see this as a genuine Church/State conflict and I don't think a bland mention of "God" is particularly offensive to non-Christian faiths... but I also agree that this is hardly a pressing matter.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I leave it out when I say the pledge, personally. Whatever else we may or may not be, we're quite demonstrably not a 'nation under God' - we are a nation the majority of whose citizens believe in God, but the legal framework wouldn't change if everyone suddenly became atheist or bokononian or whatever.
I will agree that this seems like an idiotic way to waste legislative time.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
To be honest I've never interpreted the pledge in quite that way, I've always thought of it as simply a grateful recognition of a higher power. I mean, we don't literally have "liberty and justice for all" either, but it's a nice sentiment.
I dunno, I wouldn't be particularly upset if it were removed either. The whole debate seems a little silly.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I don't really care either. I think it's silly to have kids reciting this who don't understand the difference between 'indivisible' and 'invisible'.
The only people I know who consider this to be an important issue are those who feel that their religiousity is under attack by 'secularism'. It doesn't seem to matter to them that the pledge was modified during the cold war -- dropping 'Under God' to them represents a blow to religion.
This is all about the next election.... "So and So voted to remove UNDER GOD..... wants to BURN THE FLAG.... etc." Waste of time.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
To me it is a bow to our great history and to all the blessings we received in terms of great leaders, and great people.
Modifications can be just as valid and even of course better than the original. So people thought about the pledge and wanted to make it better. That is my view and the view of the vast majority of our population. I do not see how the courts should be involved.
And if you are such a pure originalist in all cases of original documents, then would you agree with stripping of all amendments to our constitution? After all they were just modifications after the fact!
How modification automatically equates to being dishonest I don't know. We all know about its past.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
. . . is less this red-meat-for-the-base waste of taxpayer funded salaries, but the wonderful new concept that the courts can be stripped of their power to review laws and constitutional issues.
While it will certainly wreak havoc in the short term, the next Democratic legislative majority (under God!) will no doubt be able to make productive and creative use of it.
How modification automatically equates to being dishonest I don't know. We all know about its past.
The reason I bring this up is that a good chunk of the argument for keeping the "under God" rests on the desire not to modify. A lot of people grew up with it, and people are resistant to change.
Personally, I think it shouldn't be in there, and I don't say it when I say the pledge. But it's not worth a major legislative battle to me.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
that Congress can simply declare something to be constitutional and therefore exempt from judicial review is certainly new to me. In any event, the idea that you'd use it to protect some transparently ridiculous pandering waste of time is something I've never heard of before.
As I say, no doubt the Democrats will be able to put this theory to good use.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of Presidentmy duties as a citizen of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
they won't waste it on that. Something really good.
Unfortunately, I'm having trouble coming up with something the Democrats might want to pass and then exempt from court scrutiny. It strikes me that pretty much everything they want to do is perfectly legal.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Personally, I think you could argue that SCOTUS could first declare the law removing jurisdiction unconstitutional if it was done for purposes that violate the establishment clause. But what do I know?
Deficits, loss of individual liberties/privacy, war/imperialism, outsourcing of jobs leaving mostly service sector employment opportunities, environmental destruction, global climate change, governmental corruption, oil/gas at its highest price ever, etc.
Why do you ask questions that you know the answer to? is this a delaying tactic? You know the answer: the 1st amendment's ban on the establishment of a form or religion. This question is well settled by the courts.
You could also argue it independently on the grounds of 14th amendment rights for non-theists. It's discrimination to make atheists either affirm religious beliefs they don't have, or feel left out of a silly bigoted exercise in expressing their American patriotism.
So since it is illegal why do you insist on it? It's all so silly so why make a point of thumbing your nose at the constitution. That breeds an attitude that laws are just things nobody cares about. The issue itself is smaller than the lawless attitude IMO. Not that I'm into the whole fake veneration of the constitution thing but a legislature ought to act in such a way as to keep the law in respect. Not flout the law so they can grandstand.
While I agree with most of your sentiments, let's remember two things:
1. There is no law requiring anyone to say the pledge, and if one is required to say it (say, in a classroom), one is not required to say the words "under God." As I mentioned upthread, I've just omitted those words completely when I recite it. If I'm wrong on this note, please let me know, but this is my impression.
2. There are plenty of places where the courts have upheld general traditions involving religion, but those traditions aren't technically legally binding. The most obvious parallel to the pledge involves the taking of oaths/swearing in ceremonies. Nearly everyone swears on the Bible or "so help me God," but it's not actually a legal requirement. Two presidents refused to swear, and one president refused to swear on the Bible.
Personally, I'd like to see all these things wither away, but I'd also prefer to use my gunpowder in places where there are actually laws or restrictions forcing people to do things against their will. This country is 80% Christian, and while a lot of that 80% are waking up to the notion that this is a secular country by design, we still live in a democracy, and that requires convincing people that certain things are right/wrong. I'm more concerned with the Big conversations at the moment. I wish our Congress was, as well.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
But back to the chanting of the patriotic creed...
If you force kids into a situation where the normal behaviour is a show of religion --- even if it is completely voluntary as with say, a prayer during assembly --- the courts have ruled that violates the non-religious kids' amendment 1 rights. Just because the other kids are doing it the courts have ruled it sends a message to the muslim / atheist kids that the school is endorsing a certain view of religion -- which is an establishment of religion in violation of ammendment 1.
Is this not well known? I think they've thrown out even smaller things. Pretty nuts if you ask me but that's the established law.
has not yet ruled on whether mentioning "under God" in the pledge is in any way similar to an actual prayer, voluntary or involuntary.
Last year they've dismissed first such lawsuit (that reached the Supreme Court) against the pledge on the grounds that the person who brought that lawsuit up lacked proper legal standing to challenge it. So for the moment there has been no ruling that it is unconstitutional and thus it is only your interpretation that this is a show of religion.
From Atheists.org:
Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself from the case after making public statements prior to oral arguments that he supported the religionized version of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Writing today for the eight other jurists, Justice John Paul Stevens opined: "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course if for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law."
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist supported that decision, but penned a separate opinion arguing that the Pledge as recited today does not violate the Constitution. News reports indicate that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas concurred.
This was before Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were on the court. Which means that the balance of Supreme Court has not been altered and it is a good bet that the Pledge's constitutionality will be upheld.
You really have to hate any mention of God to deem this symbolic and voluntary utterance of generic non-sectarian concept of a higher being a form of religious prayer.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
If you force kids into a situation where the normal behaviour is a show of religion --- even if it is completely voluntary as with say, a prayer during assembly --- the courts have ruled that violates the non-religious kids' amendment 1 rights.
I've never heard that voluntary anything has been legally considered a violation of one's rights. If I'm wrong, please let me know, although please link to a court case so I can see the specifics involved.
And 80% of this country identifies as some form of Christian, whether you think they display it or not. If not, you'll have to talk to them - I'm a die-hard atheist, myself.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
You're offering the Bart Simpson excuse. "Nobody can prove I did it!" I didn't say the US SC had already ruled against it. They are too chicken.
However it's obvious that in line with the existing precedents that you admit to, such as voluntary prayer, that establishing a chant that refers to being "under God" is establishing a form of religion just as much as praying to "Jesus" or praying to "God". Praying is just words after all. The pledge of alleigeance is a sort of civic prayer. The question is whether the words tend to establish a form of religion by implying the institution endorses a certain religious view.
The only defence would be to say the "under God" bit was such obvious utter crap that nobody at school would think or could possibly think that anyone really meant it to be taken seriously or as true. But your own reaction here and that of Congress undermines that argument by making it plain a lot of people think it's dreafully important.
Justice John Paul Stevens opined: "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course if for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law."
translation:
"I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole"
How could anyone argue that saying "under God" isn't religious talk or that it doesn't imply the institution beleives there is a God?
You really have to hate any mention of God to deem this symbolic and voluntary utterance of generic non-sectarian concept of a higher being a form of religious prayer.
So you'd be cool if the words were changed to "Under no God - because god doesn't exist"? Like hell. You're the one making all the fuss here and now you're going to pretend its the other guys who are making a mountain out of a molehill?
YOU'RE the one claiming such cases exist. In my bizarro-world, I usually expect the person making the claims to provide the evidence. Apparently I have everything backwards.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I've seen on here. Now I remember why I started ignoring you in the first place.
Consider yourself ignored again. If you can't back up a simple claim - and if you resort to this kind of imbecility as a backup - then I really don't see what discussing issues with you accomplishes other than filling up empty space with equally empty words.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Had to do with voluntary prayer at a graduation ceremony.
Moreover, “there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools.†Participation in the prayer is not “voluntary†in the true sense of the word because there is peer and school pressure to stand with the other students; the other “option†is vocal protest or non-attendance, a choice to which a student should not be put.
It wasn't conservatives who suddenly started challenging in courts the wording that has been around since 1950s. Conservatives didn't start all the fuss. "Under God" is a bow to our American heritage, while "under no God" would be a... well a bow to rabid anti-religionism that has no precedence is in US history.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Oddly, when you scroll down the page - those decisions aren't always very consistent. I guess it depends on the judges who hear the case? Notice that nondenominational prayer in the classroom was deemed unconstitutional, but nondenominational prayer at a graduation ceremony was deemed constitutional. What a legal mess this is.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
If you actually look at American founding documents such as declaration of independence it mentions God rather explicitly without implying that we are a religious state, but rather a nation that acknowledges and honors a higher power. It is in our history, and the pledge affirms our history in a symbolic way.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The mention of God has not been viewed as an endorsement or establishment of religion since our founding.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think maybe someone needs to send DavidByron a copy of MontyPython's "Arguement" skit. ;)
Yes, I sometimes think the Supreme Court is a big logical game where the new judges try to fit their pet theories within the legal framework provided by predecessors, and when they can't they look for a reason to 'bend' the old decision to shove their new interpretation in. I suspect it wouldbe simpler if we just agreed that decisions expired when the last Justice involved was no longer on the bench.
The Declaration of Independence (How dare you not capitalize that document you traitorous bastard!!?!?! (woops channeled Ann Coulter for a moment. Sorry 'bout that ;))
had its references based upon the perspectives of the writers. The pledge was modified at the request of a religious groups in order to differentiate good Americans from those 'godless communists'.
"...Without the phrase 'under God,'" Docherty said, "the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag might have been recited with similar sincerity by Muscovite children."
And what is wrong with showing that the perspective of those writers applied just fine to a non-religious state without establishing a religion? They were not concerned with mentioning God so why should we be?
You have to admit that this obsession with removing all references to God is relatively new.
Also I like that quote by Docherty :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The original pledge writer and consequent amenders clearly missed what makes the pledge more respectful of our origins :) Their original pledge was not necessarily a bow to our American heritage but the final change made it so.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
This hasn't been strongly enforced in general, so please don't take this personally, it's directed at everyone. As per the posting rules, try to avoid profanity. Thanks.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
You're kind of screwing the constitution and the principle of law over some dumb words. Why not just admit that the words are, yeah ok, technically a violation of separation of church and state?
Instead of admit a defeat on a tiny non-issue you are prepared to screw the pooch. That's how I see it.
It suggests you just don't really much care about law and order. That's the issue I see here.
...the part of the constitution that says "separation of church and state?"
Mandating that the nation not adopt or decree a national religion and the removal of all religious issues or sayings from government or public view are completely different.
btw - you're right, this is a silly issue since the words in question were "added" to the original pledge, if some people want it removed that’s fine. Put it to a vote and let the people decide!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The phrase is "Congres shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Not establishment of "A" religion.
But while we are on the subject, could you point to the part of the constitution that says that the President's commander in chief powers extend to the Air Force or Marine Corps? Or do you read the "Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States" as somehow sufficient to include the Marine Corps and Air Force?
Also can the President use his Executive Order power to create a national religion for employees of the executive branch? After all, the constitution only says that CONGRESS shall make no law.
but so is the notion that the majority's opinion is the 'right' opinion.
Consider the unevenness of the proposition: a pledge without God is not an anti-religious pledge, but a pledge with God is de facto religious. To remove it affects nothing or no one, but to add it is a statement that you don't care about the 10% of the country that does not believe.
So, I don't see anything unconstitutional about "under God," but it's - for lack of a better word - mean. Why make a point of alienating a portion of your society? Just because you can?
I don't get it.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Since the Marine Corps, which I'm a proud member, is a department of the Navy and the Air Force at inception was a department of the Army - Army Air Corps - by extension I would say they are covered - but that might be a better answered by a constitutional lawyer, which I am not.
Not being an expert on executive orders or the rules they’re governed by I couldn't answer that question. IMO while a silly thing to do I guess he could but would have a very difficult time enforcing the order!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The plain reading can be deceptive. I don't object to the Air Force being under the CinC's role even though I could easily argue that when congress removed the Air Force from being under the Army it ceased to be covered.
My point is that you accept that the exact wording isn't the whole story. Same with church and state separation. Once congress exerts power in such a fashion that has a direct relationship with pushing religion in some form (we are forced to go to school and are often forced to enter a court house) you run into the same situation which often calls for a constitutional lawyer, which neither of us serves as. But the Supreme Court, pretty much by definition has 9 of them.
...of a democracy if the majority has to defer to a small minority on the grounds of kindness? I understand in a utopian world this would be great but until that happens...
What if the 10%'s deferred kindness offends a different 2.5% which one gets the deferment?
This argument is one my biggest problems with liberalism, somehow liberal think they have a right not to be offended! But if they’re doing the offending is OK??? - Yes I know it's a sweeping generalization and by no means pointed at you personally.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Looking at religious symbols is in no way forcing me conform to or join a state sponsored religion.
Btw - I’m for getting the government out of education so the only one forcing kids to go to school is their parents.
Well we have 4 good ones at least ;0)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If you were writing a nation's pledge, would you design one that actively leaves out a chunk of your population? Sure, you have the right to, but why do it at all? Especially when the alternative is so easy?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Then why remove any of it? I already said I was in favor of a vote on the matter.
I guess the PC movement was all in my head, made up out of thin air???
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The congress has engaged in lots of symbolic legislation lately. That is, bills which don't really do anything substantive, or are going to be overturned by the courts, or apply to such a narrow situation that the effect is minimal.
There are several possible reasons for this. The most commonly offered are that they need to keep their "base" energized, or they are dealing with tangential issues like this because they are afraid of the blowback from addressing any of the real issues.
The real divide in this country is between those who think everything is fine and those who don't. This is what Edwards refers to as the two Americas. For the past 30-40 years those doing less well have been persuaded that they were doing well enough, or that they will do better in the future, or that social issues were more important than cultural ones. This has started to change. The median working family hasn't seen their standard of living increase in over six years. Those at the very bottom have actually seen about a 10% drop. Those in the top 10% have done quite well and those in the top 1% extremely well.
So anyone discussing the merits of the pledge (with or without belief in the supernatural) or those worried about flag burning are either misguided as to what is important or are part of the disinformation effort which is designed to keep people from discussing the real issues.
Eventually people look in their wallets and the nonsense stops.
If you are referring to the pledge, it isn't that the pledge exists, it is that children are forced to either involve themselves or expose themselves as 'different'
On the 10 commandments in the court issue, that certainly is a "state religion" type issue. The majority in an area is effectively indicating to the minority what the chosen religion is and allowing tax funded leverage to prosyletize (even if it is a subtle form) by forcing folks to attend and bear witness and, considering the massive power difference between the 'host' and the attendees, they'd be wise to avoid a return statement.
but we Americans really love our country or at least a vast vast majority of us does. We are proud of our land, again if you look at America outside of the lefty blogosphere that is :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
but to many of us it is a fight to keep our American character safe. It is a fight to prevent the devolution to this appeasing world citizen euro type land. It might seem trivial but we love the way it is, our priorities are different from yours, and we will fight to keep it that way. That's what those pesky little social issues are about. Like this pledge.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
there is not as much pride and love expressed for America in evidence on the lefty side of the blogging town :) That is not an accusation, just personal experience. Criticism rules the day.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Republicans are definately more bigoted... uh "patriotic". Or maybe that's not it exactly. Maybe it's more that Democrats have the good grace to at least be faintly ashamed and apologetic of their "patriotism". Republicans just act like drunks. You know,
criticism for lack of pride. If lefties didn't care about the country, they wouldn't bother trying to improve it.
Why do you think we're here, Ender? I could just as easily be wasting my time worrying about me, me, me. But I care about this country's ideals and I care that there are people unable to join in the equal pursuit of happiness. Otherwise I wouldn't be here at all.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Comments :
I vote yes n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You should note
that the wording is a little dishonest. You're really protecting a modification to the Pledge.
How about a nice liberal spin on the question: Should we restore the Pledge to its original form, before an overzealous Congress modified it?
I vote yes on that.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Yes I agree
But....aren't there more urgent things the Congress should be doing?
My Gosh if congress is dealling with such petty matters as semantics instead of economy, high gas prices,immigration, AMT, the attack on the constitution....
Are you in favor of them spending precious time for this...
I do too
since I don't see this as a genuine Church/State conflict and I don't think a bland mention of "God" is particularly offensive to non-Christian faiths... but I also agree that this is hardly a pressing matter.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Well,
I leave it out when I say the pledge, personally. Whatever else we may or may not be, we're quite demonstrably not a 'nation under God' - we are a nation the majority of whose citizens believe in God, but the legal framework wouldn't change if everyone suddenly became atheist or bokononian or whatever.
I will agree that this seems like an idiotic way to waste legislative time.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Ah, I see
To be honest I've never interpreted the pledge in quite that way, I've always thought of it as simply a grateful recognition of a higher power. I mean, we don't literally have "liberty and justice for all" either, but it's a nice sentiment.
I dunno, I wouldn't be particularly upset if it were removed either. The whole debate seems a little silly.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Silly Pandering
Our country is taking a serious dive, and we waste time with this issue? And flag burning? Gay marriage?
Anybody hear those bones rolling over in Mount Vernon?
P.S. I voted ‘no’ but could care less.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
Great Point! n/t
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
It doesn't matter.
I don't really care either. I think it's silly to have kids reciting this who don't understand the difference between 'indivisible' and 'invisible'.
The only people I know who consider this to be an important issue are those who feel that their religiousity is under attack by 'secularism'. It doesn't seem to matter to them that the pledge was modified during the cold war -- dropping 'Under God' to them represents a blow to religion.
This is all about the next election.... "So and So voted to remove UNDER GOD..... wants to BURN THE FLAG.... etc." Waste of time.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
it doesn't much matter
To me it is a bow to our great history and to all the blessings we received in terms of great leaders, and great people.
Modifications can be just as valid and even of course better than the original. So people thought about the pledge and wanted to make it better. That is my view and the view of the vast majority of our population. I do not see how the courts should be involved.
And if you are such a pure originalist in all cases of original documents, then would you agree with stripping of all amendments to our constitution? After all they were just modifications after the fact!
How modification automatically equates to being dishonest I don't know. We all know about its past.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
surely our Congress
can do multiple things including acting on smaller issues like this.
So yeah, I don't care if they do this... They have and spend enough time on other issues, just not in the ways I would prefer.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
hmm
Our country is taking a serious dive
That's in they eye of the beholder.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
well
It's better than "So and So voted to starve the little kids and throw the elderly out on the streets"
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The important issue. . .
. . . is less this red-meat-for-the-base waste of taxpayer funded salaries, but the wonderful new concept that the courts can be stripped of their power to review laws and constitutional issues.
While it will certainly wreak havoc in the short term, the next Democratic legislative majority (under God!) will no doubt be able to make productive and creative use of it.
congress does have jurisdiction
over federal courts.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Absolutely agree
Can we keep some things sacred, for God's sake...
On that:
The reason I bring this up is that a good chunk of the argument for keeping the "under God" rests on the desire not to modify. A lot of people grew up with it, and people are resistant to change.
Personally, I think it shouldn't be in there, and I don't say it when I say the pledge. But it's not worth a major legislative battle to me.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The idea. . .
that Congress can simply declare something to be constitutional and therefore exempt from judicial review is certainly new to me. In any event, the idea that you'd use it to protect some transparently ridiculous pandering waste of time is something I've never heard of before.
As I say, no doubt the Democrats will be able to put this theory to good use.
How about
1) Do we need children to recite a loyalty oath?
2) If we do, should that loyalty oath be to the flag instead of the principles of the country?
3) Should that loyalty oath take careful note of the divine authority that oversees our country?
Personally, I'm thinking no on all three.
Is it?
I suppose it depends on whether the increase in children and elderly in poverty was caused by
a) cuts in benefits and a widening gap between rich and poor or
b) by modifications to the pledge and/or an exceedingly rare flag burnings.
I rather like that...
That sounds nice.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Hey, if it is good enough for the President
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute
the Office of Presidentmy duties as a citizen of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."Good call (n/t)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Perhaps by
passing new legislation to take out "under God" and declaring it likewise exempt from review?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I certainly hope
they won't waste it on that. Something really good.
Unfortunately, I'm having trouble coming up with something the Democrats might want to pass and then exempt from court scrutiny. It strikes me that pretty much everything they want to do is perfectly legal.
They don't declare it constitutional
They simply remove all jurisdiction
Personally, I think you could argue that SCOTUS could first declare the law removing jurisdiction unconstitutional if it was done for purposes that violate the establishment clause. But what do I know?
Obey the law - NOT!
How do you square your view with the fact that you're advocating a breach of the constitution?
This Beholder's Eye Sees
Deficits, loss of individual liberties/privacy, war/imperialism, outsourcing of jobs leaving mostly service sector employment opportunities, environmental destruction, global climate change, governmental corruption, oil/gas at its highest price ever, etc.
I suppose you view a golden age at the moment?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
where is the breach? n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
golden age heh
Well not quite, but hardly the end of the world. My only serious alarm is at this country's Left serious hinderance of our war on terror. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Why do you ask questions
Why do you ask questions that you know the answer to? is this a delaying tactic? You know the answer: the 1st amendment's ban on the establishment of a form or religion. This question is well settled by the courts.
You could also argue it independently on the grounds of 14th amendment rights for non-theists. It's discrimination to make atheists either affirm religious beliefs they don't have, or feel left out of a silly bigoted exercise in expressing their American patriotism.
So since it is illegal why do you insist on it? It's all so silly so why make a point of thumbing your nose at the constitution. That breeds an attitude that laws are just things nobody cares about. The issue itself is smaller than the lawless attitude IMO. Not that I'm into the whole fake veneration of the constitution thing but a legislature ought to act in such a way as to keep the law in respect. Not flout the law so they can grandstand.
A little more complicated than that.
While I agree with most of your sentiments, let's remember two things:
1. There is no law requiring anyone to say the pledge, and if one is required to say it (say, in a classroom), one is not required to say the words "under God." As I mentioned upthread, I've just omitted those words completely when I recite it. If I'm wrong on this note, please let me know, but this is my impression.
2. There are plenty of places where the courts have upheld general traditions involving religion, but those traditions aren't technically legally binding. The most obvious parallel to the pledge involves the taking of oaths/swearing in ceremonies. Nearly everyone swears on the Bible or "so help me God," but it's not actually a legal requirement. Two presidents refused to swear, and one president refused to swear on the Bible.
Personally, I'd like to see all these things wither away, but I'd also prefer to use my gunpowder in places where there are actually laws or restrictions forcing people to do things against their will. This country is 80% Christian, and while a lot of that 80% are waking up to the notion that this is a secular country by design, we still live in a democracy, and that requires convincing people that certain things are right/wrong. I'm more concerned with the Big conversations at the moment. I wish our Congress was, as well.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
80% christian my ass
Christians don't act like Americans do.
But back to the chanting of the patriotic creed...
If you force kids into a situation where the normal behaviour is a show of religion --- even if it is completely voluntary as with say, a prayer during assembly --- the courts have ruled that violates the non-religious kids' amendment 1 rights. Just because the other kids are doing it the courts have ruled it sends a message to the muslim / atheist kids that the school is endorsing a certain view of religion -- which is an establishment of religion in violation of ammendment 1.
Is this not well known? I think they've thrown out even smaller things. Pretty nuts if you ask me but that's the established law.
the Supreme Court
has not yet ruled on whether mentioning "under God" in the pledge is in any way similar to an actual prayer, voluntary or involuntary.
Last year they've dismissed first such lawsuit (that reached the Supreme Court) against the pledge on the grounds that the person who brought that lawsuit up lacked proper legal standing to challenge it. So for the moment there has been no ruling that it is unconstitutional and thus it is only your interpretation that this is a show of religion.
From Atheists.org:
This was before Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were on the court. Which means that the balance of Supreme Court has not been altered and it is a good bet that the Pledge's constitutionality will be upheld.
You really have to hate any mention of God to deem this symbolic and voluntary utterance of generic non-sectarian concept of a higher being a form of religious prayer.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Can you give a citation?
I've never heard that voluntary anything has been legally considered a violation of one's rights. If I'm wrong, please let me know, although please link to a court case so I can see the specifics involved.
And 80% of this country identifies as some form of Christian, whether you think they display it or not. If not, you'll have to talk to them - I'm a die-hard atheist, myself.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Ender just did it for me
It's quite well known I thought.
It hasn't been proven illegal
You're offering the Bart Simpson excuse. "Nobody can prove I did it!" I didn't say the US SC had already ruled against it. They are too chicken.
However it's obvious that in line with the existing precedents that you admit to, such as voluntary prayer, that establishing a chant that refers to being "under God" is establishing a form of religion just as much as praying to "Jesus" or praying to "God". Praying is just words after all. The pledge of alleigeance is a sort of civic prayer. The question is whether the words tend to establish a form of religion by implying the institution endorses a certain religious view.
The only defence would be to say the "under God" bit was such obvious utter crap that nobody at school would think or could possibly think that anyone really meant it to be taken seriously or as true. But your own reaction here and that of Congress undermines that argument by making it plain a lot of people think it's dreafully important.
Justice John Paul Stevens opined: "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course if for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law."
translation:
"I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole"
How could anyone argue that saying "under God" isn't religious talk or that it doesn't imply the institution beleives there is a God?
That case
did not conclude that voluntary recitation of anything was a constitutional violation.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Oh bullshit
You really have to hate any mention of God to deem this symbolic and voluntary utterance of generic non-sectarian concept of a higher being a form of religious prayer.
So you'd be cool if the words were changed to "Under no God - because god doesn't exist"? Like hell. You're the one making all the fuss here and now you're going to pretend its the other guys who are making a mountain out of a molehill?
Well Google it
What am I? Your secretary?
Um...
YOU'RE the one claiming such cases exist. In my bizarro-world, I usually expect the person making the claims to provide the evidence. Apparently I have everything backwards.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I'm not arguing with you
If you are interested, just look it up.
Hey -- you "won", alright? I guess the precedent can't exist. You "won". Happy now?
That's about the most childish attitude
I've seen on here. Now I remember why I started ignoring you in the first place.
Consider yourself ignored again. If you can't back up a simple claim - and if you resort to this kind of imbecility as a backup - then I really don't see what discussing issues with you accomplishes other than filling up empty space with equally empty words.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Lee v Weisman suffice?
Here
Had to do with voluntary prayer at a graduation ceremony.
I am making all the fuss?
It wasn't conservatives who suddenly started challenging in courts the wording that has been around since 1950s. Conservatives didn't start all the fuss. "Under God" is a bow to our American heritage, while "under no God" would be a... well a bow to rabid anti-religionism that has no precedence is in US history.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Thank you.
That's all I'd asked for.
Oddly, when you scroll down the page - those decisions aren't always very consistent. I guess it depends on the judges who hear the case? Notice that nondenominational prayer in the classroom was deemed unconstitutional, but nondenominational prayer at a graduation ceremony was deemed constitutional. What a legal mess this is.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
it is symbolism
If you actually look at American founding documents such as declaration of independence it mentions God rather explicitly without implying that we are a religious state, but rather a nation that acknowledges and honors a higher power. It is in our history, and the pledge affirms our history in a symbolic way.
The mention of God has not been viewed as an endorsement or establishment of religion since our founding.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
No problem
I think maybe someone needs to send DavidByron a copy of MontyPython's "Arguement" skit. ;)
Yes, I sometimes think the Supreme Court is a big logical game where the new judges try to fit their pet theories within the legal framework provided by predecessors, and when they can't they look for a reason to 'bend' the old decision to shove their new interpretation in. I suspect it wouldbe simpler if we just agreed that decisions expired when the last Justice involved was no longer on the bench.
But...
Not including "under God" would also be a bow to our American heritage, since the pledge chugged along over half a century without it. ;)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Bit of a difference
The Declaration of Independence (How dare you not capitalize that document you traitorous bastard!!?!?! (woops channeled Ann Coulter for a moment. Sorry 'bout that ;))
had its references based upon the perspectives of the writers. The pledge was modified at the request of a religious groups in order to differentiate good Americans from those 'godless communists'.
heh
And what is wrong with showing that the perspective of those writers applied just fine to a non-religious state without establishing a religion? They were not concerned with mentioning God so why should we be?
You have to admit that this obsession with removing all references to God is relatively new.
Also I like that quote by Docherty :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
not necessarily
The original pledge writer and consequent amenders clearly missed what makes the pledge more respectful of our origins :) Their original pledge was not necessarily a bow to our American heritage but the final change made it so.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ah...
so they were actually projecting the founding fathers into areas that the founding fathers didn't go. Sorta like Christmas.
Over half a century of American tradition had to be corrected. Phew! I'm glad we caught that!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Profanity
This hasn't been strongly enforced in general, so please don't take this personally, it's directed at everyone. As per the posting rules, try to avoid profanity. Thanks.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
About the constitution
You're kind of screwing the constitution and the principle of law over some dumb words. Why not just admit that the words are, yeah ok, technically a violation of separation of church and state?
Instead of admit a defeat on a tiny non-issue you are prepared to screw the pooch. That's how I see it.
It suggests you just don't really much care about law and order. That's the issue I see here.
Ok
What words are you objecting to?
Honestly I am not able to tell.
None of that counts as swearing that I could see.
Out of curiosity
how old are you pico?
Please point or link to...
...the part of the constitution that says "separation of church and state?"
Mandating that the nation not adopt or decree a national religion and the removal of all religious issues or sayings from government or public view are completely different.
btw - you're right, this is a silly issue since the words in question were "added" to the original pledge, if some people want it removed that’s fine. Put it to a vote and let the people decide!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Good point
The phrase is "Congres shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Not establishment of "A" religion.
But while we are on the subject, could you point to the part of the constitution that says that the President's commander in chief powers extend to the Air Force or Marine Corps? Or do you read the "Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States" as somehow sufficient to include the Marine Corps and Air Force?
Also can the President use his Executive Order power to create a national religion for employees of the executive branch? After all, the constitution only says that CONGRESS shall make no law.
This IS silly,
but so is the notion that the majority's opinion is the 'right' opinion.
Consider the unevenness of the proposition: a pledge without God is not an anti-religious pledge, but a pledge with God is de facto religious. To remove it affects nothing or no one, but to add it is a statement that you don't care about the 10% of the country that does not believe.
So, I don't see anything unconstitutional about "under God," but it's - for lack of a better word - mean. Why make a point of alienating a portion of your society? Just because you can?
I don't get it.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Well
Since the Marine Corps, which I'm a proud member, is a department of the Navy and the Air Force at inception was a department of the Army - Army Air Corps - by extension I would say they are covered - but that might be a better answered by a constitutional lawyer, which I am not.
Not being an expert on executive orders or the rules they’re governed by I couldn't answer that question. IMO while a silly thing to do I guess he could but would have a very difficult time enforcing the order!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Exactly
The plain reading can be deceptive. I don't object to the Air Force being under the CinC's role even though I could easily argue that when congress removed the Air Force from being under the Army it ceased to be covered.
My point is that you accept that the exact wording isn't the whole story. Same with church and state separation. Once congress exerts power in such a fashion that has a direct relationship with pushing religion in some form (we are forced to go to school and are often forced to enter a court house) you run into the same situation which often calls for a constitutional lawyer, which neither of us serves as. But the Supreme Court, pretty much by definition has 9 of them.
What’s the point...
...of a democracy if the majority has to defer to a small minority on the grounds of kindness? I understand in a utopian world this would be great but until that happens...
What if the 10%'s deferred kindness offends a different 2.5% which one gets the deferment?
This argument is one my biggest problems with liberalism, somehow liberal think they have a right not to be offended! But if they’re doing the offending is OK??? - Yes I know it's a sweeping generalization and by no means pointed at you personally.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
No one said
that anyone had the 'right not to be offended'. Don't read in what isn't there.
This is my problems with conservatives. You make stuff up.
What I asked is why anyone would want to offend someone if there was a perfectly reasonable and perfectly non-offensive solution.
Yes, the majority still rules, but the majority occasionally chooses to be assholes. This is one of those occasions.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I guess I don't see
The "pushing" part of the augment?
Looking at religious symbols is in no way forcing me conform to or join a state sponsored religion.
Btw - I’m for getting the government out of education so the only one forcing kids to go to school is their parents.
Well we have 4 good ones at least ;0)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Let me put it another way...
If you were writing a nation's pledge, would you design one that actively leaves out a chunk of your population? Sure, you have the right to, but why do it at all? Especially when the alternative is so easy?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
If no one's offended
Then why remove any of it? I already said I was in favor of a vote on the matter.
I guess the PC movement was all in my head, made up out of thin air???
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Fortunately for us all
no one's asking me to do so :-)
My answer is NO, not intentionally
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It's all just training the next generation of jingos
You know. The brainwashing. Don't you think there's something a bit sinister about forcing little kids to chant undeserved peans to the state?
God Bless America... and no place else.
Your responses
are outright surreal:
Me: Why would you choose to offend someone?
You: No one has a right not to be offended.
Me: No one's claiming a "right" not to be offended. I'm asking why you would choose to offend someone.
You: So no one's being offended.
Me: AARRRGGGHHH!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
What is this really about?
The congress has engaged in lots of symbolic legislation lately. That is, bills which don't really do anything substantive, or are going to be overturned by the courts, or apply to such a narrow situation that the effect is minimal.
There are several possible reasons for this. The most commonly offered are that they need to keep their "base" energized, or they are dealing with tangential issues like this because they are afraid of the blowback from addressing any of the real issues.
The real divide in this country is between those who think everything is fine and those who don't. This is what Edwards refers to as the two Americas. For the past 30-40 years those doing less well have been persuaded that they were doing well enough, or that they will do better in the future, or that social issues were more important than cultural ones. This has started to change. The median working family hasn't seen their standard of living increase in over six years. Those at the very bottom have actually seen about a 10% drop. Those in the top 10% have done quite well and those in the top 1% extremely well.
So anyone discussing the merits of the pledge (with or without belief in the supernatural) or those worried about flag burning are either misguided as to what is important or are part of the disinformation effort which is designed to keep people from discussing the real issues.
Eventually people look in their wallets and the nonsense stops.
--- Policies not Politics
Higher standard with children
If you are referring to the pledge, it isn't that the pledge exists, it is that children are forced to either involve themselves or expose themselves as 'different'
On the 10 commandments in the court issue, that certainly is a "state religion" type issue. The majority in an area is effectively indicating to the minority what the chosen religion is and allowing tax funded leverage to prosyletize (even if it is a subtle form) by forcing folks to attend and bear witness and, considering the massive power difference between the 'host' and the attendees, they'd be wise to avoid a return statement.
i know it's tough to accept
but we Americans really love our country or at least a vast vast majority of us does. We are proud of our land, again if you look at America outside of the lefty blogosphere that is :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
maybe it's tangential to you
but to many of us it is a fight to keep our American character safe. It is a fight to prevent the devolution to this appeasing world citizen euro type land. It might seem trivial but we love the way it is, our priorities are different from yours, and we will fight to keep it that way. That's what those pesky little social issues are about. Like this pledge.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Treason! Treason most foul!
We are proud of our land, again if you look at America outside of the lefty blogosphere that is :)
Are you bashing your fellow Americans with a foreigner?!? I thought that was an evil treasonous thing to do. I'm so confused...
I simply meant that
there is not as much pride and love expressed for America in evidence on the lefty side of the blogging town :) That is not an accusation, just personal experience. Criticism rules the day.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Hey I'm fine with that
Republicans are definately more bigoted... uh "patriotic". Or maybe that's not it exactly. Maybe it's more that Democrats have the good grace to at least be faintly ashamed and apologetic of their "patriotism". Republicans just act like drunks. You know,
"Dude, seriously! I LOVE YOU man!"
and make everyone else in the room uncomfortable.
You misunderstand
criticism for lack of pride. If lefties didn't care about the country, they wouldn't bother trying to improve it.
Why do you think we're here, Ender? I could just as easily be wasting my time worrying about me, me, me. But I care about this country's ideals and I care that there are people unable to join in the equal pursuit of happiness. Otherwise I wouldn't be here at all.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I obviously did not mean
all lefties. Also I clearly did not speak about "caring". Not the same as what I meant.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I don't care about your country
But I think it needs to be fixed alright.
If lefties didn't care about the country, they wouldn't bother trying to improve it.
Silly argument.