I pledge allegance to... nothing

[USC MissingLink]

www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/2...index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/index.html)

That's fucked up man...

jEd

[Kurtis Blow]

I may be in minority here, but i've always been against the mandatory reciting of the pledge of allegiance.

Just the idea that the government is trying to make us recite this daily, as if they are brainwashing us, is totally cold war era. I refused to say it when i was in high school, no matter what people said, and i know some people who would say it, but leave out the "under god" part.

Freedom of religion = Freedom FROM religion.

[JohnHrabe]

that's god awful

[NonEcdicus]

You would think so, Mr., uh, "God," uh, I mean, Jed. Three cheers for judicial responsibility!!!

-Brian

[zacariasla]

All I have to say is it's about "god" damn time
zack

[Beach13]

All you have to do is look at what Eisenhower said when he added under god to the pledge to see that it should be unconstitutional. He said "Millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

[beatles88]

Keep in mind that this was a 9th circuit decision, a court which has often been overruled by a more conservative supreme court.

while we debaters like to rag on the rehnquist court, they have moved further to the left than i would have expected (ie campaign finance issues, death penalty), so this ruling may stand when (or IF) they even choose to take it .....

- Travis K
UC Davis

[USC MissingLink]

In my experience, the pledge has never been mandatory. I distinctly remember having friends who didn't join in for the pledge usually for religious reasons.

jEd

[USC MissingLink]

On September 8,1892, the Boston based "The Youth's Companion" magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.

At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words "the Flag of the United States" replaced "my flag". In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.

It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!

In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words "under God". Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of reigious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

(from here (http://www.usflag.org/the.pledge.of.allegiance.html))

So, "under God" wasn't even a part of the original pledge (thanks Congress/Eisenhower), and the Supreme Court has already ruled that you can't force student to recite the pledge...

jEd

[beatles88]

I wonder if this ruling will have the effect of having more districts end the pledge because they want to avoid the costs of litigation .... with states and the federal gov't facing huge deficits, i wonder how many areas can really afford to go through this process ....

- Travis

[Dan6814]

I don't really feel like finding the cite, but I'm fairly sure the court's ruled that "In God We Trust" on our money is acceptable because it doesn't name a specific religion. I don't see anything different in this case, and I don't see any new arguments since then (with the possible exception of the rise in atheism).

Dan

[truthisjust]

Dan, the supreme court did not rule that it is constitutional it just did not grant cert. up holding a lower court ruling.... I think

[MSCD Roadrunner]

On the issue of mandatory vs. voluntary recitation of the pledge, the Supreme Court has ruled against even the voluntary recitation of prayers lead by teachers or school officials. The reasoning being that you create an environment prone to abuse when students choose not to participate. The 9th circuit used similar resoning in their decision, saying that when teachers lead the pledge they establish religion.

This is clear logic that is borne out by empirical examples. A few years ago a player on the Denver Nuggets refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. He was meet with substantial criticism from the media and fans. Because the player was muslim and rejected the prayer on religious grounds, a pair of local DJ's thought it would be funny to invade a mosque. They did so, blaring the National Anthem. Even making recitation voluntary opens those who choose not to participate up to ridicule and ostercisim, which leads to coercion.

From Engel V. Vitale (370 u.s. 421):

"Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited."

In Engel, the court rejected the concpet of an official prayer, even though the prayer in question was non-denominational. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." It did not matter that the prayer was not specifically Catholic, or Lutheran. It mattered that the teachers were leading their children in a supplication to a supreme being. In delivering the decision for the court, Justice Black identified the religious intent of the prayer as the primary constitutional violation. Given the quote from Eisenhower reproduced earlier in this thread, I don't beleive one could calim there is no religious intent in the phrase "under God."

I beleive the inclusion of the phrase "under God" to have the effect of excluding people from government and I also beleive it to be a violation of the Constitution. I hope the decision of the 9th circuit court is challeneged in front of the Supreme Court and upheld.

[Dan6814]

Justin, I think you're right... just did the research I wanted to avoid.

Dan

[JohnHrabe]

Decision is an ‘insult’ to Americans.

LOS ANGELES – Gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon today released the
following statement regarding the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on
the Pledge of Allegiance.

“I have spent the last week talking to veterans about their issues and
promoting reforms I believe will do justice to their service. I believe
this decision is an insult to all Americans – particularly our
veterans.

“Today in fact, I learned of the decision while I was touring a
veteran’s facility - a veteran’s transitional living facility whose purpose it
is to continue to help those who really sacrificed and served our
country in the most fundamental way by putting their lives at risk.

“I am truly shocked and troubled by this decision. In my opinion, it’s
just plain wrong.

“When I was an Assistant United States Attorney, I worked hard every
day to defend our Constitution and our laws. As a private citizen and
hopefully as your Governor, I look forward to doing everything I can to
defend one of our country’s great traditions: our Pledge of Allegiance.”

###

[USC MissingLink]

this is all fine and good, but we will never completely sterylize everything so that it doesn't support some relegion... our legal system supports christian morality much more than islamic morality.

this law, while maybe well meaning, is a slap in the face of those who have fought for the freedom that the flag represents.

jEd

[MSCD Roadrunner]

"this law, while maybe well meaning, is a slap in the face of those who have fought for the freedom that the flag represents."

First, the decision by the 9th circuit is not a law, it's a decision by an appeals court. Second, and far more importantly, this decision is based on sound Consitutional ground. Drawing from previous decisions by the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit protected the religious freedoms of all Americans. Do not forget that the freedom represented by the flag is something accorded to all Americans, not just Christians.

[USC MissingLink]

okay, not a law. your right. i miss-spoke.

and i suppose congress can (and probably will) change the wording of the pledge.

I just involentarily react to a headline like "Pledge of Allegence ruled unconstitutional." (sigh)

Damn lawyers,
jEd

[zacariasla]

Isn't having it be considered constitutional a slap in the face of all the people who fought to make this country great. Don't those who fought represent the freedon from things like this. And yes damn the lawyers
zack

[truthisjust]

While I am not going to pull out my old law briefs, i think you would be incorrect in assuming that precedent supports this decision.

Even if you think the decision is a good one, it is not one based on common law. It may or may not be what the framers had in mind or ever what the constitution says, but a history of recent and historic SC decisions on the seperation clause go against this decision.

[MSCD Roadrunner]

Justin,

I don't think recent decisions regarding the seperation caluse are at all relevant to this discussion. The issues explored in both Engel V. Vitale and the decision by the 9th Circuit Court center around the establishment clause. The court decided that inclusion of the phrase, "under God" was an establishment of religion.

[USC MissingLink]

to paraphrase what someone said on SlashDot:

The true sadness of this decision isn't in the specific wording of the pledge of allegence. It's that we've gotten so sensitive in this country which is supposed to be "free" that there's almost nothing you can do which doens't offend someone else and challenge thier "freedom." Essentially, we are slaves to freedom, which is an oxymoron, but also true. We are so regulated in the name of freedom that we really aren't free anymore.

This decision is just an example. I'm not too concerned though; the 9th Circuit always gets overturned (thank God).

jEd

[MSCD Roadrunner]

I have to disagree. What matters is the protection of individual freedom, and that was not harmed by the decision today. Individuals are still allowed to pray in schools, the prayers just can't be lead by teachers during class. You can still type out the Pledge of Allegiance, and include the words 'under God." Your freedom is in no way restricted. All that has changed is that the government can longer impose religious views on students. The rights of an individual to pray still exists, the right of an indivudal to participate in government still exists, the irght of an individual (no matter what religious persuasion) to attend school and not be excluded still exists. We are not slaves to freedom, we are simply prevented from using the government to impose our beliefs on others.

[truthisjust]

I correct myself by saying that I think the same thing can be said in regards to the establishment clause. Look at the cases regarding prayer in the senate, etc.

[MSCD Roadrunner]

The cases of prayer in legislature were decided primarily on the basis of traditon. The justices ruled that the framers of the Constitution couldn't have ment to ban prayers at the begining of legislative sessions because they held prayers at the begining of their own legislative sessions. There is a sizable difference between upholding a procedure that was in place at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and something that is only 48 years old.

[USC MissingLink]

what's the difference between 48 years and 2000 years? either way, it's locked i the mind of a single generation group. everyone else is dead.

[MSCD Roadrunner]

The difference lies in what was being done at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. In deciding the cases of legislative prayer, the SC ruled that because the tradition extended to before the adoption of the Constitution and was practiced by the framers, the First Amendment could not have been designed to prohibit it. That differs significantly from a phrase added to Pledge of Allegiance to make sure our youth didn't turn into godless communists.

[USC MissingLink]

Well the documents that the "Framers" wrote were sprinkeled with references to God, so I think we can assume that the "Framers" would not have had a problem with "One Nation Under God"

But it's a bit rediculous to assume that interpretation of the Constitution really considered Framers' Intent. The Framers would never have supported a government as large and intrusive as ours has become.

jEd

[Western Amy]

Well the documents that the "Framers" wrote were sprinkeled with references to God, so I think we can assume that the "Framers" would not have had a problem with "One Nation Under God"

Damn, i hate assuming. Much of the time, they used the far more ambiguous term "Providence," but at any rate, much of what they did was unconstitutional, should we legitimize such actions because they fame from the founders?

how about just going on the words of the constitution? I'm inclined to agree that the words "Under god," were added to combat communism, not to honor any particular deity i might happen to believe in.

If you read supreme court decisions, they do take the framer's intent into account which is of course not the same thing as letting it govern their decisions.

But let's not be so dismissive. How about conceding that the words are no longer needed to combat communism? I thought i was the only red menace left.

[MSCD Roadrunner]

First, the argument of framers intent with regard to legislative prayer is rather irrelevant to the discussion of the pledge of allegiance, I only mentioned in response to Justin's argument that today's decision is out of line with precedent.

Second, I think our nation's blind allegiance to "founding fathers" is ridiculous and agree that relying on "framers intent" isn't sound argumentation. That's my personal opinon. The point of my argument is that the SC has drawn a clear line with regards to legislative prayer and prayer in schools.

Third, I've yet to see how two words being removed from the pledge of allegiance in anyway diminshes America or does harm to those who've defend are country or in anyway carries any harms.

Fourth, assuming that just because the framers of the Constitution refered to God means that they would agree with requiring school children to swear allegiance to "God and country" is a flasehood. The reason the SC upheld legislative prayer was because there was a direct, unbroken tradition of begining legislative sessions with prayer that stretched to before the adoption of the Constitution.

Fifth, As a matter of personal opinon, I think having students start each day by pledging allegiance to the government destroys the very nature of a democratic system. Only by being free from indoctrination can individuals make rational decisions about government. IMHO, the entire pledge of allegiance is unethical.

[foodforthought]

The true sadness of this decision isn't in the specific wording of the pledge of allegence. It's that we've gotten so sensitive in this country which is supposed to be "free" that there's almost nothing you can do which doens't offend someone else and challenge thier "freedom." Essentially, we are slaves to freedom, which is an oxymoron, but also true. We are so regulated in the name of freedom that we really aren't free anymore.

Inclusive, happier, more tolerant, comfortable, not telling tasteless jokes
Regular group discussion with other genders, 3 days a week
Getting on better with oppresed frozen poor victims, at ease
Thinking well, not paying attention to superficial colors
A quicker, better athlete, a higher jump
Sleeping well, no bad dreams, no paranoia
Respectful to all peoples, ignoring body hair
Will frequently check credit at moral bank, kritik feminism
Favors for favors, leap but not jump, Boy Scouts, Nazis
Charity standing orders on sundays soup kitchen grit, dirt
No aggression towards Islam, peaceful co-existence
Car wash, also on sundays, no longer wary of the workers or the gardener
Nothing so ridiculously bigoted and desperate nothing so dogmatic
At a better pace, slower and more calculated, no longer relying on God
Now equal opportunity employer, transgender cash register
An empowered and informed member of society, inclusiveness, not tradition
Will not stare in public, less crime hate, tires that grip in the wet
Never question, shame, oppressed, biology not destiny
Altar boy, no longer afraid of the dark and frantic like a cat tied to a stick
The market as god, the ability to not judge others
Calm fitter, healthier and more tolerant.

A pig. In a cage. On antibiotics.

[truthisjust]

I still say it is out of line with precedent. The ninth circuit is the last haven of Liberal Activism in the country. I would not be suprised if it is over turned. I think it should be removed but I would not say it is unconstitutional... I just think it is bad.

The court has ruled before that God is a secular as well as a religous term. They claimed (and I know this leaves a lot of people out... I am not defending the interp.) that god is ambigous and because it does not refer to one particular god the term does not violate the establishment or seperation clause.

[scooter]

Personally, I love this decision-- for so many reasons.

The notion that God is a secular term, as espoused by Justin, does indeed show that Christio-centrism had indeed become secular. Nothing against Christians, but looking even at the (very supposed) connection between Judaism and Christianity, the term and implication for G-d differs (see __The History of God__, a nice analysis of how the very term is clearly different between the two religions, and the implications thereof. Indeed, the words that we as Jews use for the Divine at any Shabbat service would most likely mean very little to one who was not familiar to the confines and constructs of Judaism. In fact, several conservative and Orthodox Jews note that the Divine can not be named, even refusing to fully spell the name of G-d.

That's the connection between the two "more similar" religions. Enter Islam (which of course shows a lot more similarities with Judaism and Christianity than many would admit), Buddhism, Shinto, Wiccan, the numerous "pagan"/native religions, Hindu, Zarathustranism, and the host of other religions that make up this frabic that we call Americana and lo and behold, we find a lack of a phrase of "God" in several of them, and certainly the discourse of a nation under such a power again remains foreign. Thus, the idea that under God refers to all religions and none in particular is a hasty conclusion at best (not to mention that there is absolutely no low governing the notion that people should/must be religous at all in this country-- thus the very notion that __any__ reference to a higher power should become part of a national schema seems obtuse)

Additionally, the notion that the founders liked it so... to be more than slightly an appeal to tradition-- and thus lacking in an understanding of how we have progressed since that time period.

I enjoy the notion of several scholars in that we are living in a post-Christian age. As a Jew, yes, I acknowlege the work and insight of our Christian forbears, but I also recognize that we have moved into an era of more inclusion that understands that complexity of the various religions in this country, and of course the lack thereof.

As far as "In God we trust" and state mottos such as "Nothing without Providence" (good ol' Colorado's moto) in time, we may well see a change. Some of us continue to hope for just that.

S

P.S. David: An excellent analysis! A very nice critical perspective and a solid theoretical base! Also, thank you for the letter and postcard, my appreciation.

[MSCD Roadrunner]

Scott,

What can I say, I had a good coach!

[truthisjust]

I just wanted to clarify... the notion of God being a secular term is not my own thoughts but the precedent of the court. I like the decision and I don't think god is a secular term. My argument simply is that this decision is out of line with precedent because the court has ruled historically and recently that god is a secular term AND does not discriminate because it is vague.

Love,

Atheist Justin

[scooter]

(First, to Justin: I thought that you were an atheist, so I was _really_ confused! Sorry that I piinned it on you.)

For those interested, Goodwin's justification on the ruling is rather interesting: He compares saying one nation under God not only is not representative of the plethora of polytheistic religions, but also notes that the saying may as well be One nation under Vishnu, or one nation under Jesus or one nation under Zeus-- all of which denote a specific religion. The precedent is an interesting one: What other effects will result in terms of other vestiges of the "G" word?

BTW further, just in case someone wanted to note that Goodwin is a left leaning, commie loving, 'curse of all that is wrong in America' liberal, he identifies as a conservative-- who happened to be appointed by that bastion of liberalism, none other than the (in)famous Trickey Dick himself.

S

[cronisaur]

Should this pledge be recieted in our public schools at all? It promotes nationalism and is a ritual w/ little educational value. What place should the state have in promoting loyalty to a flag, that for many, represents oppression and injustice as much as it represents freedom? I'm not sure that the nationalist hegemony created by the pledge is appropriate for a school setting. If parents want their children to enjoy and embrace such values, why not have children reciet the pledge at home or take them to a baseball game where private organizations choose to sing the National Anthem. If the kids want to reciet the pledge at recess, I guess they can do that as well. Let the individual do it though, not the state. Too much government intrusion is bad and it should be kept to a minimum.

Dead Prez has a song called "They Schools." He contends that public schools in the U.S. operate as tools for propaganda that feed children "White Man Lies." I tend to agree. Prez goes on to argue that these schools do not attempt to teach Africans how to get crack out of the ghettos, rise out of poverty, or become self-determined within the confines of a racist, capitalist society. The pledge represents the defunct state of education in our country. Legislators and many in the media seem more concerned that children will not be exposed to state sponsored Christian ideology (thank you Scott Gratson for clarifying the empirical meaning of the work God) than the fact that education as a whole is fucked up and paints a false picture of American history. Rather than wasting time recieting a pledge, schools should, well... educate. Perhaps the pledge would have value if it were followed by an analysis of how freedom and justice are enjoyed by varying minority groups in the United States. If I were African, I would be insulted by the pledge b/c of its hypocritical tone and inflated vision of American freedom. As a white male, I have no place to insist that the state sponsor its own propaganda in public schools. This is insensitive to the history and beliefs of other citizens in this country. Much less will I insist that the already flawed education system promote state sponsored Christianity within its nationalist propaganda. Many markers of ideology are taken as common-sensical in our society, this according to Gramsci. Too much of our ideology in this country is counter-utilitarian and has set the nation on a course of violence (in ways which I shouldn't have to expand). Perhaps it is time to start studying the nuances that are otherwise taken for granted and often labeled as expressions of freedom and liberty. Let's put the pledge on hold until this country actually figures out what freedom is. Peace.

John

[scooter]

Cool analysis!

Is the implication of the ruling just that... that the pledge will not be able to be recited at all or that the phrase under God will be removed from the pledge? I think of, only slightly ironically, the Mapplethorpe exhibit: Can an artifact of discourse be taken out of its entirety if the "parts" are not considered appropriate within the public sphere?

S

[MSCD Roadrunner]

I think, coming from the hypothetical because the ruling was satyed yesterday, that the decision invalidates the entire pledge of allegiance. I say this because the phrase "under God" became an integral part of the Pledge in 1954 and by law, the Pledge includes it. However, I don't think anything would preclude teachers from leading a modified Pledge of Allegiance

I tend to agree with John's analysis. I would like to point out that Marx identified schools as one of the primary sources for socialization. From a functionalist perspective, this is good. Schools help children learn how to interact and participate in society. From the conflict perspective you have a government institution indoctrinating children to prevent them from combating social inequities.

I feel the Pledge of Allegiance is counter to American ideals because it serves the purpose of indoctrinating students. At a time where criticizing the government can turn an individual into a public pariah and civil liberties are being rapidly eliminated in the name of security and patriotism, I believe it's important to teach our children about individual freedom. Blind, ignorant allegiance to anything is dangerous.

[WWUPhil]

I have not had time to read everything here and I don't want to type all of my thoughts... but read section D of the decision. And go read other cases that are referenced.

www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/...penelement (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE05EEE79C2A97B688256BE3007FEE32/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement)

I am teaching a camp and we did moot court on this today. It is important to consider the Lemon test(Lemon Decision 1971.
It must
1) have a purpose that is secular
2) the primary purpose must not be to promote or endorse non-secular issues.
3) it must not be excessive entanglement.

Now you look at other jurisprudence to set thressholds.

The Secular issue can be found in two somewhat conflicting decisions
Chabad and Lynch(1984) Having read excerpts from several of these cases... I know nothing.
Lynch said it was okay to have a nativity in front of the court house if you also had secular things like a x-mas tree and stuff. the court calls these secular holiday symbols(still religous in my book). Chabad says that a Menora and othe Chanaka religous symbols could not be displayed by themselves...

Wallace v. Jaffrey and Santa Fe are both interesting decisions about what endorsing is... Wallace is an Alabama moment of silence case and Santa Fe was like a Graduation prayer case, I think(ACLU is good source for research) :) They declare that required reciting, or even encouraging it, whether the student is required to do it or not is endorsement and borders on entanglement.
In Allegheney and several other cases, the court has determined that the use of terms like God do not equal to endorsing or entanglement.

Fernandez gives a weak dissent in the case and says that the term doesn't threaten a monotheism and removing it would discriminate or something... It wasn't very good stuff. It is clear to me that the justices veiw the meaning of establish much differently. The SC is as political as my beloved 9th and they will ignore it or overturn it. I have more proof of that than I have for the existence of God that we are all unified under.

Peace my brothers and sisters... even the ones who are unified with me under atheism.

[AClare]

Let me start out by saying that on ideological grounds, I find the pledge unAmerican. Tying yourself to something that is a unchanging symbol of government would make Jefferson's stomach turn. I never said the pledge of allegiance when I was young, and when they brought it back when I was in high school I withstood the crap my classmates thrust upon the self-important dirty liberal who probably burned flags for fun and hated America. Obviously the whole "negative environment" thing they worry about for the school prayer thing is there.

But is it the same thing as school prayer? I mean, other than the "Under God" part--which is the part the decision attacked, is it even slightly religious? The subject matter discussed is strictly of a secular nature. It doesn't really uphold one religion over another, except perhaps (sort of, and only in two words) theism over athiesm. Prayer is not just the recognition of a diety, but a recognition of the "correct way" to address that dieity...by praying the way Baptists do, you uphold Baptism over Hinduism, Islam yadda...the pledge only recognizes the existance of God-which all of the framers, Jefferson included--did.

That being said, the recognition of the existance of God is at least a little violation of the establishment clause. But just in those two words, only 50 years old. The decision really only suggests that we ought to pull out "under God." So, they probably will. Although I still would not choose to recite it because of the reason above stated and because I'm a stubborn brat, I really think that any constitutional violation would be minute, if not entirel relieved. The net result would be something like a mission statement, reinforcing not the idea that America is a God-fearing nation (although, overwhelmingly, it is...), but that America is not just a bunch of people who happen to fall under the jurisdicition of the same government (as might be the case as say, the Kurds and other people in Turkey), but a nation. A nation of people more or less united under the same values: liberty, justice, equality, yadda...a national identity is beneficial to social stability and increases political and economic power. Well, maybe whoever wrote this understood that fact and it was their evil plan to make the United States a super power.

For better or worse, I think having the pledge around could be good for society. Furthermore, no one can abstain from saying it if it's not said and I think that's a strong statement of personal belief not to mention a builder of character. In conclusion, I want to keep the pledge just so I can abstain from reciting it.

[MSCD Roadrunner]

I think it's wrong to assume that the phrase "under God" isn't a preferential establishment of religion. Scooter explained use of the word "God" from a Jewish perspective earlier in this thread. It's somewhat of a Christian-centric viewpoint to assume that "God" is a universal term. While the vast majority of theists recognize some form of divine diety not all theists use a word which identifies a singular, personified diety. Even many english speaking Muslims use the word "Allah" in reference to their diety, rather that the word "God".

[truthisjust]

I would also add that preference does not matter in regards to the first amendment. It is a common misconception that the government can get involved in religion so long as it does not prefer one religion over another. But the absence of a modifying word next to religion prohibits government involvement whether it be pref. or non-pref..

[stannard67]

US political establishment vilifies "Pledge" plaintiff
By Patrick Martin
wsws.org
10 July 2002

Dr. Michael Newdow, the California physician who successfully argued in his own lawsuit that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it includes the words “under God,” has been subjected to a vicious campaign of vilification by Democratic and Republican politicians, the leaders of organized religious groups, right-wing talk radio and editorials in virtually every major newspaper. The media has portrayed him as a crank guided by a peculiar obsession against religion, and he has received multiple death threats.

Newdow argued that both his and his daughter’s First Amendment rights to be free of a government establishment of religion were violated because she had to “watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that ours is ‘one nation under God.’” A three-judge panel of the US Ninth Circuit of Appeals issued a 2-1 ruling in his favor late last month.

The US government publicly and officially sanctions and promotes religion in countless ways, in clear violation of the language of the First Amendment, from the phrase “In God We Trust” on US currency to compulsory swearing “so help me God” to testify in a legal proceeding. And now, according to the US Supreme Court, public tax dollars can be used to finance religious indoctrination of children and the purchasing of Bibles.

Fascist-minded Christian fundamentalists are the dominant political force in the Republican Party. President Bush, in a comment that was remarkably ignorant, even for him, declared that the Ninth Circuit decision “points up the fact that we need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God.” Actually, as any competent student of law or constitutional history could explain, the rights of Americans are spelled out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights or derived from English common law.

The Democratic Party also bows to these reactionary prejudices. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle denounced the Pledge of Allegiance decision as “nuts.” When the Democratic-controlled US Senate held its first session after the Circuit Court ruling, senators gathered to hear an invocation from the Senate Chaplain, who declared, in a novel interpretation of the First Amendment, “We acknowledge the separation of sectarianism and state, but affirm the belief that there is no separation between God and state.”

The most prominent liberal lobbying groups were prostrate before the prevailing Bible-thumping. A spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union called the court’s decision “correct,” while “hastening to add that the ACLU had nothing to do with the lawsuit,” according to the Washington Post. Ralph G. Neas, head of People for the American Way, portrayed the decision as a backdoor attempt by the Republicans to “get traction and make this an issue.” They can’t, he argued, “because everyone agrees. The decision was wrong and it will be overturned.”

An atheist on “Crossfire”

In pursuing the suit—which civil liberties lawyers told him would never prevail in court—Newdow has demonstrated a considerable degree of moral and physical courage. A case in point was his appearance July 3 on the CNN news program “Crossfire.”

The format of this program is drearily familiar. A rabid reactionary—in this case arch-conservative commentator Robert Novak—is paired with a tepid ex-liberal—in this case former Clinton campaign strategist Paul Begala—in a joint interview with a person in the news. The setup usually guarantees predominance to the right wing, since the liberals invariably lack any conviction and seek to accommodate their “dissent” to the ideology dominant in official Washington.

Newdow, falling entirely outside the official consensus, was targeted by both “left” and right. But he gave rather better than he got.

Novak started off in a bullying tone, citing opinion polls showing 84 percent of the population opposed to the court ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow wanted to deprive this overwhelming majority of their rights, he claimed.

Newdow replied: “I’m not saying that at all. They can do anything they want. I encourage them to worship as they please. This lawsuit is against whether—it is to determine whether or not they have the right to use the government to enforce their religious ideas. And that’s the question.”

Novak claimed that the Pledge of Allegiance did not impose religious ideas and cited the “free exercise” section of the First Amendment. Newdow responded: “You’re misinterpreting the rights. There’s an establishment clause and there’s a free exercise clause. And the free exercise clause is the one that allows anybody to worship as they please. The establishment clause forbids anybody from using the government to have that worship—I shouldn’t have used the word enforced—but intruded upon other people.”

Former Clinton aide Begala was, if anything, even more vicious in attacking Newdow, sneering at the significance of the issue. “There are a whole lot of things that I think people on the Left ought to be upset about,” he said, citing pollution, corporate scandals and the anti-democratic policies of Attorney General John Ashcroft. The First Amendment ban on establishment of religion, he made clear, was not one of these things.

In this he was sounding the same theme as the New York Times and the Washington Post. Both newspapers published editorials deploring the Pledge of Allegiance decision as a diversion from more important matters that would inflame popular prejudices and thus strengthen the far right. The Times said the ruling would be overturned, adding, “the sort of rigid overreaction that characterized it will not make genuine defense of the First Amendment any easier.”

Such criticism has no legitimacy, since the liberals have long since abandoned any defense of democratic rights and social progress on the other, supposedly more important, political issues. All support the shredding of the Constitution by Bush, Ashcroft & Co. in pursuit of the global “war on terrorism.”

The Post said the ruling “could hardly have produced a more provocative holding than striking down the Pledge of Allegiance while this country is at war. We believe in strict separation between church and state, but the pledge is hardly a particular danger spot crying out for judicial policing.” This last claim was contradicted by a subsequent Post editorial supporting the Supreme Court decision that approved the use of vouchers for religious schools.

The rights of the non-religious

Newdow responded to this baiting with a robust affirmation of the rights of the non-religious. “First of all,” he said, “I don’t think people understand—atheists are really a disenfranchised minority in this country. There are six constitutions right now—state constitutions—that say things like what South Carolina says, that ‘No person who denies the existence of a supreme being shall hold any office under this Constitution.’ Can you imagine somebody having—a state having no person could—no Jew could hold an office under this constitution, no black? Atheists are just very disenfranchised and I think that people need to stand up for their rights.”

Then the following exchange took place, which reduced Begala to sputtering frustration:

Begala: Mr. Newdow, I’ll read back to you a comment that was quoted to you in the San Francisco Chronicle where you apparently said—quote—“It may seem like a far stretch, but if you do this incrementally this is what causes people to get killed. A man flew a plane into a very tall building in New York believing he was doing it for God.” You’re not blaming religion for the mass murders of September 11th, are you, sir?

Newdow: Absolutely. Are you denying that’s what it was about?

Begala: Yes—absolutely. The terrorists who blew up the Oklahoma City building were atheists. Am I going to blame you, another atheist, for killing 168 innocent souls in Oklahoma City?

Newdow: I don’t know that they were atheists, but they didn’t do it in the name of atheism. This man did it in the name of Allah.

Begala was incapable of refuting Newdow’s assertion, although it is certainly an oversimplification, because that would require a more serious discussion of the causes of September 11, above all, a critical examination of the role of US foreign policy in fomenting hatred of the United States among oppressed peoples all over the world.

A final exchange with Novak seemed to put the right-wing pundit on the brink of apoplectic collapse:

Novak: Mr. Newdow, I just wonder how far you plan to go, if you’ve thought that out. Every—we have on our currency “In God We Trust.” We have that as the motto in the House of Representatives. We have prayers in the House of Representatives. In the Senate we have chaplains. We have a military chaplain. The president takes an oath on a Bible. Many officers take an oath on a Bible. The Supreme Court starts every session saying, “God save this honorable court.”

Newdow: Pretty horrible for an atheist, don’t you think?

Novak: Are you going to bring suit about all of those things...

Newdow: Absolutely.

Novak:... against all of those practices?

Newdow: If I win here I’ll keep going—yes. Can you imagine if we had all of those things with Allah or David Koresh or someone else that you don’t agree with? The Reverend Sung Myung Moon? You’re comfortable with it because it’s your religion. I’m uncomfortable with it. And I’m American and I’m supposed to be protected just like you.

Novak: But 84 percent of Americans believe there is a difference between David Koresh and God.

Newdow: That’s right. That’s the point.

Novak: Does that seem credible to you?

Newdow: No—but the point is that we don’t do this based on majorities. This is the Bill of Rights. This is how to uphold the minority right. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights...

Novak: You’re the one who’s trying to silence them.

Newdow: I’m not silencing anybody. I’m silencing the government, which is what the establishment clause says.

Novak: But you’re...

Newdow: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Novak: There’s no establishment of religion because to do anything...

Newdow: You just said—you just listed six different things where there’s God all over the place. That’s a religious establishment—that’s theism. Just like the judge said in the—in the opinion. That’s an establishment. Because it’s not a specific one religion—that’s not—that’s not the issue. The issue is: is any sort of religion being established? Yes—theism.

All in all, a breath of fresh air, politically and culturally.

[AClare]

I guess my biggest problem is that I don't get what the biggest problem is :) . It's a waste of time (the pledge, I mean) in classrooms, but isn't that about it? I'm almost (and it pains me to no end to say this) willing to believe Pat Robertson that such EXTREME anti-religion sentiment in government (and that's what people are expousing--anti-religion sentiment) is actually the establishment of religion--atheism. By erasing God from the public sector, isn't that a de facto establishment violation? I really think that the only thing that gives impact to the whole "Under God" part of the pledge is the big hullahballoo about it. Watch kids reciting it. Do they pay attention to what their saying? Yeah, right.

And none of what anyone has said so far convinces me that the pledge of alliegence is equivilant to school-sponsored prayer. And all of the stuff brought up to say it's "bad" is references to school-sponsored prayer.

I'm agnostic. Maybe that's why I'm not all into this, I don't have as much problem with acknowledging the possibility of theism. And to repeat myself: I want to keep it, just to give people the opportunity to abstain from it.

[Liz]

This is my favorite part...

<"President Bush, in a comment that was remarkably ignorant, even for him...">

[MSCD Roadrunner]

" By erasing God from the public sector, isn't that a de facto establishment violation?"

You cannot call atheism a religion. There is a clear dichotomy between theism and atheism. Athiests recognize no supreme or divine beings, no divine authority and no divine moral standards. It is absurd to consider the absence of religious beliefs a religion in and of itself. Furthermore, I think the claim that eliminating God from the public sector is an establishment of religion reeks of xtian-centrism. The only way in which all Americans can be truly free to practice their religion is if the government espouse no religious beliefs and supports no religion.

The claim that this isn't a big a deal and has no effect on children is again a xtian-centric argument. Imagine Wiccan parents from a Dianic tradition explaining to their children why they're forced to recite allegiance to a country whose authorities derive from a foreign god. Or even worse, imagine those children having to explain to their teachers and/or classmates why they won't recite the pledge. Particularly in the jingoistic political environment of post-9/11 America, being different in anyway perceived as unamerican can be dangerous. Several years ago when a Denver Nuggets player refused to stand for the National Anthem, it resulted in a local radio show desecrating a mosque. Now that player's life would probably be in danger. From CNN, 6-28:

"A federal appeals court heard arguments Friday on whether an Alabama school system had the right to discipline a student who stood silently with his fist raised rather than recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

The student, Michael Holloman, a high school senior who has since graduated, was spanked three times with a wooden paddle and given a written reprimand.

The case was argued before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta only days after another federal appeals court ruled that the pledge is unconstitutional because of the words "under God."

[ML]

This is my favorite part...

<"President Bush, in a comment that was remarkably ignorant, even for him...">

I like Maureen Dowd's assessment of the Commander-in-Thief in yesterday's NYT: "Born on third base and thinking he hit a triple..."

Ha. (Hi Liz--how are you?)

ML

[Liz]

Better now that you're back-how are you? I saw Shelby and Kaisa's bruises last night-hoped your road trip went better.
Here's your poem, like I promised:

I pledge allegiance to ML,
for her I vow to walk through hell.
(Unless my coffee's all but gone,
then I'll have to stop and put some on.)
Viva ML!

[ML]

Ummmm....no bruises, but I did get a ding in my windshield from some idiot going about 90 mph on loose gravel somewhere outside of Billings. I left my camera (complete with pictures of the World's Largest Holstein Cow...and me!) in a restroom at Medora, ND. And going through the mountain passes was not something my poor four cylinder car took kindly to. But we made it, and saw some mighty purty country out there besides. Makes a girl feel powerful queasy, lookin' at all them mountains, and the homemade billboards with bible passages stuck into 'em. Whew.

And now, I'm off to cultivate my inner lesbian with the soothing sounds of the Indigo Girls. We should have lunch soon, to cultivate our inner catty career girls with killer footwear...hmmm. Maybe that's not really a hidden identity....

Love,
ML

[USC MissingLink]

I left my camera in a restroom at Medora, ND. Ya know, it's probably still there. No one ever visits North Dakota, and them that do don't use them thar indoor outhouses. That's what bushes is for.

jEd

[AClare]

Wow. Thanks for the repeated assumption that I am judeochristian-centric. First of all, as I mentioned, I'm agnostic. And in my humble opinion, acknowledging agnosticism in the public sector is the only true way to avoid an establishment violation. It responds to the question of "God?" with "No comment." Anything else would violate.

Atheism isn't a religion? Then what's your problem? It's just not a big deal. I think the emotional response can be explained by the fact that atheism is indeed a religion. Perhaps not organized, but it's a set of assumptions about the origin of truth, creation, yadda...sounds like religious beliefs to me. Just because there isn't a Church of Atheism doesn't mean that it's not "just another religion." It really seems as if you want the government to adopt that religion, too. Which says to me--and this of course not specifically you, but other atheists I've talked to have represented this idea--that you don't actually care about freedom of religion for other people but only for yourself.

Furthermore, I've yet to see how mentioning the existance of God is sooooo very bad. I dont' believe "God" exists, per se. But there's absolutely no problem for me that other people do. The pledge of allegiance is not required. I think it's stupid, but it's nothing to get all self-righteous over. School-prayer, however, IS something to get self-righteous over but there's no reason to believe the pledge and prayer are the same. HOW ARE THEY THE SAME??? Just because you don't like them?

"The student, Michael Holloman, a high school senior who has since graduated, was spanked three times with a wooden paddle and given a written reprimand."

that bit confuses the hell out of me--corporate punishment? Is that even legal in the US? If they do that there, there's a whole shit load more wrong with that school than the pledge of allegiance.

Wiccan parents would have a great deal to explain to their children, not the least of which would be that the majority of Americans subscribe to a certain set of beliefs that do not mesh with what they believe. Big deal. It's religious freedom that originally made the pledge voluntary. That child, however, does not have to explain it to anyone. Not the teacher, not the other students. A teacher who harasses that child about is violating the law.

And may I remind you--the pledge has not been deemed unconstitutional, the words "under God" have. NOT THE WHOLE THING. Furthermore, us wacky-9th circuit types have no jurisdiction over 11th circuit.

That thing in Atlanta...I'm going to look it up, because that really doesn't sound right. Corporate punishment? Oh, my god...if it's true I am SOOOO writing a debate case on it.

I really dont' enjoy defending the pledge of allegiance. I really don't enjoy defending JudeoChristianity. But atheism is as much of a religion as any other religion is, and by erasing God from government specifically on the "it violates my religious freedom" argument, you're estabishing atheism and everyone else's religious freedom is being violated.

[Liz]

Clare-I love you, so I'll tell you, you might have more luck if you look up "corporal" punishment.
Corporate punishment will (I'm sure) just get you pictures of President Monkey-boy promising to punish the corporations from that recent press conference.
Liz

[AClare]

I swear the word I was saying was "corporal"--my fingers go on autopilot when I'm typing, especially when my brain hurts from learning too much at once.

CORRECTION: In my above post, "corporate punishment" was meant to be "corporal punishment"

Sorry for any confusion it may of caused (or hysterical laughter)

Clare

[MSCD Roadrunner]

"Wow. Thanks for the repeated assumption that I am judeochristian-centric. First of all, as I mentioned, I'm agnostic. And in my humble opinion, acknowledging agnosticism in the public sector is the only true way to avoid an establishment violation. It responds to the question of "God?" with "No comment." Anything else would violate."

One need not follow the beliefs of a given religion to advocate that religion. The arguments you've advanced come from a very xtian-centric viewpoint. First, lumping Judasim and Christianity together asumes a certain sameness that I think many Jews would dispute. Second, your apparent assumption that I'm an atheist just because I reject the word "God." Both of these are christian-centric viewpoints. How is including the words "under God" in the pledge ackowledging agnosticism? Including that phrase destroys your concept of "no concept." The only way we can all be free to paint is if we're given blank canvass.

"Atheism isn't a religion? Then what's your problem? It's just not a big deal. I think the emotional response can be explained by the fact that atheism is indeed a religion."

My problem is I don't like the assumption that I'm less worthy to be an American citizen because I'm not a Christian. Don't assume I'm an atheist just because I don't like the pledge of allegiance. I happen to have a very deep faith in the divine. The quote you see at the bottom all my posts, besides mentioning God, happens to come from a Catholic priest.

"Perhaps not organized, but it's a set of assumptions about the origin of truth, creation, yadda...sounds like religious beliefs to me. Just because there isn't a Church of Atheism doesn't mean that it's not "just another religion." It really seems as if you want the government to adopt that religion, too. Which says to me--and this of course not specifically you, but other atheists I've talked to have represented this idea--that you don't actually care about freedom of religion for other people but only for yourself."

The freedom of an individual extends only so far as it does not injury another individual or that individual's right. My right to beleive whatever I want to believe, or to teach my children whatever I want to teach them is injured if I, or they, have to start everyday recognizing a diety outside my belief system. As for atheism as a religion, I think you're way off base. Atheists have no set of beleifs regarding creation or the origin of truth. Most will side with a biological view of evolution and reject entirely the concept of "Intelligent design."

"Furthermore, I've yet to see how mentioning the existance of God is sooooo very bad. I dont' believe "God" exists, per se. But there's absolutely no problem for me that other people do. The pledge of allegiance is not required. I think it's stupid, but it's nothing to get all self-righteous over. School-prayer, however, IS something to get self-righteous over but there's no reason to believe the pledge and prayer are the same. HOW ARE THEY THE SAME??? Just because you don't like them?"

By adding the words "under God" the Pledge recognizes and appeals to a diety. Thus it becomes tantamount to a prayer. Furthermore, it need not be a prayer to violate the Establishment clause, only establish a religion. By having teachers lead a recitation of a pledge which recognizes (and names) a divine being, the schools are establishing a religion.

"that bit confuses the hell out of me--corporate(sic) punishment? Is that even legal in the US? If they do that there, there's a whole shit load more wrong with that school than the pledge of allegiance.
...
That thing in Atlanta...I'm going to look it up, because that really doesn't sound right. Corporate(sic) punishment? Oh, my god...if it's true I am SOOOO writing a debate case on it."

Please do look it up, in fact, let me help you. Click here. (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/28/pledge.alabama.ap/index.html) Furthermore, the fact that the student was punished is rather irrelevant. Engel v. Vitale established that it is unconstitutional to have a prayer recited even if it's voluntary. Students still face harrasment from other students.

"Wiccan parents would have a great deal to explain to their children, not the least of which would be that the majority of Americans subscribe to a certain set of beliefs that do not mesh with what they believe. Big deal. It's religious freedom that originally made the pledge voluntary. That child, however, does not have to explain it to anyone."

It was a big deal to one student, Tempest Smith. Tempest was 12 years old when she hund herself with a sheet, Feb. 20, 2001. She killed herself after being taunted about her religious beliefs. Click here for the story. (http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=2801)

"...atheism is as much of a religion as any other religion is, and by erasing God from government specifically on the "it violates my religious freedom" argument, you're estabishing atheism and everyone else's religious freedom is being violated."

The only thing being denied to those who support the phrase "under God" is the ability for them to force their religious beleifs on me.

[AClare]

you know something? America has a very JudeoChristian viewpoint--and let me clarify, sir genius, that the "judeo" part is a MODIFICATION of the "christian" part. It's a "judeochristian tradition" i.e.--a tradition started in Judiasm and continued and propogated through christianity.

And "Under God" in the pledge doesn't acknowledge agnosticism--BUT I DON'T CARE. I don't understand why anyone does. It in NO WAY suggests that not being a monotheist makes you less of a citizen--how you got that, I'm really not sure. Nor does it violate ANY of your rights. What does it's existance to do your ability to practice your religion? Why do you care? You don't have to say the pledge of allegiance. I dont' say it regardless of those two stupid words--why is it a problem? Because you have to admit that those who believe different than you currently hold control of what it is to be nationalist and indoctrinated? Why would you ever want to be a part of that?

It mentions God, so it's a prayer? Huh? Are you telling me that exclaiming, "Oh, my God!" or "Goddamnit" is a prayer? That's a ridiculous standard for deciding what is prayer. I've heard people say, "I swear to God, I'm an atheist."

You're seriously telling me that a student commited suicide SIMPLY because they were harassed about being non-Christian? There's no possible other cause, like, I don't know, clinical depression? That's ridiculous. The entire idea that you're personally harmed by the words "Under God" in the pledge of alleginace is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS. All I can think is "Cry me a river!"

You continue to call me "xtian-centric" without justification--I'm perfectly willing to turn that on you and say that your position represents a hatred of people based on their religion. You don't like that the Christians are in charge (me, neither, actually...Ashcroft, that bastard...) but that doesn't give you the right to establish atheism as the state religion.

Furthermore, how about you spend some time and energy on something that ACTUALLY matters, huh? It's just so insignificant, it never should have been heard, as far as I'm concerned.

How does other people saying "Under God" violate your rights? Huh? Other people believing in a monotheistic God violates your rights? I know I"m repeating myself, but: Cry me a river.

[MSCD Roadrunner]

Given the tone this disscusion has taken, this will be my last post on this thread.

"And "Under God" in the pledge doesn't acknowledge agnosticism--BUT I DON'T CARE. I don't understand why anyone does. It in NO WAY suggests that not being a monotheist makes you less of a citizen--how you got that, I'm really not sure. Nor does it violate ANY of your rights. What does it's existance to do your ability to practice your religion? Why do you care? You don't have to say the pledge of allegiance."

If a student is forced, either out-right, or by peer preasure to acknowledge a diety that they don't beleive, it is a big issue. When you recite the pledge, the message is clear. America is united under one God, the Christian God, and all rights are derived from same. Having that phrase as a part of a government approved pledge is a) an unconstitutional establishment of religion and b) a marginalization of all non-Christians. I'm saddened that you don't care about Consititutional rigyhts being violated, but it does upset me.

"It mentions God, so it's a prayer? Huh? Are you telling me that exclaiming, "Oh, my God!" or "Goddamnit" is a prayer? That's a ridiculous standard for deciding what is prayer. I've heard people say, "I swear to God, I'm an atheist."

It is an appeal to a diety, so yes, I consider it a prayer. But that's irrelevant. it is an establishment of religion, even if it's not a prayer. As for confused atheists, I have no response.

"You're seriously telling me that a student commited suicide SIMPLY because they were harassed about being non-Christian? There's no possible other cause, like, I don't know, clinical depression? That's ridiculous. The entire idea that you're personally harmed by the words "Under God" in the pledge of alleginace is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS. All I can think is "Cry me a river!"

I did cry for Tempest Smith. If you'd read the article, you would have seen several experts testifiyng that teasing is rarely the sole cause for suicide, but very often a contributing cause. An individual may not be harmed by the existence of those two words, however the effect of choosing not to say them can be very harmful. Read Engel V. Vitale, the prayer was voluntary but still unconsitutional because it forced individulas who opted out of saying it to other themselves.

"You continue to call me "xtian-centric" without justification--I'm perfectly willing to turn that on you and say that your position represents a hatred of people based on their religion. You don't like that the Christians are in charge (me, neither, actually...Ashcroft, that bastard...) but that doesn't give you the right to establish atheism as the state religion."

First, just because Christians have the majority that gives them a right to promote their viewpoints and religion? Look to the tyranny of the majority argument advance by Jefferson! That's why the Consitution exists. I still don't buy that atheism is a religion, and you've said nothing to convince me otherwise. Eliminate the phrase "under God" from the pledge and everyone participates freely, their is no establishment that favors one religion over the other.

"Furthermore, how about you spend some time and energy on something that ACTUALLY matters, huh? It's just so insignificant, it never should have been heard, as far as I'm concerned."

I'm sorry, I can't few the Constitution as something insignificant.

"How does other people saying "Under God" violate your rights? Huh? Other people believing in a monotheistic God violates your rights? I know I"m repeating myself, but: Cry me a river."

Other people saying "under God" doersn't violate my rights. but when that phrase is part of an official pledge, sanctioned by the Government and repeated everyday in schools across the country, it does. I'm not challenging anybody's right to believe anything. I'm not asking anyone to change their beliefs. I just want to see an America in which every citizen is free to hold their beliefs without being marginalized by a majority.

[truthisjust]

Since when did an non-acknowledgment of something become support for something else? I don't get it. So you are honestly saying if we don't acknowledge god in the public sphere than we are supporting atheism? Seriously?

So then if a person fail to use the word god all the time they are supporting atheism? Maybe if they are in a religious context and fail to mention god the case could be made that they are non-believers, but even then it would be weak.

[AClare]

::D eep sigh:: No, not acknowledging God in the public sphere does not establish atheism per se--taking stuff out that is tradition i.e. "In God We Trust" "Endowed by their creator" "Under God" ONLY because of the idea that it establishes a state religion--THAT is anti-religion, and thus establishing atheism.

There are a million reasons to get rid of the pledge of allegiance. The "under God" part is one of them--but it's a STUPID reason. I just think people should get over it and work on actual violations of the constitution--how about the egregious violations of our fourth ammendment by the Patriot Act? How about the restrictions on the right to peaceably assemble by making protesting that becomes violent "domestic terrorism"?

I guess I don't really worry as much about a state established religion in the little ways, like sneaking "under God" into an already fascist practice, as I do about the big ones--school prayer over the PA, state-sponsored heterocentrism, stuff like that. This is small potatoes.

[Gabe Rosenberg]

AClare,

I find the position you are advancing to be very confusing. Earlier you have argued that Atheism is a "religion"--a claim I will not quibble with here--but in your most recent post you suggest that it is an "Anti-Religion," or more specifically that actions that are anti-religious necessarily establish atheism. If atheism is a religion, as you claim, how can actions to establish religion (atheism) be anti-religious? A quandary indeed.

Your advocacy, then, appears to fence off atheism as a special sort of religion--completely unique in its disavowal of truths apparently inherent in all other religions, so much so that establishing atheism is contrary to all other religions. Can that claim possibly be true? Does atheism equally offend--or offend at all, for that matter--Buddhism, Taoism, and Christianity? Or perhaps I have taken your use of the term "anti-religious" to be too inclusive; perhaps you really only meant anti-Christian?

It seems to me that the impulse to categorize modes of faith as religious and anti-religious will only yield a garbled, incoherent, and entirely unproductive nomenclature.

That aside, I wonder: if atheism is to be taken as believing that god does not exist, should not one assume that its establishment would entail a positive assertion concerning God's existence (i.e. money printed with the phrase "God does not exist" on it, or pledges that assertively state "God does not exist")? AClare, if you can, please explain how the pledge post-alteration makes a positive claim concerning God's existence.

Finally, I fail to understand the utility of the "tradition" test--or even how it could possibly be applied. When does a practice become traditional? It seems that the pledge's now infamous utterance is cast as tradition on the basis of half-a-century. When, then, did it phase into tradition? Was it in 1965? 1985?

Like Justice Blackmun dissenting in Bowers, I concur with Justice Holmes when he wrote, "[It] is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past." Tradition is a very poor basis for social policy. In the aforementioned case, tradition, as Justices White and Burger saw it, dictated that states should continue to make consensual same-sex sexual activity illegal. Your test implies that traditions that have a religious basis ought be given special protected status, since violating them would establish the anti-religion atheism. Since sodomy laws most certainly have deep religious significance (the etymology of the derisive use of the word faggot, for example, has been suggested to be related to the practice of late-middle ages church courts that would order those who violated sodomy statutes to be burned alive--hence their similarity to the small packets of wood that also bore the moniker), would they also receive special protected status, even if found to violate 14th amendment rights? Perhaps state courts in Pennsylvania, New York, and Kentucky will need to reconsider Bonodio, Onofre, and Wanson respectively.

For someone ostensibly interested in fighting "heterocentrism" and protecting fourth amendment rights (whose modern application are as much a contrivance of twentieth century courts as substantive due process, and with as much "traditional" basis as well) I find your willingness to use tradition as a standard for heightened protection confusing.

Best Wishes,

Gabriel Rosenberg
Grinnell College

[AClare]

You know, you got me, I'm not totally sure precisely what I believe on the whole thing. I do know that leaving the words "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance is not any more harmful to people than taking it out. I think spending the time and energy on it when it doesn't fully yank the thing out of schools is pointless.

But I do believe there is a danger to establishing atheism as a state religion. Especially as those who hate people because they are religious increase in number. In Oregon, we have the lowest per capita church attendance rate in the country. My state represenative is a Methodist minister. There were those who attempted to bar him from being a rep. because he was a minister.

I'm not for a second arguing with the idea that there are religious people out there attempting to create a theocracy in this country. Pat Robertson has actually threatened to take over the country. But at the same time, tyranny can come from the places you least expect it. And the more "politically correct" you are, the less freedoms of all kinds there are. When it's not "hip" to be Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim...) in this country--and I do hope that day is coming--it'll be us non-religious types that will have to step up to the plate and treat them with the respect they didn't treat us with when it was their time to shine.

It was not necessarily the other poster's idea that the pledge of allegiance with "under God" violated the establishment clause that I took issue with. It's the idea that admitting that other people believe in God violates his right not to. I really think that's a dangerous way to go, because that dictates that we all believe the same thing to live in a just society.

Jingoistic patriotism has always been aligned with Christianity. But I avoid both. I would think that anyone who had a problem with one would have no problem avoiding the other at the same time.

I think the pledge itself is stupid, but that the fact that it says "Under God" is the least of our worries.

Perhaps I have cleared up nothing, perhaps you now understand what I'm getting at. I don't know. It makes sense to me, anyway :D

Clare

[USC MissingLink]

I Pledge (if I am emotionally so inclined, but otherwise make no commitment whatsoever) Allegiance (or if not, at least a passing interest in) to the Cloth Symbol (known by most but not necessarily myself as "The Flag") of the loosely associated group of governmental regulatory bodies known as The United States of America (which may also be referred to as a group of ethnically diversified persons living in the same place at the same time) and to the Republic (please refer to the aforementioned disclaimer regarding the USA) for which it stands, one nation (please refer to the aforementioned disclaimer regarding the USA), under (or maybe even over) an unspecified deity (or not if you so choose so as not to possibly offend any member of the ethnically diversified group herein assembled to recite or not to recite this statement of allegiance or interest depending on the mood of the moment) indivisible (or invisible or visible or whatever) with Liberty (because you have to have liberty even if there is no commitment or responsibility whatsoever) and Justice (whatever you may define that to be) for All (and by "all" we may mean just one lousy individual who wants to, with the help of his A.C.L.U. court appointed attorney, ruin everything for everybody else).

[scooter]

we could just scrap the whole only slightly disguised attempt at mind-control and be done with it!

S