US Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional

[vsp]

Originally posted by Nic Name
The point that interests me is that there seems to be such an overwhelming political will and unanimity in Congress and the Senate and the Executive branch ... that it could be a settled by a clear and unequivocal Constitutional amendment to embody the Pledge of Allegiance in the Constitution (under God, if that's the will of the people). Like the Bill of Rights. As a proper amendment of the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance would not offend the First Amendment because it would be a further amendment of the First Amendment to acknowledge that the Pledge of Allegiance is within the amended Constitution NOT respecting an establishment of religion.

That's an appropriate power of the legislature, to make new law ... to change the law ... even change the Constitution in accordance with the overwhelming will of the people as reflected in the necessary votes in both houses. That's the basis for American democracy ... free to amend the Constituition to make God whatever part of the government the people will support. But the lawmakers should have to face the people on this one, and not hide behind judicial robes and a politically stacked Supreme Court.

It's been over 200 years since the founding fathers expressly separated God from the United States, and the Republic from the Kingdom of England ... and the world has changed since 9/11 when you know who attacked America.

Maybe it's time for a Constitutional changing of the guard.

I have read this, and re-read this, and re-re-read this about fifteen times at this point. Either I'm misinterpreting what you're suggesting, or I am justified in being _terrified_ that otherwise rational individuals are buying into this kind of rhetoric.

The issue is not whether the lawmakers have the power to alter the Constitution; they do. If the powers that be want to amend the Constitution to give official sanction to "under God," to prohibit the burning of the national flag except for proper disposal procedures, to ban smoking in all public places, or to make Kraft Macaroni & Cheese the officially-recognized national food, they can do so if they can gather up sufficient "yes" votes. The issue is whether they should.

The Pledge issue is not one of vast national importance, a full-fledged Constitutional crisis; it's a bunch of prick-waving following a decision that was legally correct but widely unpopular. It's an opportunity (in an election year) for politicians to jump up and down in front of the cameras and show off how godly and patriotic they are. It's not something that affects our daily lives in a significant way, frankly, and I won't lose sleep nightly if (more like when, given the uproar) the decision is overturned. It's hardly the full-barrel assault on God, America, patriotism, apple pie and Chevrolet that many in Congress and the media are making it out to be; I don't even live in one of the nine states that it affected.

But when people start talking about overriding the most significant portion of the First Amendment to give "under God" official sanction, now we _are_ talking "national crisis." Now we _are_ talking about chipping away at one of the bedrock principles upon which this nation was founded.

There is a significant and distinct minority in this country who view the world in strict Christian fundamentalist terms. In their eyes, the country is corrupt and should be ripped apart brick-by-brick and replaced with a theocracy where Old Testament Biblical law reigns supreme. They live by a simple with-us-or-against-us mentality, have a grass-roots network second to none, and are thoroughly unapologetic about their intolerance for other religions, ideas and cultures. They have a grass-roots network second to none, have an annoying tendency to run "stealth candidates" at a local level (candidates who run little or no public advertising, counting on a grass-roots word-of-mouth campaign to gain votes and win elections with little turnout, revealing their extremism only after victory), and (while a minority) are a sufficiently large voter block that they influence the policy and philosophy of the mainstream Republican Party.

All of the previous paragraph is PERFECTLY LEGAL and should remain so. Why? Because the First Amendment protects _their_ rights to worship, believe, speak and evangelize according to their religious beliefs, and protects _my_ right to believe differently. The First Amendment also prevents any religious group from being singled out and either officially sanctioned _or_ persecuted. This allows them to refer to people like me as dangerous heretics who're gonna BURN BURN BURN, allows people like me to refer to them as dangerous fanatics thoroughly out of touch with reality and the times they live in, and allows the government to carry on business as usual without promoting or sanctioning either of those views.

Now, the "under God" phrase is not an open, non-denominational statement of general religious fealty; it is a direct reference to the Christian deity. That's not surprising, as the religious right's attempts to work religion into American law are usually monotheistic in nature; look at how quickly the Falwells of the world complained when the likes of Scientology and Wicca lined up to take part in the faith-based charity concept.

This is not to paint all Republicans or all Christians as dangerous moral crusaders bent on retaking America from the heathens; far from it. The average person who self-identifies as Republican, Christian or both looks at the extremists just as warily as the rest of us. The problem is that American politics aren't generally based on fairness, upholding the law and doing the right thing; they're based on getting reelected and keeping the money train rolling.

Over time, the public has been desensitized to the blurring of God, patriotism and America into one muddled concept. Public debate has been framed in such a way that legislators on BOTH sides of the spectrum fear to challenge the hardcore right, lest they be labeled as GODLESS LIBERAL TRAITORS or REPUBLICANS IN NAME ONLY and tossed out of office by a wave of enraged Christian voters who feel like they've been personally attacked. It's rare that a politician shows up to tell the other side of the story, to explain the principles of law behind what's going on and to take the risk of defending an unpopular action.

The Pledge issue is an obvious example: look at the Democrats who scurried forth to denounce the decision, with some Republicans openly grumbling that they couldn't find a prominent Democrat to stigmatize with the "anti-Christian" label. Look at the knee-jerk reactions of much of the media, painting it as if the entire Pledge was being eliminated or that anyone who dared to say the two forbidden words in schools would be arrested or reprimanded. Look at how many pundits publically mock the decision against the two words, and how few are bringing up how they got into the Pledge fifty-odd years ago, why they were added and whether they should've been added in the first place. Look at Joe Lieberman (a braying ass of the highest order), who (as a powerful Democrat) should be one of the foremost in opposing the way the Republicans blew this far out of of proportion, and who instead is the FIRST to call for a Constitutional amendment. He wouldn't want to jeopardize that Presidential campaign in 2004, after all... "The lawmakers should have to face the people," you say; I'd be satisfied if they'd just face the LAW instead of the polls.

The First Amendment is phrased the way it is for a reason; it's there to make sure that _no_ single religious viewpoint gets the upper hand in the laws of this country. To amend it further to effectively say "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion (except for the Christian God, which will be affirmed daily by schoolchildren)" would be an abomination of the highest order, and one step closer to the theocracy that many desire. It would open the door for waves of Christian-themed morality legislation and significantly hinder the defense of those trying to ward them off.

"The world has changed post-911." Bullshit! This is _still America_. The Constitution does not have a hidden clause that says "If non-Christian terrorists attack within America's borders, all bets are off and the President can pick and choose which portions of the preceding document to suspend." The Christian God did not pick up four jets and fling them like paper airplanes into the WTC, Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania because Americans weren't following his Biblical instructions properly, or because an atheist in California was anxious about exposing his kid to a daily state-led recitation containing a religious reference.

And, yeah, I'm long-winded about this kind of thing, but that's because I take this sort of thing extremely seriously. The opposition certainly does, and owe much of their success to the fact that few others do.

[vsp]

Originally posted by Undertoad
But we can't declare war on them because we aren't really sure who they are. The "they" in all these sentences is what? Is there a smart missile smart enough to target it, all over the world? [/b]

That, in a nutshell, is why this "war" is thoroughly pointless. Until "they" is defined and, more importantly, _why_ "they" are so intent on attacking us is worked out, all our military responses are doing is perpetuating the cycle.

My take: it's a war where "they" are whoever we declare to be "terrorists," whoever it is politically expedient to sic our bombers and our soldiers on, and whoever we can target without jeopardizing relations with nations our leaders (or our oil companies) would rather be social with.

Now, we (as a nation) can take stock of _why_ there is so much anti-American sentiment around the world, and what we can do (or should do) to eliminate some of it. We can question why Afghanistan was Target 1 and the hawks are circling Iraq like cat stalking a mouse, but nobody says boo about anti-Americanism in Saudi Arabia. We can ask whether bombing the shit out of Afghanistan did much of anything that was productive, or whether it killed more people who had nothing to do with the WTC than those (if any) who did, and helped reinforce the America The Bully image among those who loathe our country. We can ask why when these kinds of accountability questions are asked of the current administration, the response is often hostile and contains veiled accusations of "aiding the enemy" or "helping the terrorists win."

Or we can go back to bed and watch Everybody Loves Raymond.

Tony -

I hear what you're saying, and I agree with you (if I'm interpreting you correctly). But now you're talking about <b>people</b>, not a religion. That's a mighty big difference, I think. And that's my point, and it frustrates me to no end that some don't see this as a fight between <b>people</b>, they see it as us vs. their religion. It's not so.

[vsp]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Tony -

I hear what you're saying, and I agree with you (if I'm interpreting you correctly). But now you're talking about <b>people</b>, not a religion. That's a mighty big difference, I think. And that's my point, and it frustrates me to no end that some don't see this as a fight between <b>people</b>, they see it as us vs. their religion. It's not so.

It's not, but that's how both sides choose to portray it.

Echoing part of my overlengthy Pledge rant, how do the minority who _do_ want open religious warfare escalate it so that the moderates will go along? Make it appear as though the moderates are being attacked or repressed. Generalize the other side, don't name names or seek specific targets, just paint them as a dark and evil country/organization that wants to destroy everything you stand for.

Thus is America generalized as the Great Satan, a bully that lurches around the world and bombs, shoots or screws with anyone it chooses to. There's some truth to that, of course, but the leaders of America (and those who drive its foreign policy, military and intelligence agencies) perform actions and 200,000,000 everyday Joes are held accountable, whether or not they have any idea what's going on overseas (much less whether they'd approve).

Thus did the post-WTC War On Terra morph from Osama: Dead or Alive, to The Sinister Forces of Al-Qaida, to Terrorists Wherever They May Lurk In The World (and they're everywhere, maybe hiding in your back yard, and never mind that Osama character, we'll get him someday). It's a lot easier to keep a war revved up when your end-of-engagement criteria keep shifting and becoming more unreachable -- and when you're not chasing individuals, you're just bombing and shooting lots of Faceless Evil Brown People Who Hate America And Freedom.

An average Afghani sees a friend or neighbor die at the hands of American bombing, someone who had nothing to do with terrorism or even cared about America, and it might as well be an Al-Qaida recruitment film. If X opposes Y, and Y just waltzed in and did something unspeakable, X must be correct. Right?

An average American sees the WTC collapse on TV, sees our leaders declare that shadowy terrorists from a country most Americans couldn't find on a map did it, and suddenly everyone in that country is Public Enemy Number One. We root for America and against Afghanistan (and Al-Qaida) as if they were sports teams, and the team that blows up the most things wins. Right?

Religious hatred is like an Outlook virus. Not everyone is dumb enough to fall for it, but all you need are isolated incidents to keep it propagating.

[Nic Name]

vsp, my opinion is that the legal reasoning of the 9th Circuit is correct. Many constitutional lawyers would agree ... many would disagree. That's why we have a complete judicial system.

My comments were not in support of a constiutional amendment to abridge the separation of church and state.

Rather than see the courts take a political stand to allow the words "under God" to stand in the Pledge of Allegiance as used by government institutions, including public schools, I'd like the legislators to take responsibility for such lawmaking.

If they did, they'd have to face public opinion, including yours and mine, which are likely in the minortity on this issue right now.

An amendment could entrench the Pledge of Allegiance in whatever words are politically acceptable, without infringing the Constitution. I wouldn't want to see "under God" in there, but I'm out of step with the American public as represented by their legislators. (I'm not even an American, so this is an academic or legal debate for me.)

I think that legislators might have to think harder on the subject than just strutting out on the steps and placing their hands on their hearts and reciting. They'd have to deal squarely and fairly with the issues, rather than hoping some judges will save them from their responsibility by ruling that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance don't mean what they mean.

If the people overwhelmingly want such expressions, there is a mechanism for Constitutional amendment ... and it's not the Supreme Court.

My argument and closing barbs in the post above, were just to draw out the discussion of the issue whether "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, not whether it is legitimate that it "is" already ... for only 48 years, at that.

[jennofay]

i think, maybe, the reason it is being worded as a "war on terror" is because of a few reasons...

one. it *really* began as a reaction to a terrorist action. yes, things may have been going on before hand, but you didnt hear about it like afterwards.

two. it is not a war on a specific country or a specific group of people. in reality, it may appear to be, but i dont remember the US declaring war on islamics. probably because they didnt. if japan bombed pearl harbor (hypothetically speaking...) we might declare war on japan. we might also become suspicious of japanese people in the US, but we would declare war on a specific country. if a particular group of people moved into your country, lived in your neighborhood, bought groceries at the safeway down the street, and then proceeded to aid in attacking your country, you might, likewise, become suspicious of other people similar to them. unfortunate, but true. but since they were not acting on behalf of a country, we can not declare war on a country. we also can not attack their religion. its their actions, not their religion that are being fought. there wasnt a "war on islam" before, and theres not one now, because "islam" didnt attack, terrorists did.

three. while, no, we are not fighting ALL terrorists now, this particular threat is the most dangerous at the moment. i think that it is hoped that if they are defeated, other terrorist groups will back off.

four. i will repeat myself some... we are not going after people because they worship a particular diety. we are going after them because they killed people. other innocent people will die in the process, but it IS a war...

i am not very good at putting thoughts into words, so appologies for sounding like an idiot.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
You really think they will? Really? With a straight face you seriously think they will do that?

Jag, you're dealing with the Cellar's resident optimist here.

I WANT to believe that they will. I really do. If this is a war on terror, then it should be a war on ALL terror 'round the world. From November the 17th (Greece) to the ETA (Basque) to Mugabe and his wackos (Zimbabwe). Let's take down al-Qaeda and then take on the next challenger.

The reality of it happening? I'll give it a 30% chance. Now you wipe that cynical look off your face and light a hope candle.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Actually, those people are being held on immigration violations. Are they being held because they are suspected to have terrorist links? Yes. But they are not being held because they are Muslims.

Dave, I suspect that you and I have very different perceptions of the actions of the government following 9/11, which could be why we do not see eye-to-eye on this.

As I see it, our government made some knee-jerk reactions regarding Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11. Most of those detained by the INS in the few months following 9/11 were from the Middle East and South Asia. Lots of people overstay their visas, but the focus (from what I saw) was clearly on Arabs and Muslims. I think the intention was good...the US was going after terrorists who happened to be Muslims...certainly, I can see that. But innocents were caught in the crossfire, like Albader Alhazmi or Malek Zeidan. I think cooler heads have prevailed since then, although I think the government is still going to sweat Muslim organizations like the Holy Land Society, perhaps unfairly.

As I mentioned last night, to my knowledge, there is no state-sponsored persecution of Muslims. (But conspiracy theories aside, I believe that there is an underlying desire by some in the government to squash Muslims like bugs.)

[jaguar]

Dham - the onyl people i see being attacked are Islamic fundamentalists, if you ahve anything to conter that i'd be facinated to hear it. My point never was that it is a war on Islam, i merely meant to suggest it was closer to that than a war on terror but since you've decided to get anal about it...

Syc - I do foreign relations, as a result my assesment of the chances of a broarder war on terror is around 0.03% +- 0.0.3% . :p

Its not a war in Islam, give me some credit, but any muslim will be under some degree of suspicion if only by the general public and you are already seeing vastly hightened survaliance of mosques, charaities etc The weight of the CIA/Military in nations where islamic extremism is thought to be is already being felt. This combined with a stupidly hardline approach to the Isreali conflict does give the impression that Islam is certainly not on the right side of the US. But....

It's not a war on Islam. Nanny nanny boo boo. I'm right and you're wrong. Can we at least provide some evidence to support our claims? Or are you content to discuss this as a child?

Biting political shots from dhamsaic there, how about interpreting what i said correctly, it might help.

I DID NOT SAY IT WAS A WAR ON ISLAM FOR CRYING OUT LOUD I SAID IT WAS CLOSER TO NOT THAT IT WAS, IT WAS A SUBTLE SUBSTATEMENT THAT YOU COMPLETELY MISINTERPRETED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Sorry.

Why is it more like a war on islam than terror?
1. All those targeted are islamic.
2. Noone else has been targed or implicated in anything other than the 'axis of evil'(DPRK).
3. There has been no military engagement against anyone apart from Islamic fundamentalists.
4. There has not even been suggestion attending to other terrorist groups.
5. The US has and will continue to use and train terrorists for its own political ends

The same statments can be applied for the effect statement as well. I was going to provide sources for all of those, but i honeslty could not be bothered. If you don't like them, provide counterevidence.
thankyou.

Originally posted by jaguar
'war on terror/islam'

*cough*

[jaguar]

*wacks head into brick wall*

IT WAS A SUBTLE SUBSTATEMENT THAT YOU COMPLETELY MISINTERPRETED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[jaguar]

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/7/4/05012/46905

[Nic Name]

I don't read Kuro5hit.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Nic Name
I don't read Kuro5hit.

Take one for the team Nic.

[jaguar]

why not? one of the most interesting sites i've found recently, sure you gotta filter the crud but...