US Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by juju
It seems blatantly obvious to me that this is a good thing. Yet 99% of everyone interviewed on tv is pissed, including all the politicians! What kind of world do I live in? Am I some sort of alien?

Not at all. Unlike 99% of the US population, you seem to be intelligent, and look at this logically rather than emotionally.

[Undertoad]

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

--Former Pres. George Bush Sr.

[warch]

Do new citizens have to recite "the pledge" as part of their process?

[elSicomoro]

Interesting that you brought that up UT...

"The declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate rights. As a matter of fact, it’s a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence."--George W. Bush

To go along with vsp, the concept of "no God" is apparently incredibly hard for most people in this country to grasp.

And now, the judge is staying his decision, opening the possibility of all 11 judges on the panel to review it. The decision would have been stayed for 45 days anyway, but I wonder if the judge did this out of genuine concern or intimidation. I also wonder if Judge Goodwin realized the potential impact of his ruling.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by warch
Do new citizens have to recite "the pledge" as part of their process?

I believe some of them do, but not all.

official: "Say it! Say it you puke!"

potential new citizen: "Ummm...I, ummm...pledge..."

official: "You took too long! No citizenship for you!"

[Nic Name]

“The declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate rights. As a matter of fact, it’s a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence.” -- President George W. Bush

God Save The King.

God save great George our King,
Long live our noble King,
GOD SAVE THE KING.
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
GOD SAVE THE KING!

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter his enemies,
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On him our hopes we fix;
God save us all!

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On George be pleased to pour,
Long may he reign;
May he defend our Laws,
And ever give us cause
With heart and voice to sing
GOD SAVE THE KING!

Source: Songs Naval and Military, published by James Rivington, New York, 1779.

America's founding fathers hated that crap!

[Nic Name]

http://www.au.org/

[jaguar]

I'm with this dude
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/27/63448/0050
I find the concept of the UShaving a state religion bloody scary, might be the start of the next crusades, disturbing images of Ashcroft on a horse rampaging across europe with a flaming brand. (Irony unlimited)

[vsp]

And we're well on our way already.

Within 24 hours of the original Pledge decision, the Supreme Court decided that my tax dollars can be used to take kids out of public (secular) schools and, er, pay to RE-EDUCATE them in religious institutions. Some humor value will pop up when someone tries to use vouchers to pay for admission to (let's say) a Wiccan, Scientologist or openly atheist school, but it's still a chilling precedent.

Our Chimp-in-Chief responded to the 9th Circuit's decision with this jaw-dropping statement: "We need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God, and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench." Say WHAT? It's not as if Bush had planned to fill the court with atheists and agnostics prior to this statement, but this is an absolutely bald-faced declaration that there _will be_ a religious litmus test applied to all of Bush's court nominees. If you don't buy into Judeo-Christianity, or feel that separation of church and state is a good idea, you have no place in America's court system and are unfit to uphold the law -- or so says the President.

And, as the quote several messages above restated, the President's daddy isn't so sure that non-believers should even be citizens of this nation, much less in a position of authority to weigh and measure SECULAR law. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

And where is the loyal opposition, the Democratic response to Republicans trying to inextricably bind together God (that is, their God) and patriotism? Robert Byrd declares the lead judge in the decision an "atheist lawyer" and says that said judge had better never come under his Congressional scrutiny, "because he will be remembered." Nice threat, there. Joe Lieberman, a former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate, calls for a Constitutional Amendment to permanently cement the words into place in the Pledge. The Senate lines up to deliver a unanimous vote denouncing a CORRECT legal decision, and in the House's version, only three Dems had the courage to vote "no."

No, I didn't expect the Democrats to rise up as one and support the Pledge's revision. It's a meaningless issue at its core, but one that can be replayed four hundred thousand times during this election season. Stating the actual facts and laws involved instead of screaming "ME TOO!" would start a blizzard of faxes, emails, death threats and public mockery. But there's a big difference between failure to support the decision and OPEN RIDICULE of its underlying principles. Democrats pushed each other out of the way to be the first to face the camera and shout "The decision is ridiculous and wrong." Ninety-nine senators, 99% of the House and 99% of the media pundits shouted as one that yes, this IS a Christian Nation, and yes, the Judeo-Christian God IS the foundation for our system of laws, and anyone who believes otherwise can go sit out in the hall because they're clearly out of their minds.

I repeat: Say WHAT?

Democratic leadership (and much of the media) mocked those who defected to vote Green in 2000, calling Nader's assertion that "there isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans" ridiculous. Well, while it's not true on all issues, exactly how are non-Christian Democrats supposed to look at this rush to join the Republicans at the pulpit (which, if you listened to Lieberman on the campaign trail, didn't start this week) and NOT feel the least bit disenfranchised?

[Nic Name]

Perhaps, we take all this a bit too seriously ...

so here's a brief humorous interlude courtesy of SatireWire.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by vsp
Within 24 hours of the original Pledge decision, the Supreme Court decided that my tax dollars can be used to take kids out of public (secular) schools and, er, pay to RE-EDUCATE them in religious institutions. Some humor value will pop up when someone tries to use vouchers to pay for admission to (let's say) a Wiccan, Scientologist or openly atheist school, but it's still a chilling precedent.

I'm actually okay with this, probably because I live in a city with a horrible school system. My only real concern is the loss of revenue to the school district, and what school districts will do, so as not to hurt the quality of education to the remaining students.

But I see it as giving the parents a chance to give their child an education that they're probably won't get in a school district like Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington. I don't know what the numbers are, but I'd say that the majority of private schools are parochial (Catholic or Lutheran, primarily), so I'd say by default, many of these kids will wind up in a Catholic or Lutheran school.

And I don't think that's necessarily so bad. When I was in high school, we had quite a few non-Catholics who were there because of the education. Sure, they had to put up with the religious B.S., but by high school, the indoctrination part tends to wear off and you delve into issues like social justice. So long as the parents are involved (e.g. The child and parents talk about the differences between their own religion/beliefs and those at the school they're attending), I think it could work well.

[spinningfetus]

I have heard conflicting information on whether teachers were required to say the pledge and I was wondering if someone could point me in the direction of a difinitive answer. The reason I ask is when I subbed a couple of years ago they made it seem like I had to, and being that my parents taught in the same district I didn't want to press the point but now I want to know for sure.

[Nic Name]

The appeals court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said that students cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But even when the pledge is voluntary, "the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge."

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/3554067.htm

[elSicomoro]

SF, it depends on the state. For example, "California, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, and Alaska all have laws that require schools officials to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance on a regular basis."

From here

[Griff]

The rules vary by district and maybe by state. A number of schools I subbed at replaced the pledge with a recording of the National Anthem, no standing required. My brother teaches in California and his building doesn't bother.

I guess to the Christian fundementalist the schools already feel like re-education camps. Isn't the primary purpose of Prussian style mandatory schooling, to break the kid away from his roots so he's a more useful tool of the state? As a whole, schools do ere to the side of promoting the dominant local religion, which I oppose, but there are also cases where children and teachers are prevented from expressing their beliefs, like the little girl whose teacher prevented her from saying grace before lunch. What I'm trying to say is tolerance must go both ways and coercion from either side is unacceptable.