Appeals court: Pledge of Allegiance still unconstitutional - Page 2

DinoDoc · February 28, 2003, 18:24

Incidentaly when are we going to get around to banning The Star Spangled Banner?

Velociryx · February 28, 2003, 18:28

Hmmm....good point....and the "Stars and Stripes forever" is probably offensive to those who do not believe in any sort of eternity.

I'm thinking we should get a cadre of lawyers to look into that....

-=Vel=-

Berzerker · February 28, 2003, 18:29

It doesn't matter if the teacher is "forcing" children to take the pledge, just the knowledge that a teacher MAY treat a child differently based on whether or not they take the pledge and the knowledge that not taking the pledge MAY subject them to ridicule, if not outright hostility from the other children constitutes coercion.

Velociryx · February 28, 2003, 18:31

And when I step outside today, I MAY get struck by lighting....whatchagonna do....sue the stormcloud?

-=Vel=-

Berzerker · February 28, 2003, 18:32

Are children being coerced into singing the Star Spangled Banner? Using the word "forever" in a song is not the same as affirming a belief in a deity.

Stuie · February 28, 2003, 18:34

Quote:

Incidentaly when are we going to get around to banning The Star Spangled Banner?

Why? Because it's the same tune as GOD Save the Queen? Oh, no... that's My Country 'Tis of Thee.

There is no justifiable reason to refer to god(s) in any government document. The power to govern comes from the PEOPLE, it is not ordained by gods.

@Berzerker:

Well put. I accept your right to believe in whatever (even if I think it misguided), I DO NOT accept subjecting children to oaths professed to "God" in public school.

Edit: Yikes, several posts intervened...

Imran Siddiqui · February 28, 2003, 18:35

Quote:

just the knowledge that a teacher MAY treat a child differently based on whether or not they take the pledge and the knowledge that not taking the pledge MAY subject them to ridicule, if not outright hostility from the other children constitutes coercion.

Does this mean we should segregate kids again? After all, being black MAY make a teacher treat you differently and MAY (and probably will) subject you to racial stupidity and ridicule.

Berzerker · February 28, 2003, 18:38

What's utterly amazing is that proponents of the pledge are claiming the religious freedom to coerce other people's children into affirming a religious belief and that not being allowed to use this coercion on children violates their religious freedom. Gee, does that mean vestal virgins who refuse to jump into a volcano are violating our religious freedom if we want them to jump?

Imran -

Quote:

Does this mean we should segregate kids again? After all, being black MAY make a teacher treat you differently and MAY (and probably will) subject you to racial stupidity and ridicule.

Blacks have the same rights as the rest of us, it's called equal protection. The fact we can't prevent a teacher from seeing a child's skin color is not a reason to coerce children into affirming religious beliefs since not doing so may trigger discrimination from the teacher. Strange you would use potential racial discrimination to justify potential religious discrimination. If a teacher did that, fire the teacher, don't increase the potential for discrimination...

DinoDoc · February 28, 2003, 18:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Are children being coerced into singing the Star Spangled Banner?

If they participate in sports, they might

be coerced into doing so. It's the God part of the song that might arouse eyebrows though.

PS Does anyone know where the first thread on this topic is? I distinctly remember linking to a page that covered the relevent case law in it.

Spiffor · February 28, 2003, 18:40

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Incidentaly when are we going to get around to banning The Star Spangled Banner?

DD :
actually, I think it is the role of School to build a common sense of community in the nation. So, even though I find a daily pledge of allegiance disturbing (to say the least), I don't think it is incompatible with the role of the school.
There is no official religion in the US, but there is an "official Nation" in the Us : the US, with its flag, its anthem, its map, its short history and so on.
Very different business to instill a national sense to a child with instilling a religious sense. Unless, of course, religion and state are intertwined. In the US, they are not.

Dauphin · February 28, 2003, 18:40

What about foreign children in US schools, are they 'forced' to sing and pledge? Is it fair to do so?

I can't remember what I did when I was at school, although I still remember the pledge off by heart.

Velociryx · February 28, 2003, 18:41

And as has been pointed out...I WENT to public schools, and nobody forced or coerced me to do it. You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I wasn't treated ANY differently for not sayin' the pledge. No biggie.

Let's see....in order to protect our children, we should probably just simply avoid language of any kind in public schools, or wrap everything in a thick coating of PC speak, so no one's tender sensibilities are offended.

"Class...today, we're going to discuss....the evolution of the zebra, and talk about what events may have transpired on the African plains to give him his distinctive stripes....now, this is not to say that any creationists that might be out there in the class are wrong.....merely to provide an alternate opinion....and should we have any class members of the Kambangbo tribe among us (who believe, incidentally, that the zebra is a holy animal, and that the stripes are living symbols of the good and evil in us all), this is not to say that your ideas are wrong either....and if there are any people who don't believe that zebras exist.....and if there are....

**yawn**

How 'bout just getting on with the lesson....lol

-=Vel=-

Boris Godunov · February 28, 2003, 18:42

I don't see what the big deal is. Just restore the Pledge to its original form, the one that was around before the McCarthyites decided to change it. That would be "One Nation, Indivisible..." That way, there will be one less bit of divisiveness. And it reverts to the Pledge as it was designed.

Imran Siddiqui · February 28, 2003, 18:49

Quote:

If a teacher did that, fire the teacher

EXACTLY! If a teacher discriminates fire the teacher, don't get rid of a voluntary pledge.

Boris: Because once a big deal is made about something, people tend to retrench.

Berzerker · February 28, 2003, 18:52

Dinodoc -

Quote:

If they participate in sports, they might be coerced into doing so. It's the God part of the song that might arouse eyebrows though.

Huh? I played sports and we never had to sing before an event.

Sports are an extra-curricular activity, you don't have to play.

Berzerker · February 28, 2003, 18:57

Imran -

Quote:

EXACTLY! If a teacher discriminates fire the teacher, don't get rid of a voluntary pledge.

The pledge isn't voluntary, you going to fire the children too if they discriminate against the kid who refuses to take the pledge? That's why the pledge is coercive... It's hard enough figuring out if a teacher is discriminating based on race, but you want to add more potential discrimination?

Berzerker · February 28, 2003, 19:03

Vel -

Quote:

And as has been pointed out...I WENT to public schools, and nobody forced or coerced me to do it. You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I wasn't treated ANY differently for not sayin' the pledge. No biggie.

Your experience is limited to you, not everyone else. There are children in this country who've been mis-treated for not taking the pledge.

Quote:

Let's see....in order to protect our children, we should probably just simply avoid language of any kind in public schools, or wrap everything in a thick coating of PC speak, so no one's tender sensibilities are offended

You aren't getting it yet, it's not about hearing offensive words or ideas, it's about being coerced into affirming religious beliefs some children don't have. How would a Christian react if the teacher told their kid to stand up with his classmates and affirm a belief in Satan?

Stuie · February 28, 2003, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I don't see what the big deal is. Just restore the Pledge to its original form, the one that was around before the McCarthyites decided to change it. That would be "One Nation, Indivisible..." That way, there will be one less bit of divisiveness. And it reverts to the Pledge as it was designed.

Giant_Squid · February 28, 2003, 20:43

It seems to me people are getting too caught up on the actual words of the pledge. The issue seems to me to be whether or not ANY pledge said in school in a noncoercive matter that nevertheless expresses support for a belief not universally held is acceptable. What if every day schoolchildren were strongly requested to begin their studies with

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States, and to its ideals of helping the needy, preserving equality and tolerance of minorities, preventing plutocratic oppression and pushing for freedom and social justice worldwide"

or even

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States, and to the republic for which it stands, under only the divine limitless potential of humanity"

If either of these were used, conservatives would rise up in open revolt, and they'd probably be right to do it, and Imran, you'd be at the head of their army, wouldn't you? Even if any child could choose not to say the pledges without any open coercion. Face it - the only reason this is being so strenuously opposed by certain groups is because it's THEIR message that's being implicitly injected into young tractable minds. The issue isn't even I think the first amendment - it's just in general whether schools should be supporting the agenda of one side of a social controversy.
And, of course, it's only a matter of time before we change to "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, and to the beloved President of that Republic, George W. Bush" - I think Cuba does something like that already - got to instill those values at the right age!

BustaMike · February 28, 2003, 21:25

Seems pretty clear cut to me. The pledge should revert to how it was. It clearly says in the constitution that there is a separation of church and state... but then again our dollar bills also say "In God We Trust" on them.

The real problem is not whether or not "under God" should be recited. It shouldn't. The problem is whether or not it's worth the effort to change the pledge back to how it was originally. Personally, I think it is.

I've gotta tell you (at the risk of going off topic), I'm really tired of some of the religious nonsense I see in this country today. My Aunt actually sent an email to a bunch of her friends and family that was a flash presentation with pretty little children and flowers and stuff praying for the outright destruction and slaughter of the middle east and all the sinners over there. WTF?

It may not seem like a big deal, but having those two little words in the pledge go a long way towards reinforcing that ridiculous idea that if you don't believe in God (or one person's view of God) that somehow you're less of a person. An adult can easily make an informed decision on whether or not to say a pledge, but can a 2nd grader? There aren't many 2nd graders I know that can.

By removing the "under God" no one is saying anything one way or another about religion, but by leaving the phrase in they are. I'm tired of seeing any kind of religious intolerance anywhere, and even though "under God" is just two words, I believe that it does promote religious intolerance, and I think that this is a good enough reason to put forth the effort to change the pledge back.

I dunno what we're gonna do about the dollar bills though...

BustaMike · February 28, 2003, 21:34

Quote:

It seems to me people are getting too caught up on the actual words of the pledge. The issue seems to me to be whether or not ANY pledge said in school in a noncoercive matter that nevertheless expresses support for a belief not universally held is acceptable.

I think the plege in it's original form is perfectly acceptable. All it really does is reinforce the social contract - as a citizen you agree to give up certain things (i.e. you ability to go loot and pillage and harm others) in order to gain the protection of your rights by the state. All the pledge says is that you choose to respect the social contract (allegiance to the flag and the republic). That belief should be universally acceptable to all citizens. If it's not, the person shouldn't be a citizen in the first place.

OT - This gets back to the whole argument of whether one is bound to the social contract w/o ever agreeing to it in the first place, i.e. being born a citizen. That whole idea never really made sense to me, but it's really the only way to have anything work I guess.

DinoDoc · February 28, 2003, 21:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sports are an extra-curricular activity, you don't have to play.

The requirement of saying the pledge went out the window sometime ago as well. Imran can even cite you the case if you wish.

I'm still waiting on a real verdict for the Star Spangled Banner. God, I'd love to start reading the dissents in the wierder cases the 9th takes up if they are all like this one.

Zkribbler · February 28, 2003, 22:02

Why does the government feel it is proper for it to indoctrinate children with theism??

Religious education is the proper province of parents, guardians and religious institutions. If this country's political leaders believe this is a nation under God, fine. They can go to their church & I'll go to mine.

Any why are children pledging allegience to the flag?

Isn't our allegience supposts to be to the Constitution?

GePap · February 28, 2003, 22:02

" I pledge alliegence to the flag, and to the nation for which it stands, one republic, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" That, ladies and gents, was the original version of the pledge of Alliegence writen, May I add, by a socialist, in the 1890's. "Under God" was added in 1954 (which means that the pledge existed longer without this religious symbol than with it) in 1954 as part of the campaing against communism, since no good Commie aetheist would swear alliegence to God. "Under God" was put in for political reasons, it was not part of the original pledge, and the courts are correct to state that it shouldn't either.
Also, in 1943, during he middle of WW2, the courts of this land stated that it was unconstitutional to force someone to recite the pledge in school. It seems courts had more backbone back then when it comes to confronting cheap fake patriots.

EDIT: did not see Boris's previous comment to this, but Boris is correct.

Jaguar · February 28, 2003, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I just heard a bunch of dumbass conservatives ranting about how children are getting teased because their parents are going to Iraq. Well what about the children who will get teased because they don't believe in God, or because their parents don't believe in God? Huh? It's just more proof that the supporters of "Under God" are a bunch of f*cking hypocrits.

Muslims, Buddhists, and other minorities get teased way more than atheists. **** it, even Jews and Christians get teased for their beliefs more than atheists. (Admittedly its the fundamentalist Jews and Christians, who probably deserve it, but that's not central to my point.) You can make fun of a religious person by being disrespectful to their God. There is no equivalent for atheists.

devilmunchkin · March 1, 2003, 01:55

i just think we need to get rid of religion period. but since we can't....this is a right step to making society at least a little more fair for those who don't buy the god bit.

Imran Siddiqui · March 1, 2003, 02:14

Quote:

The pledge isn't voluntary

Where have you been? If you consider coercion by other kids to make some action involuntary, you have some screwed up ideas.

Quote:

If either of these were used, conservatives would rise up in open revolt, and they'd probably be right to do it, and Imran, you'd be at the head of their army, wouldn't you?

Thank you for putting words in my mouth Squiddy (as you always do), but no. I actually liked both pledges you put up and would have no problem if they were recited.

And I have NO idea why you think Conservatives would be fighting mad over your first pledge. Many Christians would be very happy with that exact wording.

Way to keep up with the world

.

Quote:

It clearly says in the constitution that there is a separation of church and state

Really, can you point to the exact words 'seperation of church and state'. I guarentee you won't find it there.

Ned · March 1, 2003, 02:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
oh, who gives a ****. I guess you believe in god, since you celebrate Christmas.

just another tradition. give it a ****ing rest.

"farting still unconstitutional"

I don't know about God, but I do believe in Jesus Christ and for that matter, Moses.

Berzerker · March 1, 2003, 02:41

Imran -

Quote:

Where have you been? If you consider coercion by other kids to make some action involuntary, you have some screwed up ideas.

Little kids do not take the pledge voluntarily, Imran, they are coerced by the knowledge of what can happen if they don't take the pledge. That's so obvious I don't know how you can deny it.

devilmunchkin · March 1, 2003, 02:47

teased me ass! that's a load of bollocks considering 85% of america is xian. i get teased, ignored, discriminated against by xians all the time.