The Pledge of Allegiance

[aggie94]

This thread is not intended to spark debate or controversy. It's merely intended to inform. :)

In case you haven't already heard, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers CA, OR, WA, AK, HI, ID, NV, AZ, and MT) this afternoon decided that the 1954 Congressional act that added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause ("separation of church and state") of the Constitution.

Here's a pretty good article from MSN that sums up the decision, its implications, and the reaction from Washington, D.C.:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/772714.asp?pne=msn

[leightx]

Wow. I figured this was coming though. I can see their point, and I'm more amazed that the Senate voted 99 - 0 to urge the court to reverse itself. It certainly sounds like the guy who brought up the suit (Newdow) is just looking for some publicity though...

Leightx

[jjsooner73]

I think this is a very sad ruling. :(
What's next?

[sneezles]

Originally posted by jjsooner73
I think this is a very sad ruling. :(
What's next?

We'll have to turn in all our money for new stuff that doesn't have "In God We Trust" on it.

[eas11]

Thanks for posting the link.
I'll refrain from commenting so as not to stir up any controversy ;)
Another line I think we should be paying attention to is "..with liberty and justice for all".


Ellyn

[Robyncz]

I've sort of always wondered how the "under God" part jived with the ideas underlying separation of church and state, but I don't know enough about constitutional law to begin to understand the issue on that level.
On a more gut level, I guess I assumed that "under God" was vague enough to allow for any god, but then that sort of says that the people who don't believe in any god aren't part of this nation. And I certainly don't believe that. Either way, I can't imagine the pledge without that line, since that's what I have known my entire life. And I really can't imagine my children not learning to say the pledge in school. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[aggie94]

Originally posted by eas11
I'll refrain from commenting so as not to stir up any controversy ;)

Ditto. :)

[SandyM]

Originally posted by leightx
It certainly sounds like the guy who brought up the suit (Newdow) is just looking for some publicity though...

This was my immediate thought also. I hope he's enjoying his 15 minutes in the limelight.

My guess is it will, at some point, come down to a country-wide vote.

[Shirley Panek]

I found this ruling very interesting. I finished up a show in March called "Is There Life After High School" where in the beginning there is a voiceover with the pledge of allegiance (and later in the play) where the "under God" was omitted. At every show, you could hear the audience murmuring about the lack of this phrase. My director said that she had never in school used the "under God" phrase - they were taught to say it without it. This was in Wisconsin (after 1957).

I didn't know there was a Congressional act that added the phrase. Thanks for the info!

[MrsReber]

Gee, let's see, I grew up saying the Pledge with that phrase in it. Have I been adversely affected? I think not. I saw this on the news last night and I just don't understand it :confused: . It does seem to me that since God was taken out of the classroom, there have been so many more acts of violence committed. Coincidence? I have no idea. I don't want to stir up controversy either, but I agree with sneezles-will we get new money now? Nobody seemed to be so concerned with this before September 11th. It's just sad. By the way, I do not go to church or practice any religion. I think we should all be free to practice as we wish as long as it does not do harm to others. I never felt that religion was being forced on me because of one phrase on a dollar bill or in the Pledge of Allegiance. It just makes me sad because although our forefathers wanted Americans to have religious freedom, I believe they were all God fearing folks.

[MKSquared]

Okay, I'll bite.

That pledge existed before "under God" was added in 1954. The pledge is still just as pertinent without that phrase. While I was in high school, we began each school day reciting the pledge. I recited the pledge every day - but at 15, I omitted the "under God" because I didn't feel it was right. I still don't.

What's interesting to me ... if you would ask a very young student to define what they're saying, one of the few phrases they would have a firm grasp on would be "under God." At 6, did you know what "allegiance" was? How about the abstract idea of the flag symbolizing the country? "Liberty" and "justice?" The pledge has turned into a sring of words that you mumble every day without thinking of its deeper meaning.

[Abby]

Originally posted by MKSquared
The pledge has turned into a sring of words that you mumble every day without thinking of its deeper meaning.

Actually, quite the opposite. Everytime I say the pledge I think about our great country and the meaning of the words, as I do whenever I sing the National Anthem.

[JenZen]

This morning, I saw in interview with the guy who started the lawsuit. He said his next step is to challenge the "in God we trust" on our money.

What disturbs me the most about this is that I think our country is beginning to forget what we were. My SO's brother-in-law is a history teacher. He said that the text books are getting more and more liberal. They don't even cover religion in a historical context. Are we so afraid of religion that we can't even teach our own history? For those who are offended by the inclusion of the phrase, I am just as offended at the exclusion of a very important part of our country's past.

The separation between church and state was meant to prevent a state-established church like that in England. People were persecuted for their faith, and that's a big reason why they fled to America. I think the "separation" aspect of the Constitution is being perverted.

I was intending on asking for opinions on this topic this morning. I wonder how others feel.

Jen

"If we cannot remember the past, we are condemned to repeat it."

[leightx]

I guess this could get pretty controversial, but I just can't resist :D! Here's my take - I don't mind the phrase "Under God" being there, but I don't like the fact that kids are required to recite the Pledge of Allegience if those words are included. We live in such a diverse nation now, and a "free" one at that, that I think that respect should be given to those that don't believe in God. There are other legitimate religions and beliefs in the U.S, and to force those that don't believe in God to say they are a country "under God" must be a little confusing (especially for kids). Besides that, to me, it doesn't even ring true with that phrase - we are not a country under God - some of us are, yes, but many are not. The money thing doesn't bother me so much - we aren't required to profess a belief in God to use it. I have wondered since I was a kid why "In God We Trust" is written on money though - when we supposedly have a separation of church and state. Was it that the founding fathers wanted freedom of Christian religion, and no others?? I'm dying for one of you lawyers or history buffs to jump in here and clarify things.

[JenniferJJ]

RE: Separation of Church & State:
The founding fathers came to America to escape the dictatorship of England. Also, they were Christians who wanted to practice Christianity, but not be part of the denomination as dictated by the King. All people were expected to become members of The Church of England and our forefathers did not want us to have a Church of the United States, to which everyone needed to belong. The King was also head of the church and therefore, he had access to all donations given to the church. So, to clarify, it appears that our forefathers wanted separation between church and state "business" rather than separation of God and state.

Other pledge "trivia"
Francis Bellamy wrote it and orginally wrote "my" flag. In 1923 & 1924, the Daughters of the American Revolution and the American Legion changed the words to "the flag of the United States of America".

[BlueMoose]

i'm just going to say that this ruling is very disturbing and upsetting to me and leave it at that.

[mochadelsol]

I will also refrain from a detailed comment. I am more than distressed at this news. I myself always add an amen to the end of the pledge. I find it totally unsettling that people have the time to tear down the very things that teach us, our children, or other countries about having pride and respect. These are the things that some believe we have no right to teach. Very sad, I am. :( Someone has too much time on their hands!! JMHO. I'll go now.

[LaraW]

I have a question and it is entirely possible that I am missing something big here, but here's my question:

What is the difference between forcing someone to say the Plege of Allegiance and forcing someone to NOT say the Pledge of Allegiance? My feeling is that people should not be forced to say it if they do not want to. But if it is not allowed in school it is forcing some who may want to say it to not say it.

I think that the choice of whether or not to say the Pledge of Allegiance is where our freedom lies, not in its actual words.


JMHO

[boisewinesnob]

Doesn't the Constitution have the phrase, "....in the year of our Lord....." somewhere when they were referring to the date?

Next thing you know, they'll declare the Constitution to be unconstitutional :rolleyes:

Suzy

[Beth]

I started to post something I decided to think about. For now, does anyone else see the irony of the fact that the suit was brought by a father who objected not to his daughter being compelled to say "under God", but objecting to her hearing it??? Is there not a compelling interest in freedom of speech as well???

LaraW, just saw your post and think the point is well made. A separation of church and state does not deny either the right to exist or the ability of one to recognize the other, or any individual or group to recognize them or not. It is not the reference to a God or to any belief system that should be suspect, but rather the definition or regulation of what the belief system should be, what the concepts should be or mean, how they should be recognized, etc.

And I have a problem with this being raised in the context of not hearing something. The same logic would compel us to sanitize not only our schools, but also our speech, our presses and airwaves, whether public or private -- because we are a government by the people and of the people. In this democracy, we are part of the state.

The pedulum is swinging so far as to threaten the very freesom that created the question, and that should tell an intelligent judge something.

I suspect an en banc hearing on the issue will be next (for the non-lawyers, that means the entire panel of 9th Circuit judges would hear the arguements and make a decision as a whole group rather than a panel of three judges). En banc decisions often happen when the rest of the group has issues with the decision made or how it was presented. They often change or refine decisions that are disagreed with or restate and strenghten those the group feels are correct but subject to attack as currently presented.

If I'm not making any sense, I plead too much chlorine at pool school last night -- I'm off to learn how to backwash my filter!

[ISAIAH30_18]

Originally posted by Abby


Actually, quite the opposite. Everytime I say the pledge I think about our great country and the meaning of the words, as I do whenever I sing the National Anthem.

Me too Abby.

I am deeply saddened by this ruling, regardless of whether it is turned around or not.
We are all living under the freedom and prosperity that was fought for by founding fathers that wouldn't have started this country was it not for their faith in God.
Their faith granted us the freedom to worship (or not) what ever god we choose....this nation is biting the very hand that feeds.
Ask China, ask Afghanistan.....where faith in any god except the one the government chooses will cost you your life.

[luv2run]

I would like to see concerete proof of how Newdow's daughter has been harmed by reciting the pledge.

I can't imagine what will come next. It seems that, by being a practicing Christian in this country, we are actually being persecuted, having our rights taken away now.

As far as I can tell, no one is forced to recite the pledge, they can have a moment of silence. No one is forced to sing "God Bless America." No one is forced to spend or accept money with "In God We Trust" on it.

I wonder if this country would have been in a different situation if we had more closely followed our Founding Father's moral compasses and been less concerned about removing God from every phrase of song, pledge, etc.

Debbie :cool:

[Gilgamesh37]

...but no one is saying that an individual person is PROHIBITED from saying the PLedge of Allegiance if they so desire. The problem, I believe, is an ORGANIZED compulsory pledge in the classroom which includes God. Even if individual children may keep silent, the fact that the pledge is orchestrated by school administrators, and given the imprimatur of the school, is where the church/state probelm lies. And frankly I think if we would just take "Under God" back OUT of it--as MK correctly pointed out, it was not part of the original text--we'd probably be okay too.

In the interests of full disclosure, I happen to agree with this decision, both as a matter of correctness in the general sense, and as a matter of law. But also, the Ninth Circuit is the most liberal of the federal courts, and the most overturned--so as a practical matter, I don't believe this decision will stand in the long run.

[LaraW]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh37
...but no one is saying that an individual person is PROHIBITED from saying the PLedge of Allegiance if they so desire

Actually, I believe that the court's ruling does specifically disallow saying the Pledge in school.

[linsleyd]

I want to throw in another little tid bit of information. First, when I was in school we had the option to say it or not say it.

My DH's friend grew up in a Jehovah's Witness family and they are taught not to worship any idols, god's, etc. He was forbidden to stand up and recite the Pledge of Allegiance (by his church and family). He was repeatedly suspended for school for that. (They eventually cleared it up and he was allowed to sit while the class said the pledge).

I think we need to realize that we are all different, have different beliefs, regardless of being Americans and enjoying all of our freedoms.

I don't agree with how this came into the limelight, but I don't think it hurts that we go back to the original version.
in very quiet voice: as a child I never realized the significance (sp)? of saying the pledge, it was habit, and I wonder if children still see it that way?

OK, throw the tomatoes, I'm done!:D

[Beth]

Gilgamesh, again, it was not a case about not saying the pledge, but against hearing it. I think we would all agree that she could not be compelled by a public school to say "under God," but it appears she was not being asked to say those words. Her father objected to her hearing them. It sounds like he got uncomfortable being asked questions about religion by his daughter, and that's something we can't sue away.

Our Constitution, IMO, does not and cannot protect even the most tender ears from hearing things or having to think about things that may be different from their own belief system or lack thereof. Our Constitution embraces freedoms to assure that we do question and think with the belief that we are all made stronger not only by what we belive but also by having the ability to question and test our beliefs in religion, government and in life. We are not a sheltered society in that regard -- and I would urge folks to watch The American President and the speech made near the end where he talks about burning the flag and democracy being advanced citizenship -- you've got to want it bad and embrace the rights of others to say the things that make your blood boil too. That's paraphrasing, but if you don't have access to the video, you can get the gist of it.

Think about it.

[sneezles]

Originally posted by boisewinesnob
Doesn't the Constitution have the phrase, "....in the year of our Lord....." somewhere when they were referring to the date?

Next thing you know, they'll declare the Constitution to be unconstitutional :rolleyes:

Suzy

And then The Declaration of Independence! Which states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

And this next statement is interesting:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."

[Natasha]

Eva, thanks for posting this as I had not heard about it and had no idea it was going on. It's been intriguing to read everyone's comments, from an outsider's perspective (and an outsider who loves constitutional law...) :)

Our situation is a bit different. We don't have a Pledge of Alliance. Rather, the national anthem is sung in a lot of schools at the beginning of the day. The anthem has a phrase, "God keep our land - Glorious and free" and once in a while someone comments about that but not to the point of challenging it at an appellate level. Not yet, anyway. I think it will be just a matter of time, though. Interestingly, this phrase was not part of the original text; it was added later.

Another difference is that obviously our Constitution and Charter of Rights are very different from the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I'll have to keep an eye on this issue as it is really interesting! I grew up with not only O Canada, but also The Lord's Prayer, each morning (at least up to high school), and that was not all that long ago!

Natasha

[sneezles]

Just thought I'd throw in the National Anthemn. It's a shame that we aren't taught to sing the entire song but then again it would be changed along with everything else...:(

O say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watch'd were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bomb bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream,
'Tis the star-spangled banner - O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto - "In God is our trust,"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

[Wendy w]

Originally posted by sneezles


We'll have to turn in all our money for new stuff that doesn't have "In God We Trust" on it.

What about taking the stand in court with your hand on the bible and swearing to God that you will be telling the truth? Surely this will be addressed.:confused:

[BlueMoose]

This is an example of why our children are not going to public school. If we weren't able to send them to a private school, I would homeschool them.

[Gilgamesh37]

Originally posted by Wendy w


What about taking the stand in court with your hand on the bible and swearing to God that you will be telling the truth? Surely this will be addressed.:confused:

In many jurisdictions, including my own, the oath no longer contains a reference to God, nor are witnesses asked to place their hand on a Bible.

[Laura]

I guess what bothers me is this concept that any reference to God in a state sponsored action is unconstitutional. The anti-establishment clause is just that, to prevent the government from establishing one state religion. Rulings like this take the framers' intentions out of context. I can understand there are those who don't believe that there should be any reference to God as they don't believe in one. But you can't escape the historical foundations of our country; almost all of the framers had a very strong faith. The concept of separation of church and state is not in the constitution but was paraphrased from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a pastor (Baptist, I believe) in New England who wanted protection for his church.

I believe that there have been constitutional challenges to the "In God we Trust" motto on money and all have failed. I hope that this ruling has a similar fate.

[Wendy w]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh37


In many jurisdictions, including my own, the oath no longer contains a reference to God, nor are witnesses asked to place their hand on a Bible.

Thanks for the information. My point is that this ruling is going to snowball into other areas.

[maizeyoats]

I don't know why anyone should be afraid of the word GOD (or perhaps they have a reason0
Sorry I don't want to offend anyone; but it is sooo absurd trying to take God out of our lives.
If you don't want to believe in God don't but for heaven sakes stop trying to change AMERICA.

[Abby]

On the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal this morning about a ruling made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the same that made the Pledge ruling) last month:

"Last month that court ruled that Rastafarians could smoke marijuana on federal lands because pot is sacred to their religion."


I think the Ninth Circuit is smoking something itself!
:o

[MusicMom]

Originally posted by luv2run
As far as I can tell, no one is forced to recite the pledge, they can have a moment of silence.

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, children in public school are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and participate in a minute of silence every morning. I opposed the mandatory Pledge for a few reasons- mainly because a child will be loyal to whatever country their parents pledge their allegiance. While I believe that children should learn the pledge and its meaning as a civics lesson, I don't think that they should be coerced into saying it - they don't choose where they live and they are minors and not legally bound to contract/promises. On the other hand, perhaps the Pledge should be required for adults in certain occupations - like FBI and CIA officers, police officers, government employees, government contractors, etc. I know Congress and other government bodies say the Pledge at the beginning of every session, but can you imagine enforcing the Pledge in other places of employment? Doesn't it seem strange to make children recite it and not the people who really should be promising to be loyal to our country? (I'm not suggesting that we do this, just demonstrating a lack of logic)

Back to the topic at hand: While I don't think that the Pledge should be mandatory for children, I do believe that the phrase "under God" should remain in it, when it is recited. It is a historical reference to the creation of our country and does not establish a specific religion, which is what is prohibited in the Constitution.


I agree with others about the Freedom of Speech issue and that the objection that a child can hear the words "under God" is ridiculous.

[maizeyoats]

GOD BLESS AMERICA

[MusicMom]

Originally posted by aggie94
This thread is not intended to spark debate or controversy. It's merely intended to inform. :)

Nice try, aggie94!! Actually, I'm enjoying the debate. As a WAHM, I don't get much intellectual conversation during the day. (unless I talk to myself.;) )

[boisewinesnob]

I am happy to see that so many here are aware of the real reasons for the inception of the whole separation of church and state thing. Laura (and the others) are absolutely right; it was intended to keep the government out of the church....not vice versa. Why is there always so much misinformation surrounding this topic? Grrrrr!

BTW, Sneezles, you are right; the Declaration will have to go, too!

[buffygirl]

Blue Moose,

I'm right there with you. There is no way on GOD's green earth I would put my children in public school!

This ruling, quite frankly, is assinine. I can't believe tax payers' money is being spent on court battles such as this.

Kim

[ISAIAH30_18]

Originally posted by Abby
On the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal this morning about a ruling made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the same that made the Pledge ruling) last month:

"Last month that court ruled that Rastafarians could smoke marijuana on federal lands because pot is sacred to their religion."


I think the Ninth Circuit is smoking something itself!
:o

They are the same court that ruled virtual child porn wasn't really child porn.....
:mad: :confused:

[Beth H]

OK -- I think all the posts have been very interesting so far. But, it is important to note that the US Constitution (unlike the Declaration) has no reference to "God" in it whatsover. Many of our "Founding Fathers" were not religious men -- Jefferson and Franklin were both agnostics, and even Washington on his death bed refused to have a minister/chaplain read him his last rites.

My husband is a high school history teacher, too, as someone mentioned above. I do think it is important to discuss religion in school -- in a historic context. It also is important to remember that this country, from the colonial period, has a long history of religious toleration and freedom. The separation of church and state, I think, is an extremely important cornerstone of our country's democracy -- our young country might have started out quite differently if men like Jefferson and Franklin were devoutly religious.

Even though I oppose the idea of prayer in school, this ruling to me is less clear. The line "In God We Trust" when used by our government has, in a way, become secularized and does not have the same connotation as when used in a prayer. Although -- the man who filed the law suit did point out in an interview this morning that many people would object to substituting the word "Allah" or that of another religion's god in the pledge.

[maizeyoats]

Originally posted by Beth H
. Although -- the man who filed the law suit did point out in an interview this morning that many people would object to substituting the word "Allah" or that of another religion's god in the pledge.

This is silly. Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. If we spoke Arabic instead of English we would be saying Allah.

[sneezles]

Originally posted by maizeyoats


This is silly. Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. If we spoke Arabic instead of English we would be saying Allah.

I agree Allah, Yaweh, Buddah, all the ame name when translated to English.

[Gina O]

Originally posted by Beth
Our Constitution embraces freedoms to assure that we do question and think with the belief that we are all made stronger not only by what we belive but also by having the ability to question and test our beliefs in religion, government and in life. We are not a sheltered society in that regard -- and I would urge folks to watch The American President and the speech made near the end where he talks about burning the flag and democracy being advanced citizenship -- you've got to want it bad and embrace the rights of others to say the things that make your blood boil too. That's paraphrasing, but if you don't have access to the video, you can get the gist of it.

Think about it.

Part of the lines from the movie are:

For the record, yes, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is: why aren’t you, Bob? Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question why would a Senator, his party’s most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question folks, you’re smarter than I am because I didn’t understand it until a few hours ago. America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve go to want it bad because it is gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, you want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil whose standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your county cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms, then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.


I have always questioned the mention of God on currency and in the pledge, and typically omit it when I say it as well.

We are a country devoted to the tolerance of one another's beliefs, like it or not. I do not fault or think less of anyone for expressing his or her beliefs to me, as long as they are willing to listen to my opinions with the same amount of respect I have shown them. Gina

[AmyBeth73]

I really have no opinion on the matter (sorry!) but I find the history of the Pledge interesting. Precedent certainly has been set for changing its text. Below is what I found on the subject on a government Web site. Enjoy!

-------------------------------------------------------------

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands-
one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all."

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."

[SusanT]

ISAIAH30_18 - It was the US Supreme Court, not the 9th circuit, who ruled on the virtual child pornography case. Here's an article from CNN about the case.

Supreme Court strikes down ban on 'virtual child porn'
April 18, 2002 Posted: 1:13 PM EDT (1713 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a 6-year-old law that prohibits the distribution and possession of virtual child pornography that appears to -- but does not -- depict real children.

The law had banned a range of techniques -- including computer-generated images and the use of youthful-looking adults -- which were designed to convey the impression of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The 6-3 ruling says the law violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. The decision hands a major setback to the Justice Department and the majority of Congress in their legislative efforts to fight child pornography.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said key provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 were "overbroad" and infringed on established protections of material with artistic value that does not violate community standards.

"Pictures of what appear to be a 17-year-old engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards," the court said.

"The (Act) also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea -- that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity -- that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries."

The opinion cited several artistically significant instances in which teenage sex was portrayed, including William Shakespeare's play "Romeo & Juliet," and the recent movies "Traffic" and "American Beauty."

Kennedy was joined by justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion agreeing with their conclusion.

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, in a dissent, disagreed with much of the majority opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia.

In a separate dissent Rehnquist, backed by Scalia, strongly disagreed with the majority, saying "the computer-generated images are virtually indistinguishable from real children."


The ruling came in a case named Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and President George W. Bush's Justice Department inherited defense of the law from former Attorney General Janet Reno and the President Clinton Justice Department, which had defended the law in the lower courts.

The Free Speech Coalition is comprised primarily of a trade association of publishers of pornographic materials.

Ashcroft said he was disappointed by the court's decision.

"This morning the United States Supreme Court made our ability to prosecute those who produce and possess child pornography immeasurably more difficult," Ashcroft said.

Ashcroft said the Justice Department would use every resource to prosecute child pornography cases and said child pornographers "will find little refuge in today's decision."

He said he would work with Congress to pass new laws that would survive the court's scrutiny.

"I believe today's opinion and the Constitution leave open legislative avenues to protect our children from harm and we will seek to develop the means to do so with legislative endeavor," Ashcroft said.

Still to be decided by the Supreme Court this spring is another case involving a separate law, which specifically restricts the access of minors to sexually explicit material on the Internet.


In response to the ruling, Congress is working on a revised bill.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A House of Representatives committee voted Wednesday to reinstate a recently rejected ban on Internet child pornography, hoping that a more narrowly tailored version would pass courtroom muster.

The Supreme Court struck down a previous law that outlawed "virtual" child pornography in April, saying it could criminalize simulated sex acts in mainstream movies like "Traffic" and "Romeo and Juliet."

By a vote of 22 to 3, the House Judiciary Committee approved a more narrowly drafted bill that would outlaw only computer images that were indistinguishable from actual photographs or movies. Pornography involving prepubescent children would be outlawed entirely, "virtual" or not.

Defendants in child-pornography cases would have to prove that the images in question were entirely computer generated and not a depiction of actual events. Most criminal cases in the United States place the burden of proof on prosecutors.

In debate on Tuesday, bill sponsor Lamar Smith said prosecutors would find it impossible to prove whether a pornographic image was a digital assemblage or an actual photograph once it has been scanned into a computer.

"Retransmission makes it impossible to tell if it's a real picture or not," the Texas Republican said.

But some Democrats balked at the so-called "affirmative defense" provision, saying it would criminalize protected speech and would end up on the judicial scrap heap along with previous congressional attempts to control online smut.

"I think this bill is the newest in a series of attempts to do what the Supreme Court has said we repeatedly cannot do," said New York Democrat Jerry Nadler.

Fellow Democrat Adam Schiff, a former prosecutor, said it was the only way to give the ban any teeth.

"If we only go after pornography produced using real children ... we will effectively preclude any real prosecution of child pornography," said Schiff, a Californian.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Dick Armey said the bill would be taken up quickly by the full House now that it had cleared the Judiciary Committee.

"It's a priority, and we want to do it quickly," said spokesman Richard Diamond.

A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate by Missouri Democrat Jean Carnahan.

The committee also approved two bills that would make it easier to prosecute "sex tourists" who travel abroad to have sex with children, and allow judges to require monitoring of sex offenders after they served their prison terms.

[RebeccaT]

Originally posted by AmyBeth73
One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it.



My understanding is that while there are schools where it is "policy" to recite the pledge daily, it is illegal to make it compulsory. So if I am a kid, and I don't want to say it, I am allowed to sit at my desk and not say it. Like Beth said, what this guy was opposed to was his daughter hearing it, and the ruling decided that she shouldn't even have to listen to it recited.

My understanding on the issue of "In God We Trust" on our money is that the Supreme Court has ruled that this statement has lost religious conotation due to repetition, therefore it needn't be removed from our money since it doesn't violate separation of church and state. Here is what the NYT said in an article today:

"In 1984, several liberal members of the Supreme Court, including Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and William J. Brennan Jr., said references like 'In God We Trust,' which appears on United States currency and coins, were protected from the Establishment Clause because their religious significance had been lost through rote repetition."

I think this is a very interesting development, and it has certainly made me pay more attention to the Pledge than I have in a long time. I didn't know that the phrase "under God" wasn't even added until the Eisenhower administration; I assumed it was always there to signify the principles (not the religion per se) that this country was founded upon.

[Shirley Panek]

If this guy objects to his daughter hearing the pledge, why not talk to school officials (teacher/principal) and allow the girl to stand in the hall while the pledge is being said. (Or maybe he should just hand her some earplugs on the way out the door.)

These frivilous lawsuits burn me up. If it's not compulsory, and she doesn't have to say it - isn't it a case of one man trying to squash the "free speech" of all the students who do want to say it?

I think I'll stop before I start ranting and can't control myself! ;) :mad:

[AzAnne]

Originally posted by Shirley Panek
isn't it a case of one man trying to squash the "free speech" of all the students who do want to say it?

I think I'll stop before I start ranting and can't control myself! ;) :mad:

Exactlly my thoughts!! Will we next have to remove our bumper stickers that Praise GOD, or have any other religious sayings because he dosen't want his daughter reading about GOD???

The following is a excerpt from a phone interview that Arthel Neville had by phone during with the father on CNN's "Talkback Live."


Neville: How long have you been contemplating this suit?

Newdow: One day I was just looking at the coins (that) is what brought this up. I saw "In God We Trust" on my coins. I said, "I don't trust in God," what is this? And I recalled there was something in the Constitution that said you're not allowed to do that and so I did some research. And as soon as I did the research, I realized the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It's a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it.

Personally I think he should be more concerned with the child porn, perverts, & molesters that are relesed from jail everyday into our neighborhoods!!!!

Just frosts my cookies!

[beejayw1]

Originally posted by Wendy w


What about taking the stand in court with your hand on the bible and swearing to God that you will be telling the truth? Surely this will be addressed.:confused:

Well, actually, if someone cannot or will not swear with his/her hand on the Bible, he/she is allowed to 'Affirm' that what is said is true.

But that to the side, I was under the impression that a democracy goes by the 'majority rule' standard. I have been in minorities for most of my life, one way or another, but I never had the notion that the majority had to bend over backward just to accommodate my preferences. (No, I am not talking about discrimination: that is a federal offense and needs to be wiped out, no matter who's doing it to whom.)

If someone doesn't feel right about the 'Under God' phrase, he or she is not forced to say it and has the right (and, in fact, if he or she is sincere, the obligation) to tell the kids that they don't have to say it, either.

I think the fellow who brought the suit is misguided and, based on what I've read, something of a jerk, but I'm embarrassed to read that he has received death threats.

[mochadelsol]

Well Done Sneezles :D That song always fills my heart, and makes me feel so proud.

A few years back when DD was in Elem. school (I worked there also). I went around to see which classrooms where saying the Pledge, there where only about 3-4 who didn't get around to it. :( I spoke to those teachers in a friendly manner, and they all agreeded that they would get back into the habit for the kids sake. Now as far as I know this kind of habit won't get you hooked on drugs. But it just might instill some higher consience thinking about our history and who we are as Americans.

[luv2run]

Originally posted by MusicMom

While I believe that children should learn the pledge and its meaning as a civics lesson, I don't think that they should be coerced into saying it - they don't choose where they live and they are minors and not legally bound to contract/promises.


Are you kidding? Do you really think that having children recite the Pledge of Allegiance is coercion? They may not have the choice to live in America but, given the options, don't you think they should be grateful?

Debbie :cool:

[boisewinesnob]

Originally posted by Beth H
But, it is important to note that the US Constitution (unlike the Declaration) has no reference to "God" in it whatsover.

Beth, the quote I used was in Article VII. They were referring to the date they signed it "...the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord .....".
I just thought I hadn't read it right after your post until I double-checked :)

[Ed]

Hi,

Pretty weighty discussion. As far as the "Year of our Lord" is concerned, that is a legitimate phrase if one chooses to use it as in "the year of our Lord 2002." Our calendar is the calendar that is used world wide to date documents and events, even though there are other calendars used by some Religions.

The Calendar we use is what we might call a Christian Calendar, because it counts the date from the "Assumed" date of birth of Jesus.

There was a saying years ago, that I cannot remember exactly now, that said something to the effect that every time we date a document,event, or a check we honor Jesus by counting the date from his "assumed" date of Birth. Should we adopt a new non-sectarian calander?

Dates of antiquity are now coded as BCE and CE which used to be BC & AD also refering to the date Jesus was born. I always got a charge out of an old "Mel Brooks?" joke about people living before the time of Christ, and as two of them were talking one said to the other; you've got to get with the modern times man, this is 150 BC we need to look ahead to 149, and as far as 140

"God bless Aberica," God save the Queen," if not God who will do these things? When I hear the word God to me that means the Trinity, to my beloved Uncle and his Family it means Jehovah, to someone else possibly by whatever name he might use for the Deity in his Religion. Majority rules is not always the right answer, but minority rules isn't the right answer either, tolerance for those who choose to opt out of reciting a Pledge that uses the word God in it possibly should be acceptabe to all of us. Singing God Bless America, or God Save The Queen should be, and is as far as I know, optinal by the populace.

As far as requiring a person to Pledge Allegiance goes I feel that if a person is a resident of this country he shouldn't be forced to Pledge Allegiance, he should do it willingly, or not at all.

If a person residing here is not pleased, and greatful enough for all the sacrifices of all those who came before who fought and died to preserve this country for us to live in it as free people, if he will not do it willingly, well I for one don't want him to lie about it, and if a person won't do it willingly here chances are they won't do it willingly anywhere else either.

Here is something some of you might like.

Ed

Red Skelton's Commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance
by Red Skelton

As a schoolboy, one of Red Skelton's teachers explained the words and meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance to his class. Skelton later wrote down, and eventually recorded, his recollection of this lecture. It is followed by an observation of his own.

I - - Me; an individual; a committee of one. Pledge - - Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.

Allegiance - - My love and my devotion.

To the Flag - - Our standard; Old Glory; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody's job.

United - - That means that we have all come together.

States - - Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that is love for country.

And to the Republic - - Republic - a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

For which it stands

One Nation - - One Nation - meaning, so blessed by God.

Indivisible - - Incapable of being divided.

With Liberty - - Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.

And Justice - - The principle, or qualities, of dealing fairly with others.

For All - - For All - which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.

And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God.

Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?

Red Skelton

[Kristilyn1]

<<<<<But that to the side, I was under the impression that a democracy goes by the 'majority rule' standard. I have been in minorities for most of my life, one way or another, but I never had the notion that the majority had to bend over backward just to accommodate my preferences. (No, I am not talking about discrimination: that is a federal offense and needs to be wiped out, no matter who's doing it to whom.) >>>

Diana's quote above, I wanted to point out a very common mistake--we are not strictly speaking a democracy where "majority rules", we are a constitutional republic. No law can be made and upheld that contradicts our Constitution. Period. Doesn't matter if the CNN poll says every single person in America wants it. The only option is an Amendment to the Constitution. I think this ruling is correct and while it is certainly a nitpicking little detail--it is one that is clearly dictated by the First Amendment. I think the ruling is a detail that is comparable to the whole debate during the last election regarding the Electoral College. Every person in America thinks it's stupid and people were walking around saying it's "an antiquated system that our founding fathers didn't anticipate our current society" and that Bush "didn't really win the majority vote" etc. but the fact remains, until you come up with an Amendment--that's just the way it is and that is the ONE detail that you cannot possibly argue that our Founding Fathers didn't foresee certain outcomes or changes in the way we live--they DID foresee it and that's why we have the Amendment option. I think the case is clear--
I'm a Christian, I think the Pledge is an incredibly important thing--and as soon as they take out "under God" (which I would bet the Supreme Court WILL uphold) I think everyone should say it. Our founding fathers did not add the phrase under god, congress did and they really should not have. I agree that the guy who brought up the suit is obviously some attention grabbing loser, but regardless, by point of law, I believe him to be right.

I understand that there are plenty of people who disagree with me, and of course we are all entitled to our opinion--thank god THAT'S still okay here....LOL.

Kristi

[beejayw1]

Originally posted by Kristilyn1
we are not strictly speaking a democracy where "majority rules", we are a constitutional republic. No law can be made and upheld that contradicts our Constitution.

Democracies are governed by the 'majority rule' principle. That was my point, and I was speaking about democracies in general. And let's not forget that the Constitution had to be ratified by a majority before it was adopted.

The Constitution can be amended, and has been from time to time. That is why women now vote, and why discrimination is illegal.

I don't think we need to force anyone to say 'under God' when they pledge allegiance. They can leave the words out. But I don't want anyone telling me I can't say it, either.

[Kristilyn1]

<<I don't think we need to force anyone to say 'under God' when they pledge allegiance. They can leave the words out. But I don't want anyone telling me I can't say it, either.>>>

Absolutely agree here! Personally, I will probably say it that way too.

I understand what you are saying about a democracy. But my point is just a technicality--- that if we were truly a democracy we would, through our duly elected officials be able to make any change to any law we wanted at any time by simply a vote. Meaning the way they do laws now in Congress and majority rules. Being a constitutional republic means that they can make laws as long as they do not go against the Constitution and that we have a special way of making amendments that actually involve the actual public voting (like we do for elections). It's a nitpicky point, but an important one. To me, such a convulated and complicated way of protecting our Constitution shows how seriously our founding fathers believed it to be and a brilliant way of anticipating changes to society without actually seeing the future. So while we are onstensibly saying the same thing--I believed my distinction was important.


Kristi

[BlueMoose]

I'm getting REALLY tired of being told that I must be tolerant of other people's views while they are not expected to be tolerant of mine in return.:mad:

[buffygirl]

Blue Moose, again we are on exactly the same page. In this day, tolerant means tolerant of liberal view points only, not conservative one.

[MusicMom]

Originally posted by luv2run


Are you kidding? Do you really think that having children recite the Pledge of Allegiance is coercion? They may not have the choice to live in America but, given the options, don't you think they should be grateful?

Debbie :cool:

I was referring to laws requiring children to say the Pledge of Allegiance. I do believe that children should learn the pledge and its meaning, history, and be grateful to live here. I just don't like the idea that legislators think they can make children say it, when they wouldn't make it a requirement for anyone else. It's a control issue, which to me is coercion.

We spoke about this at dinner last night. DS, who just finished 7th grade, corrected me about the requirement. His class was told that they had to at least stand out of respect, even if they don't say the pledge. That's a better way to handle it, but the original bill proposed in the Virginia Assembly was to suspend children who didn't recite the Pledge of Allegiance. That's a bit harsh.

Our state assembly also is requiring that schools post the national motto in a prominent place in the school. The foundation that lobbied for the law has produced "In God We Trust" posters for all of the schools in the state, which was nice. However, the superintendant of one county said that he'd rather post a dollar bill, since that's what the schools really need from the state.

[BlueMoose]

Originally posted by buffygirl
Blue Moose, again we are on exactly the same page. In this day, tolerant means tolerant of liberal view points only, not conservative one.

That sure seems to be the case.

Here in Fargo there is some big controversy about a Ten Commandments stone-thingy that is on public land. Ironically, the group that opposes it calls themselves the "Free Thinkers".:rolleyes:

[ISAIAH30_18]

Originally posted by BlueMoose


That sure seems to be the case.

Here in Fargo there is some big controversy about a Ten Commandments stone-thingy that is on public land. Ironically, the group that opposes it calls themselves the "Free Thinkers".:rolleyes:

The same "free thinkers", if a loved one was murdered, would cling to the idea that murder is wrong...but in their free thinking society, who says murder is wrong???? Couldn't they argue that just because it is wrong for one, it may not be wrong for another???

[luv2run]

Originally posted by MusicMom
I was referring to laws requiring children to say the Pledge of Allegiance. I do believe that children should learn the pledge and its meaning, history, and be grateful to live here. I just don't like the idea that legislators think they can make children say it, when they wouldn't make it a requirement for anyone else. It's a control issue, which to me is coercion.

I do understand what you mean but I think if more children were "coerced" into more morally sound behavior we might have a more peaceful country. We each control our children every day under the premise of discipline. It's not a bad thing. Children without discipline are the children you don't want to be around.

Debbie :cool:

[SueK]

Originally posted by BlueMoose
Here in Fargo there is some big controversy about a Ten Commandments stone-thingy that is on public land.

We just had the same thing happen around this area. There was a 10 Commandments plaque on a local courthouse, and it had been there forever. Some group went to court and it ended up having to be removed.

[MusicMom]

That's true- it is our responsibility to guide our children and I take that role very seriously. Maybe it just bugs me when someone tells me I have to recite certain words that should be said because they come from the heart, not because it's the law. My family and I willingly say the Pledge of Allegiance, with the phrase "under God." I just don't like the idea of being told that my children have to- although, as it turns out it is an option.

[Kristilyn1]

BlueMoose, while we are not agreeing on this particular case--I feel for you on the so-called "tolerance" issue. As a conservative--rabid at times-- I get so tired of being pegged "intolerant" because I'm not PC. As a liberal you are allowed to loudly express your "obviously correct views" in any company but state a conservative point of view and you become a social pariah who is out to cause "trouble".

Kristi
it's cold out here in NonPC-Land......

[beejayw1]

Originally posted by Kristilyn1
I understand what you are saying about a democracy... It's a nitpicky point, but an important one. So while we are onstensibly saying the same thing--I believed my distinction was important.
Kristi

But Kristi, we weren't, and aren't, saying 'the same thing'.

I was speaking of 'democracy' by definition. You were not. The distinction, in my situation, was not called for, since it was a comment about democracies in general.

This begs the question: Since it appears that people agree that it is incorrect to force the 'majority' to do something in order to accomodate a 'minority', and since we have had an excellent clarification of what was originally meant by the 'separation of church and state' - meaning that the state will not control the church, which is not really at issue in this case, why is this being argued?

I'll be following what happens with this situation with a lot of interest. I have a suspicion how it will end, and we'll see if I'm right.

[Darlin]

My husband and I visited Washington D.C. a few years back. It was awesome and made us feel so patriotic. I was amazed at the artwork dipicting religion and numerous quotes from scripture incribed on buildings, especially the Supreme Court building. I find it interesting the Congress and Supreme Court begin their day with a prayer. In all of my eagerness to understand my country's history I come to the conclusion that this country was founded upon godly Christian principles. Many of our laws derive from the Bible. I wonder what our forefathers would think of some of the rulings and changes of the last 30 or so years....I'll get off my soapbox now.

[beejayw1]

Did anyone see the interview with the Harvard Law School professor (whose name I've managed to forget) on the issue of this ruling and 'freedom of speech'?

He made an interesting point that we all tend to forget:

Banning a phrase (in this case 'under God') in the interest of upholding the rights of those who don't want to say it is in direct violation of the freedom of speech of all the people who do want to say it.

His points were excellent and crystallized what I had been thinking all along. It sort of reminds me of a phrase in a book of essays I read once somewhere, about insisting on things going our own way, no matter what the cost to everyone else: 'Should we demand, then, that the universe be denied the joys of scent - the smell of roses, the clean scent after a rainstorm - because our own breath happens to stink?'

Anyhow, we'll see what comes of this whole thing.

[MKSquared]

It's not a matter of banning people from saying that the US is a nation "under God." Nobody is threatening anyone's right to use that phrase! It's not like some First Amendment cop is going to come running after you to say, "I'm sorry, ma'am, but I'm afraid you'll have to come with me" if you use "under God."

The point is, the US is a magnificent place because it's a country for all people. When a national mantra that schoolchildren are required to learn -- if not to repeat every morning for 12 years -- alienates some of those US citizens, it's a loss to the country.

What would be wrong with a pledge of "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?" If you want to think "under God," that's great. If you want to say "under God," that's fine, but don't force someone else to adopt your religious belief system.

"God Bless America" brings tears to my eyes, and it's a beautiful, meaningful song to me -- because I can identify with the lyrics. Just think if some of those patriotic and religious sentiments were expressed using a non-Judeo-Christian ethic. The song wouldn't mean nearly as much to me because it's not my background. It's not that any of sentiments need to be banned -- they all have their place in this incredible "tossed salad" country of ours.

[leightx]

Originally posted by MKSquared

The point is, the US is a magnificent place because it's a country for all people. When a national mantra that schoolchildren are required to learn -- if not to repeat every morning for 12 years -- alienates some of those US citizens, it's a loss to the country.



Mary Kate, as usual, you've summed up my feelings on this one, and expressed them more eloquently than I could have. I have absolutely no problem with kids saying it and learning it, but I find myself questioning the whole practice of reciting the Pledge daily (and I know that the lawsuit is about another issue altogether). I know this thread is controversial, and I've found myself questioning my ideas / beliefs while reading it. It's interesting, since I agree with what Mary Kate (and others) have posted, yet I think this decision will most likely be reversed. I have absolutely no legal background, but it seems like the whole money issue ("In God We Trust") which has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court has set a precedent that this type of statement has no religious conotation due to repetition (although I must respectfully disagree with the Supreme Court on that one).

The following is from an article by Susan Jacoby (a self-proclaimed atheist and civil libertarian). I found it...interesting :) :

"The furor is rooted in a common modern American misconception - that the nation was founded upon religion from the beginning and that "secular humanist" courts in the second half of the 20th century are responsible for banning public demonstrations of religious allegiance once taken for granted.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The issue of whether to use the word God in the Constitution was fully debated at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and the secularists prevailed. The first five American presidents, from George Washington to James Monroe, eschewed any public statements of their private religious beliefs.

The now-sanctified Pledge, written for a children's magazine in 1892, was entirely secular in its original wording: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

Not surprisingly, most patriotic propagandists fail to mention that the original Pledge, published in a magazine called The Youth's Companion, was written by a socialist. Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and vice president of a group called the Society of Christian Socialists, eventually had to leave his Boston pulpit as a result of his outspoken views on the evils of capitalism.

In many respects, including the later insertion of God, the Pledge exemplifies the ways in which unexamined patriotic rituals substitute symbol for substance and can be transformed to fit the political passions of the moment.

The ceremony of reciting the pledge seems to have been largely voluntary until World War I. Then the American Legion sprang into action and began pushing for laws to make the Pledge compulsory in schools.

Congress got into the act during World War II by codifying rules governing civilian display of the flag and including the Pledge in the display ceremony for the first time. The new code replaced a rigid one-armed salute, first prescribed by The Youth's Companion, with the now-familiar hand-on-heart posture. By 1942, of course, the old gesture looked too much like the Nazis' "Heil Hitler" salute.

By then, most states already had laws requiring the recitation of the Pledge in schools. Children of Jehovah's Witnesses, who consider any flag salute a violation of the biblical prohibition against worshipping graven images, were expelled from schools in many communities in the 1940s. Another irony: During the same period, Jehovah's Witnesses were sent to Nazi concentration camps for refusing to honor the swastika.

In 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students could not be required to either recite the Pledge or salute the flag (though it did not take up the issue, addressed by the Ninth Circuit this week, of voluntary recitation). In an opinion all the more memorable because it was delivered in wartime, Justice Robert H. Jackson declared that "if there is any fixed star in our constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

But the Pledge, like school prayer, is now a touchstone of conservative political loyalty. When "under God" was finally added in 1954 - after a drive spearheaded by the Knights of Columbus, the largest organization of American Roman Catholic laymen - the Pledge did sound like a prayer for the first time in its history. The addition of "under God" was necessary, supporters argued, in order to distinguish American patriotism from its Cold War counterpart in the Soviet Union, where little Muscovites were presumably forbidden to refer to the deity while saluting the hammer and sickle.

In 1968, when I was a young reporter in Washington, an elementary school teacher inadvertently provided me with a graphic example of what is lacking in rote recitations like the Pledge (which are never really voluntary for children, regardless of what the law says). She felt it was especially important for students to recite the Pledge in the weeks after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination.

"They don't know the words to the Bill of Rights and they don't know the Declaration of Independence," she said, "but they can all recite the Pledge."

That many students don't know anything about the Bill of Rights is precisely the problem - one that cannot be corrected by retaining or removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance. As Justice Jackson eloquently observed in 1943, "A person gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it."

[Kristilyn1]

<<<<I was speaking of 'democracy' by definition. You were not. The distinction, in my situation, was not called for, since it was a comment about democracies in general. >>>>>>

Sorry, I assumed you were talking about this country being a democracy. It's a common misconception. I was confused by the "democracy in general" statement since what I was talking about is this country and our pledge--my mistake--I certainly don't want to credit you with agreeing with me, if you don't--LOL

<<<<<This begs the question: Since it appears that people agree that it is incorrect to force the 'majority' to do something in order to accomodate a 'minority', and since we have had an excellent clarification of what was originally meant by the 'separation of church and state' - meaning that the state will not control the church, which is not really at issue in this case, why is this being argued?>>>>>

First, I do not believe that it is incorrect to force a majority to accommodate a minority---if a law contradicts our Constitution, I believe it does not matter if every single person in America thinks it should be law. (This is barring an Amendment to the Constitution--that I most wholeheartedly agree with). This concept is at the heart of my beliefs as a Conservative. More below:

Second, I don't agree that it was an "excellent clarification of what was meant"--which I guess for most of us is the crux of our disagreement on this issue. I am a Conservative, but not a religious right sort of conservative---I am a Constitutionalist-type Conservative. Others may concede the point--but I believe myself in possession of a very different understanding of the First Amendment.

<<<<<I'll be following what happens with this situation with a lot of interest. I have a suspicion how it will end, and we'll see if I'm right.>>>>



You and me both.

Kristi

[beckms]

Just thought I'd add this little blurb from the article referenced by Aggie94...

>>President Bush on Thursday said the ruling was “out of step with the traditions and history of America” and promised to appoint judges who affirm God’s role in the public square.
“America is a nation ... that values our relationship with an Almighty,” Bush told reporters as he began a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit of world industrial powers.
“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.”<<

Hmmmm...

[MKSquared]

Originally posted by beckms
Just thought I'd add this little blurb from the article referenced by Aggie94...
>>" 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.”<<


<snicker> And here I thought that divine right died out in the late 1600's ... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Leisa M]

I am most defimitely not a lwayer. However, I recited the Pledge in school with"under God"

I pray that the Judges involved will overturn the Nineth Circuit Court's ruling.

I teach Sunday School for 3rd & 4th grades. They question everything, from how many ribs Adam & Eve had, to what is a seraphim. This guy (Newhow) needs to understand that questions are the way children learn. As my dad told me when the "Big Bang theory" came up in science, "Learn it for school, then forget it." I did just that.
It has been said on the BB that if you profess a conservative point of view in public you are treated like a pariah. Unless you are with other conservatives, that is true. No liberals want to hear a conservative point of view.
Leisa

[leightx]

Originally posted by Leisa M

It has been said on the BB that if you profess a conservative point of view in public you are treated like a pariah. Unless you are with other conservatives, that is true. No liberals want to hear a conservative point of view.
Leisa

On this BB??? :confused: Maybe I've been reading the wrong threads, but I've seen nothing but friendly debate going on here, even over on the religion poll. Do I disagree with some conservative points of view?? Sure! But I enjoy hearing different viewpoints, and believe it or not, I try to keep an open mind. In fact, in regards to this topic, I think I've changed my mind about 5 times on whether I agree with the ruling or not! I keep reading the replies, and thinking "good point!" Then I'll read the next and think, "hey - that's a good point too!" Just be careful when you lump all liberals (and all conservatives for that matter) together - I am definitely liberal and enjoy hearing other's points of view, even when I don't agree. Heck - I'm still forming my own point of view! :p Just because people disagree, doesn't mean they don't want to hear the other side. If no one was willing to question their beliefs, we'd all still be thinking the world was flat.

Leightx

[MusicMom]

Originally posted by leightx


On this BB??? :confused: Maybe I've been reading the wrong threads, but I've seen nothing but friendly debate going on here, even over on the religion poll. Do I disagree with some conservative points of view?? Sure! But I enjoy hearing different viewpoints, and believe it or not, I try to keep an open mind. In fact, in regards to this topic, I think I've changed my mind about 5 times on whether I agree with the ruling or not! I keep reading the replies, and thinking "good point!" Then I'll read the next and think, "hey - that's a good point too!" Just be careful when you lump all liberals (and all conservatives for that matter) together - I am definitely liberal and enjoy hearing other's points of view, even when I don't agree. Heck - I'm still forming my own point of view! :p Just because people disagree, doesn't mean they don't want to hear the other side. If no one was willing to question their beliefs, we'd all still be thinking the world was flat.

Leightx

My thoughts exactly. I usually fall on the liberal side of issues, but I consider myself to be open-minded and willing to listen to other sides. (although I do remind myself not to be so open-minded that my brain falls out!) Anyway, I've enjoyed reading alternate points of view here and have modified my original perspective because of them. Maybe it's the relative anonymity of the BB that helps us feel more comfortable voicing our opinions, even though they might be in the minority. This thread has generated more open discussion than I have ever experienced face-to-face. The value is that open discussion leads to greater understanding.

For what it's worth, I've been shut down by many conservatives. I don't think politics makes one intolerant- I think it's a personality trait. Some people are just opinionated and stubborn, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative.

[Robyncz]

No liberals want to hear a conservative point of view.
In this day, tolerant means tolerant of liberal view points only, not conservative one.
As a liberal you are allowed to loudly express your "obviously correct views" in any company but state a conservative point of view and you become a social pariah who is out to cause "trouble".

This idea has been stated on this thread repeatedly in a variety of different ways and I have come close to commenting on several occasions, only to stop and focus instead on the actual issue rather than on labels for those who fall on one side or the other. But I have to say, I think comments like these are grossly unfair. I consider myself liberal, although I am also capable of a conservative thought every now and then, and I have found this entire discussion enlightening and thought provoking. I have not only tolerated all of the views that have been expressed, I have actually learned from some of them. I have felt my knees jerk many times as I have read some of the opinions, but I have definitely followed both sides of the issue with interest.

I just think people should be careful with sweeping generalizations like these. In my opinion, they provoke contention and certainly don't add anything positive to the exchange of ideas.

[MKSquared]

Originally posted by Leisa M
No liberals want to hear a conservative point of view.
Leisa

If not for conservatives, there would be no liberals. Although I don't agree with you, I believe fully in hearing what you have to say. Bring on the discussion! :) I love free exchange of ideas! :)

[Leisa M]

Usually, face-to-face, it is hard to get the librals I know to talk to you once they know your view-point. My DH sometimes tells me to shut-up that no-one wants to hear my opion.
This thread has been good to be a part of - sorry if I offended someone. I certainly did not mean to..

[boisewinesnob]

Leisa (and others)
I also am usually very conservative, but I don't agree that ALL liberals don't want to hear anything conservative; or vice versa for that matter. I know some great people who are politically liberal, and I know some real jerks.....but I also know some political conservatives who are jerks, too. I am agreeing with MusicMom....political beliefs don't necessarily equate with personality (ie: all liberals are this way, or all conservatives are such and such).
I moved from a very liberal state to a very conservative state 2 years ago, and I have changed my mind on a few issues. I can see the affects of some policies being horrible ideas and some that are working well. A big example I can think of here in Idaho is that they spend almost nothing on education....I can tell you that the school curriculum in our King county school (Seattle) was much better than the district we are in. The teachers are so poorly paid here, that most of the good ones choose to go to another state, unless they really want to stay here for some reason. So I guess I would have a more liberal opinion on school funding.....if that makes my property taxes go up, so be it! :)

Suzy

[RebeccaT]

Originally posted by MusicMom
I don't think politics makes one intolerant- I think it's a personality trait. Some people are just opinionated and stubborn, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative.

Hear, hear! I completely agree. I think that most people, both "conservative" and "liberal" (although there needs to be a new label for people like me who are a combination, "libervative" maybe? ;) ), are willing to hear what you have to say if you will listen with true interest to what they have to say.

[Kristilyn1]

<<<<<As a liberal you are allowed to loudly express your "obviously correct views" in any company but state a conservative point of view and you become a social pariah who is out to cause "trouble".>>>>>


Just wanted to clarify my point about liberals/conservatives. I can't speak for anyone else---but I was not talking about this board when I stated the above--I should be more careful in explaining what I meant. I think this has been a great exchange of ideas and I've enjoyed all the thoughtful discussion. Sorry, if people are offended but I still believe what I said. My comments were about society in general--I've had hundreds of meaningful thoughtful exchanges of ideas with individuals who both agree with me and plenty who don't. What I'm talking about is the popularity of certain issues and the assumption as a society that you are on the side of "right". It's become very socially unacceptable to be on the "wrong side" of certain issues. This is something that I consider to be completely pervasive throughtout our society. If you don't agree with same sex marriage you are a "homo-phobe", if you don't believe in abortion you are "intolerant". If you are opposed to affirmative action you are "racist". These are labels that are used by the media and the PR machines that try to further these ideas. Honestly, and I know this will make even more people mad and I'm not saying it to be inflammatory but I think most people feel perfectly comfortable repeating liberal views they hear on the news around everyone and probably assume that most people are agreeing with them--while the conservatives bite their tongues afraid to speak up. I'm outspoken and am more than happy to share my beliefs--I'm proud of them and put a lot of thought into the ideas I espouse. BUT, I'm not going to have a discussion about gun control in the office when I'm the only one who isn't marching in the Million Mom March. It's simply not appropriate to debate politics in many settings--so I don't. I'm certainly not saying that Conservatives are off the hook either---I've met my share of rednecks but I believe they have less places to "feel comfortable" with their views and certainly don't have the mainstream media to be their mouthpiece. I hope this clarifies at least what I meant.

Kristi

[Leisa M]

Originally posted by Kristilyn1
<<<<<As a liberal you are allowed to loudly express your "obviously correct views" in any company but state a conservative point of view and you become a social pariah who is out to cause "trouble".>>>>>


Just wanted to clarify my point about liberals/conservatives. I can't speak for anyone else---but I was not talking about this board when I stated the above--I should be more careful in explaining what I meant. I think this has been a great exchange of ideas and I've enjoyed all the thoughtful discussion. Sorry, if people are offended but I still believe what I said. My comments were about society in general--I've had hundreds of meaningful thoughtful exchanges of ideas with individuals who both agree with me and plenty who don't. What I'm talking about is the popularity of certain issues and the assumption as a society that you are on the side of "right". It's become very socially unacceptable to be on the "wrong side" of certain issues. This is something that I consider to be completely pervasive throughtout our society. If you don't agree with same sex marriage you are a "homo-phobe", if you don't believe in abortion you are "intolerant". If you are opposed to affirmative action you are "racist". These are labels that are used by the media and the PR machines that try to further these ideas. Honestly, and I know this will make even more people mad and I'm not saying it to be inflammatory but I think most people feel perfectly comfortable repeating liberal views they hear on the news around everyone and probably assume that most people are agreeing with them--while the conservatives bite their tongues afraid to speak up. I'm outspoken and am more than happy to share my beliefs--I'm proud of them and put a lot of thought into the ideas I espouse. BUT, I'm not going to have a discussion about gun control in the office when I'm the only one who isn't marching in the Million Mom March. It's simply not appropriate to debate politics in many settings--so I don't. I'm certainly not saying that Conservatives are off the hook either---I've met my share of rednecks but I believe they have less places to "feel comfortable" with their views and certainly don't have the mainstream media to be their mouthpiece. I hope this clarifies at least what I meant.


I do agree. There are "red-necks" on both sides. Thanks for explaining more clearly what you meant.
Kristi :)

[Ed]

Hi,

Speaking as one who has for years been cussed and discussed as a Conservative by friends and foe alike, I will say that I believe the country needs Liberals. I like Liberals, in fact, I like Liberals so much I married one. We are never at a loss for topics of conversation.

Ed

[Kristilyn1]

My husband and I are both Conservatives but as one who leans much more towards Libertarian---my husband always calls ME Liberal!

Ed, maybe you and your wife can write a book like James Carville and Mary Matlin........LOL.

Kristi

[browneye]

Originally posted by Beth
does anyone else see the irony of the fact that the suit was brought by a father who objected not to his daughter being compelled to say "under God", but objecting to her hearing it??? Is there not a compelling interest in freedom of speech as well???



I find it strange that folks would bring suit against a daughter hearing "under God", while the radio and other media blares out violent, sexist, dark, lyrics that even endorse violent behavior.
How can you censor one and not the other?
Don't get me wrong, I just turn the radio off... I am not suggesting censoring the stuff necessarily, but it think it is ironic what we do tolerate, and what we want to silence. :confused:

[Ed]

Kristilyn1,

James who?

Ed

[Leisa M]

Originally posted by browneye


I find it strange that folks would bring suit against a daughter hearing "under God", while the radio and other media blares out violent, sexist, dark, lyrics that even endorse violent behavior.
How can you censor one and not the other?
Don't get me wrong, I just turn the radio off... I am not suggesting censoring the stuff necessarily, but it think it is ironic what we do tolerate, and what we want to silence. :confused:


I most defimitely agree with cencoring the violence. Some violence is OK. However, all the violence you hear on the radio, in the songs, etc. needs to be censored if they censor "under God". I hear that the judge involved has backed off some. There is a grassroots movement via e-mail that allows you to sign a petition (sp?) to let the judges know that we oppose the removal of "under God". I did, if anyone wants to get the petition let me know I will e-mail it.

[Kristilyn1]

Ed, her husband! They met during the Clinton-Bush (Sr.) election. He worked for Clinton and she was working with Bush.

They are pretty funny, though I can't imagine how they manage to tolerate each other. She's a HUGE Republican and he's so liberal he seems wacko.....LOL.

Kristi

[valchemist]

kristi,

I think Ed was kidding. Not sure, though. I love Mary... she has always been a favorite of mine. :)

must be some interesting dinner conversations. at least their kids won't be brainwashed into joining one party or the other. they will hear both sides and will be able to choose their party with a full complement of information on the issues.

val

[Ed]

Originally posted by Kristilyn1
Ed, her husband! They met during the Clinton-Bush (Sr.) election. He worked for Clinton and she was working with Bush.

They are pretty funny, though I can't imagine how they manage to tolerate each other. She's a HUGE Republican and he's so liberal he seems wacko.....LOL.

Kristi

Hi Kristi,

Yes Val is right, it was just my feeble attempt to kid around a little.

I have had the pleasure of seeing both James Carville, and his good wife on Television more than a couple of times, and I think they are astounding everyone on how they can stay together and seem so happy. I guess it's true that opposites attract.

Another astounding thing was that I got along with my Father-In-Law quite well. He was a very staunch Democrat, and I wasn't. We decided it would be best if we didn't discuss politics, so we stopped doing that.

One time he had invited my Wife and youngest Daughter to a get together at his house to meet the new Candidate for State Senator. He didn't invite me, which I understood, - me being on the other side so to speak. Well as the days and weeks went by approaching the evening of this big coffee party to introduce who they hoped would be the new State Senator for this part of MN the flu season arrived in town, and many people caught it.

The night before this big event the phone rang and it was, you guessed it, my Father-In-Law. He said he was sorry if I felt left out and he sure did want me to accompany Sharon and Heather to their place to take part in the evening. I asked if he was losing attendees because of the flu, and he said "yes," and he needed to have a certain number of people there so that it didn't appear as though no one cared to meet this young guy.

I told him I would come. Then he asked if I would mind not asking any questions or anything so that the candidate could do his thing, I said sure - "anything to help you."

Well the evening went quite well, the Candidate was a nice guy and there were enough of us there to put a smile on his face. The Candidate asked Muggins if he intended to sell tickets to the Democrat Bean and Pork feed fund raiser coming up, and Dad said "oh yes I have the tickets right here" and he handed 3 of them to me, and also tickes to everyone else who was there.

I reached for my wallet and dug out the money for 2 Tickets, and handed him the money and 1 ticket. He asked who I was paying for and I said me and Sharon, and he asked "you aren't going to leave Heather home alone are you? So I handed him another $10 [This was back in 1980 and Heather was a young teenager then.]

Later, after everyone had left, he came to me with the money and said "thanks, but here's your money back you don't have to come to the fund raiser, I know you'd rather donate to the Republicans." Nope I said we're coming to the Democrat Pork Roast with you and Mom. So we did, and except for all the political talk by the speakers I did have a good time.

Well the up shot of this is this. There were more than a few folks there I knew from the area, and one was the Druggest where I bought my Cigars. I was in the Drug Store about a week later, and he called me over and told me that my Mom had mentioned that we were moving from here to another state, I said yes that's true, well he said that's a shame, we need all the good Democrarts around here we can get.

I never did tell him, I just smiled and thanked him. To this day he thinks I'm a Democrat who just happens to be the kind that will let all candidates put a sign in my yard. So both Clinton and Bush, and Bush and Gore have had their signs in my yard. I wonder if that is also the case with Mr.& Mrs. Carville.

Ed

[HejazSunKat]

This has been a great discussion. I feel uniquely qualified to comment on this issue because I'm living as a guest in a country with, arguably, the most conservative, fundamentalist Islamic government next to the now defunct Taliban. In Saudi Arabia there is no freedom of religion, there is no freedom of speech and there are no civil rights. There is no separation of church and state - they are one and the same. The country's constitution is the Koran. Morality is legislated by the government (i.e. the state religion) and enforced by something called "The Committee for the Prevention of Vice and the Promotion of Virtue" (somehow I always manage to get this backwards! Oops!). Members of the committee travel around the Kingdom with police escorts ensuring, among other things, that women are modestly dressed and that men and women who are not blood relations do not fraternize in mixed groups.

Living in this environment for 4 years has made me do a lot of thinking about what it means to be from a 'free' country. I'm not concerned about whether our kids say the Pledge of Alliegance with or without the phrase 'under God' - I just want them to SAY it. I want them to have an appreciation of how lucky they are to have the right to determine their own lives because their country and their government has bestowed that on them. Whether or not a kid has a faith is up to the parents of that child to decide. Whether or not that child has an identity as an American (or member or any other free society) is something society has a responsibility to nurture and I'm beginning to wonder if we've lost sight of how important it is to teach kids about these things.

[Leisa M]

Thanks HejazSunKat for beinging a new and fresh perspective to this discussion. I appreciate your views. I do think that the prase "under God" should be left in the Pledge. However, the fact that a person be allowed the freedon to choose their faith or not is important too.

Thanks for the imput!


:)

[brykate]

This has been one of THE most thought provoking and extremely interestsing discussions! I love it! Good brain food! It's fun to learn more about my fellow foodies too :p It's nice that we can open up a bit and actually toss views around as well as all the really neat tid-bits of information too.
I've learned a lot. And I don't think I have just a "blind opinion" anymore. I feel a little more informed and have a better view of where each 'side' may come from.
HejazSunKat - wow! You DO have a unique point of view. Thank you for sharing. Is 4 years a long time yet?

:) Katie