Court Rejects Bush Appeal on Pledge Issue

[headscratcher4]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=519&e=2&u=/ap/20030228/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance

[corplinx]

" federal appeals court on Friday rejected the Bush administration's request to reconsider its decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion when recited in public classrooms, setting up a showdown at the Supreme Court"

Unconstitutional endorsement of religion? Next thing you know posting the Declaration of Independence will be banned for the same reason. I think there are much more substantive reasons for fighting the pledge being recited besides the "under God" addon.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by corplinx
Next thing you know posting the Declaration of Independence will be banned for the same reason.I often hear the DOI example raised (because of its mention of a "creator"), usually for the purpose of buttressing various arguments. (The founders were Christian, they intended to incorporate God in the new government, etc.) But the paper, striking and monumental a document though it is, was merely a "letter of intent" of sorts; it has never been the law of the land.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
I often hear the DOI example raised (because of its mention of a "creator"), usually for the purpose of buttressing various arguments. (The founders were Christian, they intended to incorporate God in the new government, etc.) But the paper, striking and monumental a document though it is, was merely a "letter of intent" of sorts; it has never been the law of the land.


The point?

My point is that associating "under God" with establishment of religion is a bit farfetched. Mind you, traditionally only certain religious group had a capital G in God. However, in the modern vernacular God has about the same meaning as smurf.

As I mentioned before, there are much better grounds to attack the pedge on than this. I personally am a fan of action over words. I would rather have mandatory civic duty of some sort than wasting words on a half-heartedly recited pledge. At least with civic service some good comes of it whether you buy into the ideals or not.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by corplinx
The point?I'm sorry, I thought it was clear. I was merely taking issue with the assertion:Next thing you know posting the Declaration of Independence will be banned for the same reason.It seems to me that such a parallel crumbles under scrutiny in so far as the Declaration holds no legal value; it is symbolic. So, too, is the Pledge, but no one is being asked to stand, hand on heart, and pledge allegience to the DOI.

[Fade]

My point is that associating "under God" with establishment of religion is a bit farfetched.

Okay, two questions:

1. Did you read the article.
2. Do you understand American history at all?


Under God was added for -entirely christian- reasons to combat "godless communism."

That is an accepted historical fact. The words were intended religiously, are used religiously, and are religious in nature in every single sense of the word.

The logical thing to do, of course, is to simply expunge that reference. Then again, these things have been said many, many times, and you are simply one person in a long line of people who wish to ignore actual history in favour of revisionism.

[DanishDynamite]

Slightly off-topic....

What is the history of this Pledge of Allegiance? Why are children made to recite this "I love the Fatherland" pledge every morning? Is it because the US is a nation of immigrants, and it was therefore seen as a way of excising any lingering non-US loyalties from the children?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Next thing you know posting the Declaration of Independence will be banned for the same reason.

Is the Declaration of Independence the law of the land? I always thought the Constitution was......

Your statement concerning the Declaration is thus irrelevant.

So I guess when Jefferson wrote about creating a wall of seperation between church and state.....he didn't mean it.

Jefferson may have believed in God, and that a God told men to be free, but Jefferson also believed the same God protected freedom of conscience meaning he did not feel it his place of the government to dictate conscience or endorsement on matters of religious belief. Thus the DOI can stay because it serves a secular purpose and is not really a government endorsement of religion(the government by showing it is merely showing how our nation was founded, not leading a religious ritual.)

Oh yes and if you believe in words more then actions, I suggest you live among the chimps. With them you will see a lot of action with very little words. Or perhaps you should realize it is words that help make men stronger then his animal relatives.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Slightly off-topic....

What is the history of this Pledge of Allegiance? Why are children made to recite this "I love the Fatherland" pledge every morning? Is it because the US is a nation of immigrants, and it was therefore seen as a way of excising any lingering non-US loyalties from the children?

I think you will be able to find a history of the Pledge by doing a Google search, or a similiar search. As I understand it, and this is the way I personally see it, the objection is not so much with the Pledge itself as with the inclusion of the reference to God. As far as pledging allegience to the flag, I see nothing fruitful in pledging to a symbol. I consider the substance to be much more important. Why not pledge allegience to the Constitution? (And what's all the hullabaloo about posting the Ten Commandments in public schools? You want to post ten of something, post the Bill of Rights. What possible objection could anyone have to that?)

[Doctor X]

My point is that associating "under God" with establishment of religion is a bit farfetched.

I have to agree with the rebuttal to this. The intent of Congress was quite clear.

If the "two words" are so unimportant and "harmless" than no one should protest their removal, of course.

--J.D.

[Pyrrho]

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm


Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).



In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.



http://www.flagday.org/Pages/StoryofPledge.html


Mr. Francis Bellamy of Rome, New York, and Mr. James Upham of Malden, Massachusetts were both members of the staff of the Youth's Companion when the Pledge was published. The family of each man has contended that his was the authorship and both hold evidence to substantiate their claims.

To determine, in the interest of historical accuracy, the actual authorship, the United States Flag Association (formerly in Washington, D.C., but now disbanded), in 1939, appointed a committee consisting of Charles C. Tansill,Professor of American History; W. Reed West, Professor of Political Science; and Bernard Mayo, Professor of American History, to carefully weigh the evidence of the two contending families. Unanimously, the committee decided in favor of Francis Bellamy, and on May 18, 1939, the decision was accepted by the American Flag Committee. Mr. Bellamy had been chairman of the executive committee which formulated the program for the National Public School Celebration and furnished the publicity when he was on the staff of the Youth's Companion.


On Flag Day June 14, 1954, the words “under God” were added

The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious 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."
This was the last change made to the Pledge of Allegiance. The 23 words what had been initially penned for a Columbus Day celebration now comprised a Thirty-one profession of loyalty and devotion to not only a flag, but to a way of life....the American ideal.

[DanishDynamite]

Smalso:I think you will be able to find a history of the Pledge by doing a Google search, or a similiar search. As I understand it, and this is the way I personally see it, the objection is not so much with the Pledge itself as with the inclusion of the reference to God. As far as pledging allegience to the flag, I see nothing fruitful in pledging to a symbol. I consider the substance to be much more important. Why not pledge allegience to the Constitution? (And what's all the hullabaloo about posting the Ten Commandments in public schools? You want to post ten of something, post the Bill of Rights. What possible objection could anyone have to that?) I understand that the current hubbub concerns the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge. I was just wondering why the pledge is used at all.

pyrrho2000:

Thanks for the links. It appears that the pledge was introduced into the schools in 1892, recited as part of the celebration of Columbus Day. But why was it then made a permanent part of the school curriculum?

I'm just wondering, because it sounds very militaristic, almost indoctrinating. We have nothing similar in this country.

[subgenius]

Headscratcher you jerk:
Your mailbox is full and I couldn't send you what you now have as your updated sig. And the following:
from todays anecdote about our glorious leader:
"He then visited the tomb of King Kong Min. he, saying ..."
So there really was a King Kong!
I bet you miss Michigan.....great PBS show the other night with much history of the great lakes I didn't know, incl. the first defeat of a British fleet anywhere by Adm OH Perry...and a weird Mormon sect that overran Beaver Island and declared it a seperate country....Be well.
So clear your mailbox already and I won't have to embarass myself if public
By the way, the pledge sucks, as written, and it took an heroic court to say so.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Doctor X


I have to agree with the rebuttal to this. The intent of Congress was quite clear.

If the "two words" are so unimportant and "harmless" than no one should protest their removal, of course.

--J.D.
Ooooh I love ramming the logic of morons up their asses.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by corplinx



The point?

My point is that associating "under God" with establishment of religion is a bit farfetched. Mind you, traditionally only certain religious group had a capital G in God. However, in the modern vernacular God has about the same meaning as smurf.


Actually, including under God (in any form) is an express establishment of religion versus atheism. By leaving out "...under God..." you can sidestep the whole church/state issue completely.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Agammamon


Actually, including under God (in any form) is an express establishment of religion versus atheism. By leaving out "...under God..." you can sidestep the whole church/state issue completely.

Nonsense to the former, agreement with the latter. However, I don't think it should be neutered by the courts. I think that the branch of government who jeffed it up in the first place should reverse or else it should be left alone.

[corplinx]

Does anyone else think that so much buzz about the pledge in general is bad? I mean seriously, this isnt the fifties where it gets recited every morning in schools. The pledge is on its way out already. Only my sixth grade teacher made me recite it. (I was in school from 1980-1993). I assume the number of teachers making students recite the pledge is even less now. It has been relegated to a cultural relic. Most people don't even know how to recite it properly. "One nation under God" is how its written but when they recite it they do so with a pause "One nation, under God".

Seriously, the pledge to me is harmless. Very few teachers do it and I think the students who get it won't live out their lives in capitalist/relgious indoctrination. I went through it and I am not a believer.

Let the pledge die in peace of the apathy that has been killing it for years.

[arcticpenguin]

Latest article on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/pledge.of.allegiance.reut/index.html

"A ruling by a U.S. appeals court could force millions of students to stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance within days if the controversial decision is not overturned by a higher court, legal experts said Saturday. "
...
"The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," Ashcroft said.

"We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge."

Excellent double-speak here. Now it's about kids being forced NOT to recite the pledge, instead of about kids being force to recite.

Ashcroft is the anti-christ.

Aren't these kids absolutely free to recite the pledge in their own time, in their own homes, presuming their parents approve?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Ashcroft is the anti-christ.


Nah. He's just an ugly guy from Missouri.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by corplinx

Nah. He's just an ugly guy from Missouri.
Who once lost an election to a dead man.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Nonsense to the former, agreement with the latter. However, I don't think it should be neutered by the courts. I think that the branch of government who jeffed it up in the first place should reverse or else it should be left alone.


LOL. So that's why we have a separation of powers, so that each branch of government never excercises it.

Does anyone else think that so much buzz about the pledge in general is bad? I mean seriously, this isnt the fifties where it gets recited every morning in schools.

Well then you haven't been to a school in a while. I know of many teens who actually get in trouble for not saying the Pledge.

Most people don't even know how to recite it properly. "One nation under God" is how its written but when they recite it they do so with a pause "One nation, under God".

Well then you shouldn't be too concerned about the words "Under God" being removed.

[Akots]

"The Bill of Rights is, of course, intended to protect the rights of those in the minority against the temporary passions of a majority which might wish to limit their freedoms or liberties," Reinhardt wrote.

Well, that's refreshing...


EDIT: Wait-a-sec... is thsi about the pledge NOT being recited at all, or just the words "Under God" being removed?

[Doctor X]

It is about the removal of the phrase; however, it seems that some are trying to gather support by making it appear that the entire pledge has been banned.

To my knowledge, the ruling does not ban the entire thing; however, I am not a lawyer.

--J.D.

[Smalso]

I have no problem with someone reciting the Pledge if he or she wants to recite it. I have a major objection to the inclusion of the words "under God" as I have with the inscription "In God We Trust" on our money. I do, however, have a problem with forcing anyone to recite the Pledge, a prayer, or any other incantation.