Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional

[Scrooge McSam]

Here we go again! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance;_ylt=AgYaHbAwRtn8Ei1W3vJdLU17 OyAi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

[scaeagles]

"Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of."

So why did Karlton say was bound by precedent of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when they were overruled? That makes no sense at all.

Now, considering that the SC said Newdow had no legal standing in the earlier case, and this one is structured slightly differently as I understand it, he could have just ruled. but to cite the previous decision of the 9th is...well....stupid.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

So why did Karlton say was bound by precedent of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when they were overruled? That makes no sense at all.



Is the case being thrown out originally on a technicality the same as being overruled? The technicality doesn't exist this time, therefore either does what the Supreme Court originally ruled. I could be mistaken but that's how it reads to me.

[innerSpaceman]

The precedent still exists, but it simply exists for people who have the legal standing to sue on such grounds. Just becuase the dude didn't have standing, doesn't mean that the ruling never existed. It applies to anyone who does have standing.

The Supreme Court had to know it was just side-stepping the issue and that it would come up again. Well, here it is.



Oh, don't expect to hear anything about Roberts's take on it. He won't even reveal his shoe size.

[Ghoulish Delight]

What MbC said. The actual facts of the case that lead to the conclusion of the court the last time remain the same, it's just the legal status of how the case got there that's changed.

[Betty]

Good! Why should I have to declare that God exists in order to pledge allegiance to my country.

[jdramj]

You know I don't know what the big deal is? By simply saying "under God", it doesn't not make you one who believes that there is a God, by any stretch of the imagination.

I realize there is a right to religious freedom at work here, meaning you have the choice to be religious or not. But the core of this is how much of the tax payers money got wasted on these two words "under God" because someoone wants to prove a point. Why not just omitt those words while reciting the pledge for your own personal satisfaction?

You want the words out? Talk to the law makers....don't sue the schools.

What's next? Suing ballparks for playing "God bless America" instead of/or with "Take me out to the Ballgame" during the 7th inning stretch?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Look, I agree that's it's not THAT big of a deal. This father is a nut and taking things too far.

BUT, even though I personally wouldn't go out of my way to make a big deal of it, the fact is, it's in front of the court. And the court has to look it objectively. And as I see it, it's pretty black and white. The pledge existed without the reference to god. During the McCarthy era, in a blatant and outward attempt to instill the fear of God in this country, the Knight of Columbus pushed for the addition. When signing it, Eisenhower even said, "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

So if this isn't a case of our government enacting legislation cocnerning religion, I don't know what the hell is.

Again, is it the worst thing in the world? No. But the fact is that the express purpose for that phrase to be in there was to impress relgiousness on the country and I see no other option for the court other than to rule it be removed.

[scaeagles]

Let's say it is removed and some students - maybe a lot, maybe most - decide they want to continue to have it in the pledge and say it anyway. Would/should they be disciplined? After all, they are government schools.

[Morrigoon]

But what about the people against whose beliefs it might be to pledge allegiance to anything without acknowledging that allegience secondary to their allegience to God? They cannot "pledge" their allegience to the nation and not include the reference to God, because if push came to shove, they'd have to choose God and therefore they'd have been bearing false witness every time they took the pledge. The only solution is to pledge allegience in such a way that they acknowledge God as superior (eg: "under God")

[Ghoulish Delight]

Let's say it is removed and some students - maybe a lot, maybe most - decide they want to continue to have it in the pledge and say it anyway. Would/should they be disciplined? After all, they are government schools.Absolutely not. As long as it's not disruptive, they are free to say it any way they want. Just as they are free to pray in school of their own volition any way they want (again, as long as it's not disruptive). The issue is that it's coming from the other way, it's the government issuing the religious statement, it's the government passing legislation that says, "The correct way to pledge is by acknowledging God." Personal freedom to acknowledge god=constitutional. Government statements declaring God's jurisdiction over this land=unconstitutional.

[scaeagles]

I beleive it has already been ruled that no one must recite the pledge, and for that very reason. Some Johovah's Witnesses refused to pledge allegiance to anything but God, and it was ruled that they were not required to say the pledge.

Am I remebering that correctly?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I beleive it has already been ruled that no one must recite the pledge, and for that very reason. Some Johovah's Witnesses refused to pledge allegiance to anything but God, and it was ruled that they were not required to say the pledge.

Am I remebering that correctly?
Initially it was ruled they had to, but that was later reversed, yes.

Still doesn't change the fact that it's legislation concerning religion. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Leo, basically your argument would clear the way for a bill that said, "Jesus is the savior of our country. You don't have to believe it, you don't have to say it, but this bill makes it so."

[scaeagles]

My question regarding the discpline of students who continue to say it was sarcastic, not serious. I have no doubt it will become an issue somewhere if the words are removed.

There is a movement - not mainstream whatsoever, not even on the left, but way, way out left - to have all references to religion and God removed. There was a suit filed here in Phoenix not so long ago by a man who didn't like churches advertizing with - i guess I'd call the sandwich board things - little standing pyramid ads - on the side of the road on Sundays. He was driving on public streets, built with public money, and the ads were on public property, the sidewalks nearby built with public funds, as was the landscaping the signs were on. Violated the separation of church and state. He shouldn't have to view those ads on public property.

Thankfully, it was ridiculed and thrown out. I could see thought moving in that direction someday.

[scaeagles]

Leo, basically your argument would clear the way for a bill that said, "Jesus is the savior of our country. You don't have to believe it, you don't have to say it, but this bill makes it so."

I don't think I made any argument suggesting any such thing. What are you referring to?

[Ghoulish Delight]

That's well beyond slippery slope. There is a distinction between personal religious freedom in public arenas vs. religious messages originating from the government. If anything, we've drifted to where the latter is being accepted and passed off as innocuous "cultural tradition". Government funded Christmas displays have been protected by the Supreme Court, claiming them as secular (and lumping Jewish symbols in with it). The pledge is another prime example.

This isn't an attempt to move towards extreme secularism, this is an attempt to move away from improperly defined religious messages.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't think I made any argument suggesting any such thing. What are you referring to?
I guess I was going to far calling it an "argument". I was drawing from the examples you were bringing up that you felt that leaving the reference in with the "you don't HAVE to say it" caveat was acceptable.

[Morrigoon]

There is a movement - not mainstream whatsoever, not even on the left, but way, way out left - to have all references to religion and God removed. There was a suit filed here in Phoenix not so long ago by a man who didn't like churches advertizing with - i guess I'd call the sandwich board things - little standing pyramid ads - on the side of the road on Sundays. He was driving on public streets, built with public money, and the ads were on public property, the sidewalks nearby built with public funds, as was the landscaping the signs were on. Violated the separation of church and state. He shouldn't have to view those ads on public property.

This reminds me of (many) friends of mine who complain about lit crosses on hillsides, saying it offends them that they have to have it "shoved in their faces" and that they "shouldn't be allowed to do that". Yet these are the same people who would probably cheer if their own religious symbols were lit up on that hillside. And it has nothing to do with the government. Everyone wants religious tolerance as it relates to them, they just don't see why they should be tolerant of anyone else. Athiests (sorry Euro) are often the worst of these. They act all offended at the mere mention of God, which they don't believe in. If you don't believe in God, it's not a violation of your "religion" to say "under God", because there's no karmic judgement for claiming belief in something if you believe there's nothing out there greater than yourself. However, I know athiests who are positively pushy about their belief system (or rather, lack thereof), to the point that they are admittedly proselytizing. This one lady literally has a goal to make other people stop believing in their religions just because SHE doesn't think there's a god.

This guy strikes me as one of those. He's pushing his religious agenda (that of wiping out religion) on everyone else in the country. By forcing us to remove "under God" (which doesn't say WHICH god, and therefore is not pushing any particular religion), what he's really doing is forcing the government to comply with his own religion - that of not believing in/acknowledging God.
:eek:

[Motorboat Cruiser]

But what about the people against whose beliefs it might be to pledge allegiance to anything without acknowledging that allegience secondary to their allegience to God? They cannot "pledge" their allegience to the nation and not include the reference to God, because if push came to shove, they'd have to choose God and therefore they'd have been bearing false witness every time they took the pledge. The only solution is to pledge allegience in such a way that they acknowledge God as superior (eg: "under God")

Did these people exist before 1954? Did none of them recite the pledge before then? I'm asking because I've never heard this argument before.

[Morrigoon]

Well, how about Jehovah's witnesses? How about people who are so die-hard for their religion, whatever it is, that in their own judgement it would be a violation of their beliefs to do so?

The point I'm making is, there are two sides to this. While saying "under God" may be seen as pushing a religious agenda, removing it may be seen as pushing an atheist agenda. If atheism is going to get the same treatment as religion for the purposes of being offended, they also ought to be given that status for the purposes of giving offense. By forcing the government to remove "under God", the government is ruling in favor of atheism, which I believe is unconstitutional.

Damn, maybe I should have gone to law school, LOL.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

This guy strikes me as one of those. He's pushing his religious agenda (that of wiping out religion) on everyone else in the country. By forcing us to remove "under God" (which doesn't say WHICH god, and therefore is not pushing any particular religion), what he's really doing is forcing the government to comply with his own religion - that of not believing in/acknowledging God.
:eek:

I've never heard him say that nobody should practice religion or that religion should be wiped out (although maybe he feels that way, who knows). He is saying that there should be a separation of church and state, which denies nobody their right to personally practice (or not practice) their religious beliefs.

[Prudence]

.... By forcing the government to remove "under God", the government is ruling in favor of atheism, which I believe is unconstitutional....



BRRRZZ! Wrong, try again. Ruling in favor of atheism would require an affirmative statement supporting an atheistic belief. Omitting a reference to God is not equivalent to stating a belief that God does not exist.

I hope that when the SC hears this, and they will, they are able to draw the distinction between physical objects and physical actions. It's one thing to shelter money and monuments under the blanket of historical tradition. It's quite another to support an established national ritual that includes a specific religious reference. Particularly a ritual that was modified relatively recently to include that reference, and for reasons clearly established as the promotion of Christianity in the face of godless communism.

Yes, people could "not say" the words. But they are then saying a modified form of the Pledge. They will be saying "the Pledge as modified for those who aren't from a compatible faith." Meanwhile, the pressure to conform continues. If you don't say under God, you're not one of us.

Our national anthem doesn't mention God. Okay, it does in the 4th verse. But we don't sing that verse. Most of us can barely sing the first verse. Still, we manage to be suitable patriotic before sporting events of all kinds with nary a whisper of deity.

I also think this is silly, but I think it's silly that those two words are in there in the first place. But I suppose at the time no one dared contest it, lest they end up before some committee questioning their loyalty. I think they should just take them out and be done with it. Easy fix. Tomorrow morning we're just one nation, indivisible. (Note: How ironic is it that the "under God" is next to "indivisible"?)

Full disclosure: In most instances, I don't believe in saying the Pledge anyhow.

[scaeagles]

Meanwhile, the pressure to conform continues. If you don't say under God, you're not one of us.

I don't think it is an issue for the supreme court as to whether there is pressure to conform or not. This is why the whole thing bugs me.

I would have no problem telling my children not to participate in some sort of demonstration of, say, a Native American Shaman ritual. They've done that in schools up near Flagstaff. OK - it's an educational and traditional thing, but there's a whjole lot of spirituality that goes along with it. Rather than throwing a fit, I would tell the teacher that my child would be opting out of participating for religious reasons, and we would be happy to take on some other assignment if there was homework associated with the demonstration.

Same thing here. Johovahs witnesses did not want the pledge eliminated from the schools. They simply wanted the right to sit and not say it. Fine.

Conformity and peer pressure exists everywhere. I don't see why not saying it is a big deal if the others are saying it.

[Morrigoon]

I suppose it's worth pointing out at this time that I only say this stuff to play devil's advocate :) But anyway, you bring up an excellent point about it being put in to combat "Godless" communism. And in retrospect, I can see why people would have been hesitant to argue - not just because they were more religious than we were at the time anyway, but out of fear of a congressional tribunal. Good point.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Prudence said it perfectly: Omitting reference is not equivalent to denying existence. And, as I pointed out before, the express and stated reason for that phrase is to instill religion in people. I don't know how many different ways I can say it to get the point across. I'm not interpreting, I'm not assuming, I'm not making dire slippery slope predictions. When the bill to insert the phrase was passed, it was for the specific purpose of making this country more religious. End of story.

[scaeagles]

I actually agree, GD. I just don't buy the whole "conformity" crap argument.

[Prudence]

Because I'm on a roll (and because I F*CKING HATE MY BOSS and have to channel this rage into constructive discourse or I'll walk out this instant and then how will I pay the mortgage?)....


The "big deal" about "just not saying it" is that the sponsor in this case isn't Mrs. McGruder's third grade class fieldtrip. The sponsor here is the US. Not even the US Gov't, but the country itself, with all its history and mythology and symbolic position on the world stage. That's a *lot* of pressure.

And "letting" people not say "under God"? That's supposed to fix the matter? So, we're a Christian country, but we'll "let" you be otherwise?

I'm pretty sure that is the actual gist of the argument for many people. Their perception is that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian (but mostly Christian...) values and that the laws and norms of the land should reflect Judeo-Christian values and there's no need to go further than that because gosh, we're not requiring people to go to church on Sunday so what's the problem?

But there's a great and mighty difference between promoting freedom of religion and merely tolerating other religions.

(And don't even come close to me with that "we didn't say which God nonsense." Of course Ike and crew meant the Judeo-Christian God, complete with ZZ Top beard and fierce-yet-benevolent countenance. The generic term is "diety." And it doesn't say "under diety." Heck, even AA says "higher power.")

But wait, there's more!

Let's turn this around and examine another angle -- what is wrong with removing those two words? Why is that a problem? Why isn't the response, "I can see how that would make some people uncomfortable -- let's take them out"?

The historical aspect doesn't hold much water -- particularly when the history of the phrase's addition is disclosed.

Because that's just how it's done? Considering all the other shattered norms, I think that's a weak argument. So weak I can't even come up with a good metaphor.

So what, then? Is it because Christians like saying it? Because Christians like affirming that their country is "under God"? If that's the reason, then doesn't that support the petitioners' position?

[scaeagles]

And "letting" people not say "under God"? That's supposed to fix the matter? So, we're a Christian country, but we'll "let" you be otherwise?

Just cause you said not to come at you with the "it doesn't say which God crap" doesn't mean I'm not going to.

Can't let you get away with that no matter how mad you are!

It doesn't say "Christian God". It says God. Could be Allah. Could be Vishnu. Could be Zeus. All it does is acknowledge a god. I don't really care what their intent was. God means different things to different people.

The question to me is if saying "under god" constitutes government favoritism of a specific religion. I guess I don't see it that way.

[Morrigoon]

I suppose my problem with changing it is more nostalgia. In my lifetime, that's how it's always been said. I think it's ridiculous to burn through this much public money because one atheistic idiot with a desire for more than his 15 minutes objects to holding his tongue (or having his kid hold their tongue) while the rest of the country says, "under God". Sure would be a cheaper solution.

[Prudence]

... I don't really care what their intent was. God means different things to different people....


And to some people, "God" means the Judeo-Christian God. I don't think Allah is God, so why should a Muslim think God is Allah? You are entitled to a happy fuzzy view of God as all-inclusive. (How very 60s flower child of you! It brings a tear to my eye. ;) ) But that doesn't make it so for others. And in this case, the "we don't think it should bother you" attitude doesn't fly.

[Morrigoon]

God, as a word is both a proper and regular noun, however. "God", capitalized, would mean a (one) god who is known by the name God, whereas an uncapitalized "god" would mean any god, be it God, or Allah, or I suppose Buddah (though that's pushing it, isn't it) or Jehovah, or Mars, or whatever.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

It doesn't say "Christian God". It says God. Could be Allah. Could be Vishnu. Could be Zeus. All it does is acknowledge a god. I don't really care what their intent was. God means different things to different people.

The question to me is if saying "under god" constitutes government favoritism of a specific religion. I guess I don't see it that way.

Well, if nothing else, "a god" sure seems to imply monotheism. That leaves out Hindus, Native Americans, Wiccans, and to some extent, Buddhists. Shouldn't a country that professes a love of equality and democracy have a pledge that is as all-inclusive as possible in regard to personal faith? Or, are you less of an american if you don't believe in one god. That is what George Bush Sr. seems to think and I strongly disagree.

Nothing about a lack of government getting involved in religion keeps people from practicing their faith in this country. Government and religion can both co-exist just fine. There is no good reason for them to intertwine and plenty of bad ones.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

or I suppose Buddah (though that's pushing it, isn't it)

Yeah, pretty much. Buddha isn't considered a god to Buddhists. More of an enlightened prophet. There are some Buddhists that believe in multiple gods though.

[PanTheMan]

You know what gets me, of all the silly things to tie a court up with, is this. Something that ammounts to not much more than a poem that includes the word "god"

I would like to see how much money this case has cost us.

And Yes, i was DEEPLY Damaged psychologically for having to repeat this every morning for 12 years. (13 if you count kindergarden)

And it's not over yet, the opther side will appeal, this will go all the way to the Supreme Court, and it's looking mighty righty in there these days.....

[jdramj]

I just feel that based on interviews I have seen with this idiot, having not actually read the court transcripts of what was agrued, that this guy is just plain and simple an idiot. His ex-wife stated that his daughter, who he was originally fighting for, is herself a very happy Christain and has no problems saying it with "under God". He states that he is being perscuted on a relgious basis due to the fact he is an aethist and that all aethists are treated as second class citizens.

I did like the LA school districts response....we won't be changing anything based on this ruling....if you don't want to say the pledge based on religious differences, you are not required to do so.

Personally, my kids are in a private Christain school and they will say it everyday until the cows come home or graduation....whichever comes first. If my children decide it is against their beliefs as they come of an age to make their own decisions, it will be their responsibility to handle themselves and their own beliefs in an appropriate manner.

I feel for the school districts (and I believe there were 2 or 3 named in the lawsuit) that had to waste time, effort, and resources on this.

[Gemini Cricket]

What offends me the most about this is that the media is putting this out there to get people all worked up and angry and argumentative about a non-issue. It's silly, not newsworthy and certainly not worth the thousands of dollars going to be thrown at this pro and con...

Here's what I think:

PRO: Church and state should be separate. The 'under God' phrase was put in there during the McCarthy witch hunts by Congress after the Catholic men's only groups, the Knights of Columbus, pushed for it. The original version should come back w/o the 'UG'.

CON: Newdow's weird. He creeps me out. And, I mean, when was the last time you said the pledge? Who cares?! Leave it, I care not.

But religious groups are going to victimize themselves and say their freedom is being taken away. Okay, but what if the pledge said, 'under Allah'? Wouldn't that piss off the Christians, too? What if it were the Koran being placed in courthouses around the country? Hmmm?

All in all, I can see both sides of the argument, but I really couldn't give a rat's patootie about any of it...
:D

:argghh:
:decap:

[wendybeth]

I think you hit the nail on the head, GC- the Islamic terrorists are the new Communists, so this issue will not fade away anytime soon. (Imho). Got to cover all of our bases, dontcha know.:rolleyes:

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I'd like to say, that as a child my parents were Jahovah's Witness' and i was barred from saying the pledge, among other "things." (Yeah, somewhere, someone's saying, "That explains alot.")

To this day, I don't know the Pledge. I would stand, that's about it. No hand over heard, no lip movement, etc.

In the grand scheme of "this is America" I think it's perfectly a-ok if folks don't want to say it or anything else. The thing that erks me about this jerk is that he seems to not want to understand and accept that other ideas and opinions exists.

Maybe they should replace "God" with "I?"

[MickeyLumbo]

may God bless Sacramento - the LEFT side of Sacramento.:rolleyes:


and God Bless LoT, damnit!

[Morrigoon]

Well, if nothing else, "a god" sure seems to imply monotheism. That leaves out Hindus, Native Americans, Wiccans, and to some extent, Buddhists. Shouldn't a country that professes a love of equality and democracy have a pledge that is as all-inclusive as possible in regard to personal faith? Or, are you less of an american if you don't believe in one god. That is what George Bush Sr. seems to think and I strongly disagree.

Nothing about a lack of government getting involved in religion keeps people from practicing their faith in this country. Government and religion can both co-exist just fine. There is no good reason for them to intertwine and plenty of bad ones.

Excellent point (which is why I was careful to tiptoe around the topic of polytheists in my arguments).

[€uroMeinke]

I just don't see why we need a pledge in ths first place - none-the-less have it recited by people too young to understand it, or even commit to it's ideals. Loyalty oaths are worthless, let's dump this one in its entirety.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Loyalty oaths are worthless, let's dump this one in its entirety.

I don't see a reason for it either, quite frankly. I would be interested in hearing other posters feelings as to why the pledge is necessary at all.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah, not a big pledge fan in general myself. If the ideals of America are all that, why is it necessary to brainwash our children in such an institutional way? Shouldn't merely living here and witnessing its greatness do the trick.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

If the ideals of America are all that, why is it necessary to brainwash our children in such an institutional way?

It has always struck me as akin to brainwashing as well. The "under God" line only strengthens that perception for me.

[scaeagles]

I'll speak up.

I have always thought the name of the pledge was a misnomer. The flag is a symbol, but the key is "and to the republic for which it stands".

Our republic is unique in the world. No other state has anything close to the freedoms provided in our Constitution, on which our republic is based. We have multitudes of cutures represented here in mass, as one of only two countries in the world that have immigration policies (the other being Austrailia).

I think it is important to recognize this. I think it is important to acknowledge that it is the rights gauranteed to us are because of the Constitution and the republic based upon it. I think it is important to acknowledge, and I make no apologies for this, that we have the best country in the world. I say this because (and I know some will come in and want to talk about homosexual marriage or drugs) we have the most free country in the world. No other country gaurantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, etc, etc, etc. Because of this, anyone can be whomever they wish. They can make whatever of themselves they wish.

While it is the people that accomplish this, not the government, it is the form of government we have that allows for it.

I think it important to acknowledge and instill a sense of nationalism in everyone. I do not fear nationalism. When we start pledging allegiance to a leader, I'll worry. But to pledge allegiance to our country and the freedoms gauranteed by it reminds us all that in spite of that massive diversity represented by the populace, we are Americans and have a common goal and purpose - to maintain that freedom and diversity for all -"with liberty and justice for all".

Go ahead and say that we don't have complete freedom or liberty or justice for all. But simply saying the pledge instills the principles.

We are not perfect in trying to instill those values. Our government is not perfect. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others."

[Ghoulish Delight]

Whereas I see that kind of loyalty oath as rather anathema to the ideals of freedom of thought. If it's worthy of my loyalty, I will give it. I don't need to be chanted into loyalty.

[Name]

I will concede that we are "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." But saying we are all "under God" is insulting to those that have alternate belief systems that do not have an entity(or diety) with the name "God."

[Betty]

Why do we need the pledge?

I suppose we don't *need* it... but I tend to get a teensy bit choked up when saying the pledge, along with so many others in a very large group for one reason or another... Perhaps I'm just sappy in that way. When so many people say it and "pledge" themselves to a country that instills these ideals, it just makes me get a lump in my throat.

In reality, I'm a bit more cynical. Something about that deep voice of so many people speaking as one and saying what I truly hope to be true - even with the "under God" part.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

But to pledge allegiance to our country and the freedoms gauranteed by it reminds us all that in spite of that massive diversity represented by the populace, we are Americans and have a common goal and purpose - to maintain that freedom and diversity for all -"with liberty and justice for all".


It seems to me that you may have just inadvertently made an argument in favor of keeping the words "under god" from the pledge. "Freedom and diversity for all" doesn't seem to jibe well with "One nation, under God".

[TigerLily]

I don't see a reason for it either, quite frankly. I would be interested in hearing other posters feelings as to why the pledge is necessary at all.


I don't think it's neccessary. It reminds of a cult chanting everytime I hear it. I refused to say it in school, refused to have my hand on my chest and refused to stand until I was forced to.

[SacTown Chronic]

I just don't see why we need a pledge in ths first place - none-the-less have it recited by people too young to understand it, or even commit to it's ideals. Loyalty oaths are worthless, let's dump this one in its entirety.
My sentiments exactly.

[Prudence]

I think I already went on record against the daily chant by school children. I'm also against singing the national anthem before every event. I think the mass chant becomes a rote activity devoid of meaning. How many times have you seen "funny" videos of kids misunderstanding the words of the pledge? Or people forgetting the words to the national anthem? This deprives these rituals of their full power. They should be recited/sung in situations that are appropriate to their intrinsic solemnity.

And if I may be permitted to argue in the alternative: indoctrination is appropriate for church, not for government. In history class, students wonder why people under various regimes -- pick your favorite -- didn't "do something." I don't think we should give the impression that our country is always right, or that we stand behind our country (and its symbols) come what may.

[Kevy Baby]

I pledge allegiance to the Swank
of the Lounge of Tomorrow board
And to the irreverance for which it stands
One Swankdom, under Chris (and Fej and GD)
With Silliness and Mojo for all.

[Not Afraid]

I pledge allegiance to the Swank
of the Lounge of Tomorrow board
And to the irreverance for which it stands
One Swankdom, under Chris (and Fej and GD)
With Silliness and Mojo for all.
Why am I always forgotten¿ Out here in Chicago the homeless call me Biq Red!

[Prudence]

With Silliness and Mojo for all.

But more for me!

[PanTheMan]

I don't think it's neccessary. It reminds of a cult chanting everytime I hear it. I refused to say it in school, refused to have my hand on my chest and refused to stand until I was forced to.


Well, the main point is that it shouldnt even be an issue. Don't you remember back when you said it? It was just part of the morning routine, and it was said so mechanically, for years I thought I was saying something about being invisible with liberty and Justice for all.

I was busy during that time admiring how Cute Jennifer McHugh was that morning....lol

[MickeyLumbo]

Well, the main point is that it shouldnt even be an issue. Don't you remember back when you said it? It was just part of the morning routine, and it was said so mechanically, for years I thought I was saying something about being invisible with liberty and Justice for all.

I was busy during that time admiring how Cute Jennifer McHugh was that morning....lol

Totally agree - except his name wasn't Jennifer;)

[PanTheMan]

lol ;)

were you looking at me Bum?.....lol