Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional

[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.

[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.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

.... 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]

Originally Posted by Prudence

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]

Originally Posted by Prudence

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.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

... 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.