SCOTUS Pledge of Allegance Case (merged)

[Mahan Atma]

I think they're playing politics; there's no other reason to take this case, really:

Supreme Court Takes Case on Pledge of Allegiance

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/14/politics/14WIRE-SCOT.html?hp

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.

The case sets up an emotional showdown over God in the public schools and in public life. It will settle whether the phrase "one nation under God" will remain a part of the patriotic oath as it is recited in most classrooms.

The court will hear the case sometime next year.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal involving a California atheist whose 9-year-old daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.

A national uproar followed a federal appeals court ruling last year that the reference to God made the pledge unconstitutional in public schools. That ruling, if allowed to stand, would strip the reference from the version of the pledge recited by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.

The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.

The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,"

The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.

 

[-Thoth]

If often wondered weather similarly the "In God we Trust" on alot of US coinage and notes is a similar issue, or is the Federal Reserve, operating somewhat autonomously from the Government, immune?

Still, I think the inclusion of a 'God' reference in a pledge is a somewhat minor quibble. More progressivist rather than progressive. This is of course withstanding the fact that I find pledges in general, well... Creepy.

 

[Mahan Atma]

BTW, before more senseless debate on this occurs, let's clear up a few misconceptions:

Contrary to the media's description of the Ninth Circuit opinion, the Ninth Circuit did NOT declare that "the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional".

The Ninth Circuit's opinion struck down a combination of laws that require public school teachers to lead schoolchildren in the Pledge of Allegiance (with the added phrase "Under God").

If you take out the phrase "Under God", OR if you take away the law that requires teachers to lead schoolchildren in reciting the pledge, then there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Why the hell people can't get this straight is beyond me...

It's really not very far from the decades-old Supreme Court holding that said schoolchildren cannot be forced to recite the pledge.

 

[frizzantik]

just the fact that the supreme court is looking at this after the 9th circuit ruled makes me think they're gonna go the opposite way

 

[zorn]

Judge Scalia has recused himself... that's interesting. What happens if there's a 4-4 split?

 

[DigitalDuality]

Justice Antonin Scalia will not take part in the case, apparently because of public remarks earlier this year critical of the lower court ruling in the pledge case. His absence sets up the possibility that the other eight justices could deadlock 4-4, a result that would allow the lower court decision to stand.

 

[psychoblast]

Interesting how the NY Times put such a right-wing, conservative and false spin on this issue in the opening sentence:

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.

As Mahan Atma noted above, the issue is not whether a mandatory recital of the Pledge is constitutional. The issue is whether mandatory recital of the NEW AND AMENDED PLEDGE WITH THE ADDED PHRASE "UNDER GOD" IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! That alteration to the pledge was made, I believe, in the 50s (sometime during the McCarthy years anyway).

I think the term "generations" in this opening sentence makes it sound like this goes way back, like to our grandparents and great-grandparents. But, unless you are like 10 years old, your grandparents never recited the NEW Pledge with the "under god" phrase in it. And I'll go on a limb and say I am certain none of your great-grandparents recited this version of the Pledge (unless you are very young AND your family has a history of having kids at the age of 15 or so).

Seriously, it would read a lot differently if the first sentence read "The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance recited for half a century by American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state."

Anyway, I don't live in NY, does anyone know if this paper always has a right-wing spin, or is it a liberal paper in which this just slipped through the cracks?

~psychoblast~

 

[glowbug]

The NY Times is generally viewed as having a liberal viewpoint.

I'm all for removing the phrase from the Pledge, but then I'm against having to say it in the first place. It's kind of in the same vein as my disdain for organizations such as the Boy Scouts-I consider them to be nothing more than right-wing paramilitary indoctrination organizations.

 

[OperatesHeavyMachinery]

"Right wing paramilitary indoctrination programs?"

Oh, Christ. I was going to comment on this thread... but I have to catch my breath after such absurdity.

....

Ok. I agree with MA, this is political. Frankly, I could care less if there's a deity in a pledge.

But I do find far more offensive the relentless "witch hunting" of religious references than I do the actual references.

I seriously doubt anyone is "turned to God" because of the inclusion of the word in a pledge or on currency.

 

[zorn]

Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. This is a bad idea. I don't give a shit about whether the words are in the pledge, mainly because it's one of those things that makes absolutely no real difference to anyone. I wouldn't have stuck them in myself, but it ain't worth a fight to get rid of em. All that's going to do is provide a wonderful opportunity for loony right-wingers to whip up people about how the godless liberal PC police are destroying our nation's heritage, shit like that.

Fighting for entirely 'symbolic' issues like this is going to cost us on issues that really do matter... like gay marriage and the teaching of creationism in schools. Someone should have knocked some sense into this jackass Newdow a while ago...

I do find far more offensive the relentless "witch hunting" of religious references than I do the actual references.

That doesn't make much sense... if you don't care about people frothing to keep some silly reference in, you shouldn't care about other people frothing to get it out. You sure this isn't just a case of finding the something more offensive just b/c it's done by the 'other side'?

 

[OperatesHeavyMachinery]

Zorn, I agree with pretty much your entire post, except (naturally) the last point. The reason I'm more offended by the "witch hunting" is that it strikes me as an attack on religion.

I'm quite agnostic, but I do find the side attacking religion more offensive than the side respecting it.

If I saw a big push for religious indoctrination in schools (I'm with you on the creationism issue, and actually taught a lesson on "scientific agnosticism" to a high school biology class ), or mandated religious discrimination, or anything of merit, I would be just as offended and consider the attempts "attacks."

But the attacks on symbolism are clearly more vitriolic and vengeful from the opposing side of this issue, and that's why it strikes me the way it does.

 

[OperatesHeavyMachinery]

Hmm... I'd better expand on my "scientific agnosticism" lesson, before I'm accused of indoctrinating the youth. Anecdote time...

I was subbing, and the teacher actually had me present a rather pro-creationist lesson, which offered 3 poorly-worded (and thus, absurd) alternatives to creationism. This, the students were supposed to comment on, and we were to have a discussion period.

Teacher should have been punished... but that's beside the point.

I could tell it was going to be a heated debate if I allowed it to go... the non-believing portion of the classes were very small, and most of the responses were head-nodding assertions about Jesus. Many offered spiteful arguments against evolution being taught to them.

So, I explained to each of the classes that the beauty of science is that it requires no belief of you. That you can be perfectly conversant in the processes and theories of evolution, and that it requires no proclamation of your absolute faith. And that, such proclamations are quite contrary to the scientific method!

I went so far as to indicate that the process for scientific knowledge was different from revealed religious experience. I did so in a careful way which made sure not to tread on anyone's religious sensitivities, but I simply made a demarcation between faith and empiricism, and explained that no one was asking them to make a choice between the two.

Only in one class did this strategy backfire on me, when I refused to reveal my own religious affiliation, and was called an atheist by a rather obnoxious kid, which riled up the rest of the "jock believers," at which point I had to call that discussion to an end.

Still, several of the kids came up to me later and said that they felt more comfortable with, or less threatened by, learning evolution. And I asked all of the most vocal opponents, and they all indicated that they didn't feel it was such a problem. So, all in all, it was quite a productive day.

Even though it was probably fucking sabotage by the teacher, who should have been repremanded. If for nothing more than sending an uncertified employee into a constitutional minefield, she should have been punished. Had it been most anyone else, I hate to think how those kids would have taken that lesson.

Probably a lot of religious back-patting and finger-pointing, and a lot of young minds convinced that evolution is, indeed, an evil threat to their theology. Glad I stepped in.

 

[alasdairm]

Ok. I agree with MA, this is political. Frankly, I could care less if there's a deity in a pledge.

But I do find far more offensive the relentless "witch hunting" of religious references than I do the actual references.

I seriously doubt anyone is "turned to God" because of the inclusion of the word in a pledge or on currency.

hey OHM.

it's an aside but where, out of interest, do you stand on the flag-burning issue?

alasdair

 

[frizzantik]

mainly because it's one of those things that makes absolutely no real difference to anyone.

I guess it made no difference to the father who brought the suit in the first place 8)

If i had a child in a public school it would matter to me as well.


This is simply a matter of constitutionality.. some have suggested Scalia has recused himself because he knows it is blatantly unconstitutional to include the phase Under God in a pledge which students are made to recite in government schools. He knows it and doesnt want to rule on it. This is no different than the 10 commandments in that Alabama court house.

I hope this is the beginning of the end of the infection that is religion in our gov't

 

[-Thoth]

^^^
As I understand it, no childeren are 'made' to pledge the oath, and the appeal is in response to the man's child hearing the pledge.

 

[OperatesHeavyMachinery]

hey OHM.

it's an aside but where, out of interest, do you stand on the flag-burning issue?

alasdair

Hola alasdair,

On the flag-burning issue, I find it repugnant and I'm very against it on a personal level, but don't want a government so prying they will stop it.

Also, it is not the sort of speech I will stand up and defend as if it meant everything to freedom, just as I will not defend the specific rights of the Klan and NAMBLA. Not because I don't agree with freedom, but because I refuse to let any abhorrent groups or ideas piggyback on my defense of freedom.

But I don't want it shut down, at least not on that basis alone.

Now, a lot of groups who burn flags do need to be shut down, but certainly not those whose flag burning will be their sole act of civil disobedience.

OHM

 

[psychoblast]

As I understand it, no childeren are 'made' to pledge the oath, and the appeal is in response to the man's child hearing the pledge.

I'm not sure what you mean. The problem is that the children are being led in a publicly mandated pledge. Perhaps you mean that a child is allowed to remain silent during the pledge of he or she wishes? I do not know if that is the case (likely, application of such a rule is hit or miss, depending on what class you are in, and I bet some teachers have given detention or sent notes home or given lower citizenship grades for kids not saying the pledge).

Anyway, it would matter to me if I had a kid in school, even if they could remain silent during the pledge. I mean, you get your kid coming home asking, "Daddy, why does the Pledge say that god exists and you say he doesn't? Is the government wrong? I was telling some kids how that phrase was wrong, because there is no god, and they yelled at me and said I was going to hell. I don't want to go to hell!" Etc., etc.

Maybe this is a worst-case scenario, but it is a scenario that can be EASILY AVOIDED by taking the phrase "under god" out of the pledge. It was not in there originally. Anyway, anyone who claims no one should care either way about this is blind to the practical situation of having to deal with this, or the effect that it certainly DOES have, in that these impressionable minds here that the Nation they are being raised to love (and our schools do try to instill patriotism in kids from the get-go) says there is a god. Maybe it is not "indoctrinating religion" into the kids to the same degree as a Bible Study class (which they had in public high schools when I went) but it is a matter of degree. The best you can say is it only indoctrinates them a little bit, maybe so little it won't be noticed or it won't tip the scale. WTF?? That's clearly not the kind of standard we want on this sort of thing. Any public religious doctrination, no matter how minute, is simply wrong.

And even if people trying to get rid of this stuff are being NITPICKY, on the other hand the people trying so hard to keep this stuff there are being ANTI-AMERICAN.

I would also note the media spin on many stations is really fucked up. I heard a local news channel in a teaser ad say, "See how the man who got the words "under god" in the pledge declared unconstitutional in California is now trying to get the entire nation" or something like that, referring to the appeal being taken by the USSCt. How fucked up is that? The guy WON ALREADY!! It is the SCHOOL DISTRICT that is appealing it, that is keeping the thing going, that has paved the way for the USSCt. to make a declaration on the issue that will, necessarily, be binding nationwide. How fucked up to phrase it so it sounds like this guy is actively trying to get this changed outside of the school his daughter attended. IT IS NOT TRUE!

God, every fucking day there's another example of fucked up media spin misrepresenting the facts to the public. Yeah, and sometimes it is even a liberal-biased spin, I will admit. It just so happens this time it was the other way.

~psychoblast~

 

[Mahan Atma]

There is already a decades-old Supreme Court decision that says schoolchildren cannot be forced to recite the pledge.

That said, I think this is about more than the child having to listen to the pledge. Think about it -- if you're the only kid in an elementary class full of kids being led in reciting the pledge, how likely are you to feel free not to recite it too? For the vast majority of kids, the answer is "not very"...

And for those of you who think the "under God" phrase is too symbolic and meaningless to be a legitimate cause for concern -- How, then, do you explain why so many Americans feel so strongly about not taking out such a "meaningless" phrase?

 

[Infernal]

I've always found this a bit of a ploy for vicarious parents rather than the actual students. I don't side either way but I have to say that it's a bit ridiculous to believe that the children are more vehement on the subject than the parents. I mean, call me crazy, but how many High School ( yes, even High School ) students really understand what the word indivisible means?

 

[hashish2020]

I've always found this a bit of a ploy for vicarious parents rather than the actual students. I don't side either way but I have to say that it's a bit ridiculous to believe that the children are more vehement on the subject than the parents. I mean, call me crazy, but how many High School ( yes, even High School ) students really understand what the word indivisible means?

There is a reason I sit down during the pledge. I have another friend who stands respectfully but won't pledge because of the "under God" clause. We aren't so uniformed and a political as you think. Sorry but the average isn;t all of us.