SCOTUS Pledge of Allegance Case (merged)

[zorn]

I did like the way the dissent said "it doesn't fucking matter, unless you're an anti-religious nut" using an altogther too impressive vocabulary:

Such phrases as “In God We Trust,” or “under God” have no tendency to establish a religion in this country or to suppress anyone’s exercise, or non-exercise, of religion, except in the fevered eye of persons who most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity. Those expressions have not caused any real harm of that sort over the years since 1791, and are not likely to do so in the future.

Heh...

 

[*SWeeT-e*]

MA: I didn't respond to your question about "under a white god" because it doesn't say that, and that wouldn't make sense anyway. I know you're trying to make an analogy to racial discrimination, but I really don't find it discriminatory. Denying people jobs on the basis of race is discrimination. Prohibitng gay marriage on the basis of religious conviction is discrimination. These things actually affect many people's lives. Two words in a pledge, that at most have a purely symbolic value, simply do not have the same far-reaching effects.

PB: I don't think the slippery slope argument applies even in this case. Since the words "under god" have supposedly been in the pledge only since the 50s (or was that "in god we trust" on the coins, I can't remember?) I don't think we've exactly seen a move towards MORE integration of church and state. Despite Bush's recent agenda, the last several decades have moved further towards SEPARATION of church and state, more so than ever in history. It's silly to think that these words have had any effect whatsoever on the separation or integration of church and state, or that they ever will.

This is a case of insecure people being overly sensitive. I don't know why people are SO offended by religion when it really doesn't affect their lives personally at all. There IS a religious tradition in the U.S., even if it was not the intention of the founders to have a Christian nation. There is a difference between having a religious heritage and being a Christian nation. You don't have to believe in god or religion to respect it. I think in certain cases, it's also quite appropriate.

When my grandma died last week, my grandfather (who is not religious) asked my mother to say a prayer with the whole family at her viewing. We all joined hands and said a prayer, with some of us actually believing in god and some of us not. But it gave us a sense of coming together, of giving strength to one another in a difficult time, and hope that we would help each other through this. It didn't say anything one way or the other about anyone's individual religious convictions.

Even though I don't believe in god or an afterlife, I've found that in certain circumstances, people have a need to believe things that are not necessarily in keeping with what they know in their own mind. Sometimes you just want to believe that someone is looking out for you, and that your loved one has not merely ceased to exist but is living somewhere in a sort of paradise, keeping watch over you. Sure, it may or may not be true- the fact is, no one really knows what's true anyway. But I don't have a problem with a symbolic use of religion that does not negatively affect anyone's life. I was not offended at the use of public prayer after 9/11. Religious rituals can have a comforting effect, unrelated to their actual truthfulness or lack thereof, and I see no need to completely abolish them, as long as they are not used by government to discriminate against anyone.

 

[Mahan Atma]

You undoubtedly know far more than I about the legal merits of the case. And I'd agree anyways; I just read the Ninth's decision and found it pretty well-argued, whereas the dissent was weak. But don't you think this gives them plenty of cover enough to issue a ruling upholding "under God" as part of the Pledge, if they don't want to be unpopular? If no, why not?

Again, the Ninth Circuit did NOT rule that the pledge (or the inclusion of the phrase "Under God" for that matter) is itself unconstitutional. What the court struck down was the school's policy of leading schoolchildren in reciting the pledge.

There's a big difference between having the pledge just sit "out there" as a pledge defined by Congress, versus a law that requires teachers to lead schoolchildren in reciting it.

All the Supreme Court has previously said about it (as you've quote above) deals only with the pledge itself, not with the school district's policy of having teachers lead the students in reciting it. In this latter situation, the "coercion test" applied by the Ninth Circuit is the apt rule, and none of the above cases deal with that test in this context.

Also, all the above quotes are dicta, having no legal authority. But I'm aware of it, which is why I say above that O'Connor is likely to vote to reverse the Ninth Circuit.

Now, I have no doubt that the majority of the Supreme Court can (and likely will) uphold the constitutionality of the school district's policy -- all I'm saying is that it wouldn't comport with their own legal precedent, the above passages notwithstanding. That wouldn't be the first time that happened though.

 

[Mahan Atma]

I did like the way the dissent said "it doesn't fucking matter, unless you're an anti-religious nut" using an altogther too impressive vocabulary:

Heh...

Yes, Fernandez can't quite understand how the pledge could be harmful to anyone else either... Does that make him right? I don't think so.

Note that he himself is given to religious sentiment; he protests the majority's "removing a vestige of the awe we all must feel at the immenseness of the universe and our own small place within it, as well as the wonder we must feel at the good fortune of our country."

Any doubt about what paradigm he's operating from here?

More importantly, Fernandez is advocating for a much narrower interpretation of the "Establishment Clause". He wants to read it much more literally, according to the language of the Clause. However, the Supreme Court has not done that, and has instead set out specific tests that describe how the Clause is supposed to be described in practice.

One of those tests (and the school's policy must pass all such tests to be constitutional) is the "coercion test" that the majority applies.

And yet, nowhere in his dissent does Fernandez mention the test...

 

[Mahan Atma]

MA: I didn't respond to your question about "under a white god" because it doesn't say that, and that wouldn't make sense anyway. I know you're trying to make an analogy to racial discrimination, but I really don't find it discriminatory. Denying people jobs on the basis of race is discrimination. Prohibitng gay marriage on the basis of religious conviction is discrimination. These things actually affect many people's lives. Two words in a pledge, that at most have a purely symbolic value, simply do not have the same far-reaching effects.

Hmmm... Are you saying you don't think atheists and non-Christians experience discrimination in this country?

I still don't think you've justified your conclusion that the phrase is "harmless". If I want to teach my child to be an atheist, and the school is sending her the message that we are a nation "under God", thereby undercutting the upbringing of my child, I see that as a real harm.

I take it you don't?

 

[zorn]

^^^ Best not let her read the Declaration of Independence, then... she might get the idea that we're a nation founded on the idea of inalienable rights "endowed by a Creator."

 

[Mahan Atma]

^^^ Best not let her read the Declaration of Independence, then... she might get the idea that we're a nation founded on the idea of inalienable rights "endowed by a Creator."

I think it's quite different to present someone with a historical document that obviously expresses someone else's viewpoint, versus an officially sanctioned pledge. (As far as I'm aware, it's not school policy to have the teacher lead the class in a pledge to the DoI.)

Obviously, she can also read Plessy v. Ferguson without beyond told that "separate but equal" is constitutional -- but we certainly wouldn't sanction an official pledge declaring it to be so.

 

[tribal EffEct]

Now, I have no doubt that the majority of the Supreme Court can (and likely will) uphold the constitutionality of the school district's policy -- all I'm saying is that it wouldn't comport with their own legal precedent, the above passages notwithstanding. That wouldn't be the first time that happened though.

Do you still think the Supreme Court will vote to uphold the policy with Scalia recusing himself? They would need a 5-3 decision, and I highly doubt that could happen.
It will be interesting to see a 4-4 vote come down, and then have the law in the 9th Circuit say no one can mention "under God" in the pledge. In which case when the kids go to other districts and say the pledge they will be ostracized by other students because they dont mention God.

I guess you could throw students who don't have right arms in the same group with the Athiests. Since the child has no arm to put over his heart, I hope he isn't made fun of as well for being left out.

I've studied far more in crimal and tort courts, not so much appeals, so I'm not quite sure what standard the Ciruit and Supreme Court needs in a case like this. But if it is like the others, I would think they would apply some sort of reasonable standard to compliment the Constitution. And while the Constitution protects minorities, there has to be some limit on its abrasions to the greater good.

And incidentally, I've never seen it printed that God represents only the Christian God from an officailly documented government source.

America is moving very quickly towards a completely PC country, when no one is offended at any time by anything. While I personally have no problem with the words God being there, I also think there is a very strong case for them being removed. But I do have a problem with it occuring when every trace of God is being torn from anything even remotely associated with the government. With crosses being torn off war memorials. With prayer being all but outlawed at schools. It just seems like there are groups with a very straightforward anti-God agenda going around, very anti-Christian/Catholic/Jew. But ever put down an "ethnic" religion, or some Muslim, and these same people call for your head on a platter.

I wouldn't dismiss the Declaration of Independence as just merely someone's viewpoint. Jefferson wrote it, but it was revised and edited dozens of times. And don't forget that the colonies passed this document officially, and everyone in Congress signed it.
And if it was "just" someone's viewpoint, those someones were the essential building blocks of the USA. Definatly not someone to just toss aside when talking about the principles this country was founded upon.

 

[Mahan Atma]

Do you still think the Supreme Court will vote to uphold the policy with Scalia recusing himself? They would need a 5-3 decision, and I highly doubt that could happen.

I don't know what you base that doubt on. As I already mentioned, I think Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor are gimme's. They only have to get two more votes.

It will be interesting to see a 4-4 vote come down, and then have the law in the 9th Circuit say no one can mention "under God" in the pledge. In which case when the kids go to other districts and say the pledge they will be ostracized by other students because they dont mention God.

I'm not sure what you mean. The law has to do with what the teacher in class does, not with what the students can/can't say. If they go to a district where the teacher leads the class in the conventional pledge, the student would probably just go along rather than risk ostracization.

I've studied far more in crimal and tort courts, not so much appeals, so I'm not quite sure what standard the Ciruit and Supreme Court needs in a case like this. But if it is like the others, I would think they would apply some sort of reasonable standard to compliment the Constitution.

No "reasonableness" standard in this case. You may be thinking of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which contains a reasonableness standard because the Amendment specifically mentions it.

And tort law is purely state law, nothing constitutional about it.

The Supreme Court has already laid out the standard tests by which the Establishment Clause is to be applied, and that's exactly what the Ninth Circuit did with this case.

And while the Constitution protects minorities, there has to be some limit on its abrasions to the greater good.

There is one - it's called a constitutional amendment. If a big enough majority thinks it's a sufficiently undesirable result, they can try to get an amendment passed.

I wouldn't dismiss the Declaration of Independence as just merely someone's viewpoint. Jefferson wrote it, but it was revised and edited dozens of times. And don't forget that the colonies passed this document officially, and everyone in Congress signed it.
And if it was "just" someone's viewpoint, those someones were the essential building blocks of the USA. Definatly not someone to just toss aside when talking about the principles this country was founded upon.

You missed the point. My point is that it is someone else's viewpoint -- as compared with a pledge, in which you are affirming your belief in the statement.

That is, I can read the Declaration of Independence as a historical document without stating my agreement with the contents of it. By contrast, a pledge is what the Ninth Circuit called a "performative statement". When you say the pledge, you are literally pledging your allegiance to the nation "under God".

It's kind of like if you say "I do" at your wedding, in that you're performing an act by the very statement. That's very different from, say, reading a document that someone else wrote.

Suppose someone asks me, "What do the Ten Commandments say?" I can recite the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't mean I believe in them. But if you transform it into a pledge, e.g. "I pledge not to violate the command not to covet my neighbors wife", now you're doing something -- you're making a promise, not just communicating an idea that someone else put forth.

 

[*SWeeT-e*]

Hmmm... Are you saying you don't think atheists and non-Christians experience discrimination in this country?

That's right. At least not nearly to the same degree as have women and other races (more so in the past) and the way that gays do today. If you were to withhold a job from someone on the basis of religion or lack thereof, that would be discrimination. I know everyone wants to be a victim these days, but I really think there are much bigger victims out there than atheists who get offended at the words "under god". I don't actively believe in any gods, nor am I American, but I sure as hell wouldn't get offended over a couple words in the school pledge or a phrase on my coins. I guess I just have bigger issues.

I still don't think you've justified your conclusion that the phrase is "harmless". If I want to teach my child to be an atheist, and the school is sending her the message that we are a nation "under God", thereby undercutting the upbringing of my child, I see that as a real harm.

I take it you don't?

I guess not! Not everything in society is going to completely conform to YOUR personal beliefs. I thought beliefs were supposed to be private anyway? For the Christian whose child is no longer taught creationism in school, if he/she wants to teach their child that, they are by all means free to do so...in their own homes. Are we going to rid all school cafeterias of any pork-related products, to appease the Jews and Muslims? Shall we also begin censorship of literature and art that condones thing we now deem offensive, such as the promotion of slavery or the subordination of women?

Point is- alot of things are going to undercut the messages you want to give your kids. You can't rely on the government to teach your kids what you think they should be taught.

Point is- PC movements are (repeat after me, please) BULL-SHIT.

 

[-Thoth]

I still don't think you've justified your conclusion that the phrase is "harmless". If I want to teach my child to be an atheist, and the school is sending her the message that we are a nation "under God", thereby undercutting the upbringing of my child, I see that as a real harm.

I don't see that you have actually demonstrated it is harmful either, without resorting to empty subjectivist arguments. A public education does not exist to teach induvidual childeren the exclusive values of their parents, and the reality of obtaining an entirely 'neutral' education designed to avoid every personal/etho-cultural/religious issue parents may dislike is a rediculous sentiment. If the child demonstratably does not have to undertake the pledge, how are the parents rights to raise their child as an atheist undercut, rather than ensured? You raise issues of constitutionality, but you have already demonstrated it is an issue of standing, not the law itself...

 

[Mahan Atma]

That's right. At least not nearly to the same degree as have women and other races (more so in the past) and the way that gays do today.

I think there's a significant amount of discrimination against atheists, myself. The atheist activist Madalyn Murray O'Hair was once dubbed "the most hated woman in America." A 1999 Gallup poll showed that half the voters in the country would refuse to vote for an atheist for president (compare with 40% who said they would refuse to vote for a gay president).

I guess not! Not everything in society is going to completely conform to YOUR personal beliefs.

What a funny way to put it! It seems to me you've got it backwards. Isn't it the religious people who are trying to get the atheists to conform to their beliefs??? After all, the atheists aren't trying to get "under God" changed to "under no God"!

I thought beliefs were supposed to be private anyway? For the Christian whose child is no longer taught creationism in school, if he/she wants to teach their child that, they are by all means free to do so...in their own homes.

Sure -- But the atheists aren't trying to get atheism taught in schools either.

Are we going to rid all school cafeterias of any pork-related products, to appease the Jews and Muslims? Shall we also begin censorship of literature and art that condones thing we now deem offensive, such as the promotion of slavery or the subordination of women?

I've already addressed this in the argument above. The point here is that we're dealing with an affirmative pledge to a belief in God. It's entirely distinguishable from reading a document or literature which discusses religion in some way.

Point is- alot of things are going to undercut the messages you want to give your kids. You can't rely on the government to teach your kids what you think they should be taught.

Again, the atheists are NOT asking the government to advocate atheism. They just don't want the government advocating religion. Doesn't your argument apply more strongly to those who want to keep "under God"?

Point is- PC movements are (repeat after me, please) BULL-SHIT.

Well I don't find that a particularly convincing argument. I think some PC movements are bullshit, but that doesn't automatically make this particular movement bullshit.

Suppose it was school policy to start every class with the Lord's Prayer. All the arguments you've made above are just as applicable to that situation. Do they still stand up? If not, what's the difference, exactly?

 

[Mahan Atma]

I don't see that you have actually demonstrated it is harmful either, without resorting to empty subjectivist arguments. A public education does not exist to teach induvidual childeren the exclusive values of their parents...

As I pointed out above, Newdow is NOT asking the school to teach his kid atheism - he just doesn't want them teaching his kid religion. There's a big difference.

...and the reality of obtaining an entirely 'neutral' education designed to avoid every personal/etho-cultural/religious issue parents may dislike is a rediculous sentiment.

But here we're only talking about not having the school advocate religion, not every "avoid every personal/ethno-cultural issue".

This is an important difference:

1) Newdow is only talking about religion (because there's a specific constitutional command dealing with it), not "every personal/ethno-cultural issue;

2) He's not asking the school to "avoid" any mention of religion - he just doesn't want them advocating it with the pledge.

If the child demonstratably does not have to undertake the pledge, how are the parents rights to raise their child as an atheist undercut, rather than ensured?

Because a 6-year-old child is under a lot of social pressure to stand there and do what everyone else is doing.

You raise issues of constitutionality, but you have already demonstrated it is an issue of standing, not the law itself...

You misunderstood what I said. It most certainly is a matter of the law itself. In order to make a successful claim you need both standing and a constitutional violation under the law.

 

[-Thoth]

Because a 6-year-old child is under a lot of social pressure to stand there and do what everyone else is doing.

Like I said, this is not an argument against a phrase... It is an argument against the concept of a pledge in general, or any optional, group mandated activity.

As I pointed out above, Newdow is NOT asking the school to teach his kid atheism - he just doesn't want them teaching his kid religion. There's a big difference.

In a broader context, no there isn't. "Hey, I'm not asking you to teach my kid religion, I'm just asking you not to teach them evolution."

Besides, my predominant indifference toward this man's legal fight is based in its frivolity. Your only defence of this has been to repeatedly play the "Just because you don't find it offensive doesn't mean he doesn't" line of subjective argument, which honestly, is pretty weak. One needs to deploy a significantly more rationally grounded justification for finding something so offensive rather than: "I find it offensive, it offends me! What exactly can be said to
provoke a personal emotive sense of offense in somebody is so entirely relative, I win by default! HA!" Seriously.

The pledge also referrs to "one nation..." A nation properly interpreted is a singular people tied by a strong sense of mutual identity on religious/etho/cultural grounds, as opposed to a state, which more accurately represents the sphere of institutions which comprise the civil power within or across nations. America has within it like any mulitcultural society, many nations (one prominent one which was here before the others, so called Native Americans) and many people of hetrogeneous nationalities. Should everyone take offence to this stripping of identity and lack of recognition? Should we change this to "one state" instead? Or would that be a sad indictment of our maturity, not to mention a total bugfuck beureucratic waste of time and media coverage?

 

[Mahan Atma]

Like I said, this is not an argument against a phrase... It is an argument against the concept of a pledge in general, or any optional, group mandated activity.

And like I said, the difference is that the RELIGIOUS element is what makes it unconstitutional, as opposed to merely objectionable.

In a broader context, no there isn't. "Hey, I'm not asking you to teach my kid religion, I'm just asking you not to teach them evolution."

Your "broader context" renders the analogy meaningless, because I can teach evolution without teaching religion. In contrast, the pledge necessarily advocates religion.

Besides, my predominant indifference toward this man's legal fight is based in its frivolity. Your only defence of this has been to repeatedly play the "Just because you don't find it offensive doesn't mean he doesn't" line of subjective argument, which honestly, is pretty weak.

Actually, that's not my only defense. I also pointed out that harm is caused when the state advocates religion to the child against the father's wishes. I also stated repeated that the advocacy of religion is a offense of constitutional dimensions -- an argument which you don't seem to understand, given your responses up to this point. (I guess they don't have a Bill of Rights in Australia? Perhaps that's why.)

The pledge also referrs to "one nation..." A nation properly interpreted is a singular people tied by a strong sense of mutual identity on religious/etho/cultural grounds, as opposed to a state, which more accurately represents the sphere of institutions which comprise the civil power within or across nations. America has within it like any mulitcultural society, many nations (one prominent one which was here before the others, so called Native Americans) and many people of hetrogeneous nationalities. Should everyone take offence to this stripping of identity and lack of recognition? Should we change this to "one state" instead? Or would that be a sad indictment of our maturity, not to mention a total bugfuck beureucratic waste of time and media coverage?

This is getting tiresome... FOR THE LAST TIME, he's only objecting to the RELIGIOUS element -- not the "nation" wording, not the pledge in general, only the "under God" phrase. The pledge would be just as unifying, if not more so, were the pledge worded WITHOUT the "under God" phrase.

Honestly -- all you defenders of the pledge-as-is need to direct your own arguments to the other side, and see how they work in comparison. Why, for fucks sake, would it be so harmful to simply STOP requiring schoolchildren to pledge allegiance "under God"????

 

[-Thoth]

This is getting tiresome... FOR THE LAST TIME, he's only objecting to the RELIGIOUS element -- not the "nation" wording, not the pledge in general, only the "under God" phrase. The pledge would be just as unifying, if not more so, were the pledge worded WITHOUT the "under God" phrase.

For goodness sakes, calm down and climb off the high horse. My objections have been consistently phrased within the confines of the political and NOT legal aspects relating to the utility of worrying about a phase like this. You could really do with a condescension innoculation at times mahan, because you absorbed yourself into the political and OPINION related aspects of this debate quite a number of posts ago.

advocacy of religion is a offense of constitutional dimensions -- an argument which you don't seem to understand, given your responses up to this point. (I guess they don't have a Bill of Rights in Australia? Perhaps that's why.)

Who would have thought, the Supreme Court dealing with CONSTITUTIONAL LAW? Gosh! I was making quite a significantly different point, against a significantly different argument, but that is quite alright. Patronise away.

Your "broader context" renders the analogy meaningless, because I can teach evolution without teaching religion. In contrast, the pledge necessarily advocates religion.

Now this just makes no sense.

all you defenders of the pledge-as-is

I'll end with this post, because otherwise it will all just become way to unintentionally ironic, however I hardly want to 'defend' the pledge as is... I fucking dislike the idea of pledges. Quite clearly, my issue is with the supposed merit of wasting so much time bothering with such an issue and change that from my perspective, has absoulte zero social utility!

Of course, please distil it all down to an issue of constitutional law for me Mahan... I'll be right over here, not really giving a fuck.

 

[Mahan Atma]

For goodness sakes, calm down and climb off the high horse. My objections have been consistently phrased within the confines of the political and NOT legal aspects relating to the utility of worrying about a phase like this.

But you can't completely separate the two -- For example, people keep saying, "Oh but you can't make public schools completely neutral with respect to all personal/ethnocultural differences" but that's irrelevant because 1) that's not what Newdow is trying to do; and 2) it's not legally possible, for the most part, hence there is no concern over "wasting time" on these things.

You could really do with a condescension innoculation at times mahan, because you absorbed yourself into the political and OPINION related aspects of this debate quite a number of posts ago.

Yes, and the two are closely related, as I keep trying to point out.

Who would have thought, the Supreme Court dealing with CONSTITUTIONAL LAW? Gosh! I was making quite a significantly different point, against a significantly different argument, but that is quite alright.

But your broader argument is irrelevant precisely because it is foreclosed legally.

Now this just makes no sense.

It makes plenty of sense. You can teach evolution without teaching religion. Therefore there's no problem with it.

I'll end with this post, because otherwise it will all just become way to unintentionally ironic, however I hardly want to 'defend' the pledge as is... I fucking dislike the idea of pledges. Quite clearly, my issue is with the supposed merit of wasting so much time bothering with such an issue and change that from my perspective, has absoulte zero social utility!

Well exactly whose precious time are you worried about being wasted? The Supreme Court's time? If so, then why are you blaming Newdow?

It was the government and school district that appealed to the Supreme Court, not Newdow. And the Supreme Court took the case on their own volition. So why aren't you blaming those parties instead of Newdow?

 

[*SWeeT-e*]

I think there's a significant amount of discrimination against atheists, myself. The atheist activist Madalyn Murray O'Hair was once dubbed "the most hated woman in America." A 1999 Gallup poll showed that half the voters in the country would refuse to vote for an atheist for president (compare with 40% who said they would refuse to vote for a gay president).

Still....that's hardly comparable to the large scale discrimination that women, ethnic minorities, and gays have experienced throughout history.

What a funny way to put it! It seems to me you've got it backwards. Isn't it the religious people who are trying to get the atheists to conform to their beliefs??? After all, the atheists aren't trying to get "under God" changed to "under no God"!

My point was merely to point out that to some extent, it goes both ways. People are biased, they naturally look out for their own interests and believe their own views to be correct. In addition, my overall point was that I think the atheists have far bigger battles that they could be directing their resources towards than this one. You seem to think I disagree with you entirely- I don't. I just wouldn't put this at the top of my priority list and I think it causes more trouble than solves anything real.

Sure -- But the atheists aren't trying to get atheism taught in schools either.

Some would argue that teaching evolution over creationism is doing just that. Obviously, I don't agree with that, but many people see it differently.

I've already addressed this in the argument above. The point here is that we're dealing with an affirmative pledge to a belief in God. It's entirely distinguishable from reading a document or literature which discusses religion in some way.

But it's not a pledge about belief in god. It's a pledge about giving allegiance to your country. With its widespread use, I'd argue it represents more of a cultural tradition than a religious one. I remember when we used to say the Lord's Prayer in school. Repeating something day after day causes it to lose its actual meaning and reduces it to something entirely different.

Again, the atheists are NOT asking the government to advocate atheism. They just don't want the government advocating religion. Doesn't your argument apply more strongly to those who want to keep "under God"?

Again, I was merely pointing out how the same argument can go both ways. If the government is not advocating religion, then what is it advocating? By default- a lack of religion. I.e. atheism. How about we change it from "under god" to "under the god of your choice if you believe in a god or under no god if you don't"? That would certainly be the most neutral.

Well I don't find that a particularly convincing argument. I think some PC movements are bullshit, but that doesn't automatically make this particular movement bullshit.

What is bullshit is extreme sensitivity to petty issues. What is bullshit is this crusade to try not to offend anyone anywhere at anytime in any place by any means. It's a waste of time. I'm sorry, I'm just not a politically-correct kinda person. I take my stand on the issues I believe truly matter and in which I feel an actual substantial difference can be made that will serve to better society. I don't care for debates over semantics or issues of symbolic importance only. And I certainly don't know why you feel the need to keep arguing with me over something I never disagreed with you on in the first place. If it was up to me and I was required to vote on it, sure I'd take it out. But I wouldn't be the person bringing the lawsuit- that's the point.

Suppose it was school policy to start every class with the Lord's Prayer. All the arguments you've made above are just as applicable to that situation. Do they still stand up? If not, what's the difference, exactly?

The Lord's Prayer is a religious ritual derived directly from passages in the bible. It is entirely different in source and substance than the pledge of allegiance. I see no comparison.

 

[SteveElektro]

You could really do with a condescension innoculation at times mahan

 

[*SWeeT-e*]

^ LMAO, that's classic.