No school pledges
- Thread starter Penn
- Start date
Oops! The link is now totally destroyed. It looks like the news link has been superceded with more recent news flashes.
One thing I will agree with you on is that the link doesn't work.
Under this case the only persons "required" to recite the pledge are the teachers of the California school system. The students can stand in silence or participate, it’s their choice. That isn’t the issue.
The case was brought by a man, Michael Newdow, a self-defined atheist, stating that his daughter should not have to hear the words “Under God”. Even though the mother (the one with legal custody) stated that the daughter has no objections to the pledge or the word God. The mother also objected to the use of her daughter in this case but those unwise judges denied her request (so much for parental rights under these gurus).
So you think that children are going to become more loyal to our country simply by reciting a pledge daily? Normally I try to give people (even children) more credit for independent thought than that. Of course, I guess Hitler successfully demonstrated the power of words over people (including children), so maybe it will make them more loyal. Regardless, I’m not likely to be going back to high school any time soon, so I’m not too concerned with how this case comes out.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
I feel as strongly about this as I do about burning our United States Flag. I cannot believe the courts said flag burning is protected under the 1st Amendment - free speech?
So what is next to disregarded?
Maybe it will be the requirement to raise your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, SO HELP YOU GOD?l
Will the ACLU find a way to strike that phrase so when you go to testify, you'll no longer be burdened by that pesky inference to the creator?
In the words of Bugs Bunny, “What a maroon”. You are sure trying to spin this into something it isn’t. No where has anyone said it would make the children “more loyal”. Nor have they indicated that anyone has to recite the pledge, remember only the teachers in this case have to recite it. You say you give “more credit for independent thought”, but yet you haven’t even bothered to make yourself knowledgeable as to what the issue is and have started your own cause totally independent of what was brought before the court.
You say that this won’t impact you and that you aren’t concerned about the outcome, but you did spout off an idiotic opinion trying to equate this to how Hitler forced his people to be loyal to him and the 3rd Reich. Which is a totally different subject as no one is being forced to do anything.
I guess you don’t have any children or grandchildren that it will impact either, which is good as your genes probably shouldn’t be continued. If you do not care to express your gratefulness and loyalty to our nation by reciting the pledge so be it, but you and this other jerk have no right to deny that to me, my family, or the other 280 million Americans that want to express our loyalty and belief that we are “One Nation, Under God”.
Con Law Lesson
Ready for a lesson in constitutional law? Well whether or not, I would like to give one here.
Cases involving salutes of the flag and the pledge of allegiance have been on the dockets of the American court system since the Civil War era. Immediately after the North defeated the Confederacy, southeners held a serious distaste for the American flag, which showed the dominance of the North over southern interests to them. The Daughters of the American Revolution and other veterans' groups developed the Flag Protection Movement (FPM) soon after the war to ensure that the flag was properly respected. The scope of this movement was not only to prevent the incorrect usage of the flag but also to prevent the commercialization of the flag. Prior to the 1950s, American flags could not be used in any commercial means such as a pin for one's suit jacket, etc. The FPM successfully ensured that anti-commercialization legislation was enforced and that school children throughout the nation pleged allegiance to the flag through salutes and later the pledge.
During World War II, the issue of state-mandated flag salutes came to the forefront of Supreme Court jurisprudence. In 1940, two children in Minersville School District in the state of Pennsylvania declined participation in the forced salute of the flag that occurred every morning in their school. Both children were Jehovah's Witnesses and thus held religious objection to the salute. Still, the school district decided to expel both students and their case soon came before the Supreme Court. In an 8 to 1 decision, the Court held that state-mandated salutes of the flag were constitutionally justified.
I have to leave now...but more to come.
Ready for a lesson in constitutional law? Well whether or not, I would like to give one here.
Cases involving salutes of the flag and the pledge of allegiance have been on the dockets of the American court system since the Civil War era. Immediately after the North defeated the Confederacy, southeners held a serious distaste for the American flag, which showed the dominance of the North over southern interests to them. The Daughters of the American Revolution and other veterans' groups developed the Flag Protection Movement (FPM) soon after the war to ensure that the flag was properly respected. The scope of this movement was not only to prevent the incorrect usage of the flag but also to prevent the commercialization of the flag. Prior to the 1950s, American flags could not be used in any commercial means such as a pin for one's suit jacket, etc. The FPM successfully ensured that anti-commercialization legislation was enforced and that school children throughout the nation pleged allegiance to the flag through salutes and later the pledge.
During World War II, the issue of state-mandated flag salutes came to the forefront of Supreme Court jurisprudence. In 1940, two children in Minersville School District in the state of Pennsylvania declined participation in the forced salute of the flag that occurred every morning in their school. Both children were Jehovah's Witnesses and thus held religious objection to the salute. Still, the school district decided to expel both students and their case soon came before the Supreme Court. In an 8 to 1 decision, the Court held that state-mandated salutes of the flag were constitutionally justified.
I have to leave now...but more to come.
It's nice to know that you have such a valid and defendable argument that you don't have to resort to personal attacks.
I happen to be as familiar with this case as anyone else on this board. If you had happened to read my entire original post instead of concentrating on one particular word, you might have noticed that it was never intended to form an opinion for or against this case. It was intended to express MY opinion on the topic of the case.
As for your repeated statement that no children being required to recited the pledge. Sure, there is not a written requirement that a student recite it. But we all got to see how anyone voicing a dissenting opinion gets treated in a recent college basketball game. And if anything, teenagers and younger children are even more vicious when it comes to one of their piers not going with the flow. In a day when children are being harassed at school for something beyond their control, such as being the child of a service member (by both teachers and other children), do you really think that anyone with any desire for acceptance is going to voluntarily not recite the pledge?
Since you had such difficulty getting by my use of the word "required" in my original post, let me rephrase it.
Allegiance isn't something you can mandate by reciting a pledge in school everyday. So what exactly is accomplished by reciting it? In my opinion, nothing.
Sorry about the long hiatus there...my wife just had to make me go to Annapolis with her. Anyway, back to the arguments here.
I just finished recounting the Minersville decision that declared the state-mandated salutes of the flag as being constitutionally allowable. This decision was the law of the land for about three years until the state-mandated salute of flags once again reached the highest court. This time, in 1943, the Court handed down its decision in the case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. The Court overturned the Minersville decision that they handed down three years prior on the grounds that forcing students to salute the flag was in essence the mandating of "compulsory unification of opinion" and thus contrary to the principles of the Freedom of Speech clause in the First Amendment. While drawing comparisons to the current case before the appeals courts in California, a major parallel is seen in the Barnette case. The Court's decision also covered West Virginia's requirement that teachers lead their students in the pledge. This too was unconstitutional according to the Court. Thus the California statue is unconstitutional due to the provision that requires teachers to lead students in the pledge.
The statement "under God" endorses a certain religious belief system. It is not religiously blind to endorse a certain god or to even declare that there is a god. There is not much of a precedent as to whether saying "under God" is the establishment of religion. There is plenty concerning school-sponsored prayer but not as to what defines prayer or what establishes religion. I feel that the under God clause of the pledge does establish religion in our schools. Why doesn't the pledge say that we are living under no god or under Buddha? It is clear that the writter of that clause was inferring the presence of a supreme being and in this case the Judeo-Christian diety. Since the state of California requires that teachers lead their students in the pledge, they are thus endorsing religious beliefs of Judeo-Christian morals. Thus I feel that the decision that the California panel came down was legally and constitutionally justified.
I just finished recounting the Minersville decision that declared the state-mandated salutes of the flag as being constitutionally allowable. This decision was the law of the land for about three years until the state-mandated salute of flags once again reached the highest court. This time, in 1943, the Court handed down its decision in the case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. The Court overturned the Minersville decision that they handed down three years prior on the grounds that forcing students to salute the flag was in essence the mandating of "compulsory unification of opinion" and thus contrary to the principles of the Freedom of Speech clause in the First Amendment. While drawing comparisons to the current case before the appeals courts in California, a major parallel is seen in the Barnette case. The Court's decision also covered West Virginia's requirement that teachers lead their students in the pledge. This too was unconstitutional according to the Court. Thus the California statue is unconstitutional due to the provision that requires teachers to lead students in the pledge.
The statement "under God" endorses a certain religious belief system. It is not religiously blind to endorse a certain god or to even declare that there is a god. There is not much of a precedent as to whether saying "under God" is the establishment of religion. There is plenty concerning school-sponsored prayer but not as to what defines prayer or what establishes religion. I feel that the under God clause of the pledge does establish religion in our schools. Why doesn't the pledge say that we are living under no god or under Buddha? It is clear that the writter of that clause was inferring the presence of a supreme being and in this case the Judeo-Christian diety. Since the state of California requires that teachers lead their students in the pledge, they are thus endorsing religious beliefs of Judeo-Christian morals. Thus I feel that the decision that the California panel came down was legally and constitutionally justified.
I read your dribble and if you weren't making an opinion on the case, why even express one. Do you like to read your own typed words? Is it an ego issue with you and want people to think you might do something with your head other than hold hats with it? Based on what you typed previously you have no clue what the case is about.
There are probably a lot of children (especially in this area where English isn’t there first language) that have no idea what is going on and choose to stand without reciting the words. This little girl, according to her mother, has no problem reciting the pledge or with God. The father is the one furthering his religious beliefs (or the lack of them) and the 9th Circuit has bought into it. By agreeing with this @ssclown the Judges have done exactly what they claim the pledge does, establishes a religion (albeit one that does not recognize a God).
No one is mandating it, I realize this might be a concept outside the ability of your amoebic sized mind, but show me anywhere in this case where anyone is being “made” to recite the pledge. Also, while it might not make anyone be more aligned with the nation it is the proper way to show respect for the flag and the nation, which might not be a bad lesson. You might not understand that, but many of us that respect the nation and flag do.
Why is it so difficult a concept that someone may have an opinion outside the black and white, for or against in this case. My opinion is relevant to this case, just not for or against. I'm sorry that you don't like it when someone actually expresses their own ideas instead of just regurgitating the ones fed to them throughout their lives, but I have no plans of changing my opinion just because you don't like what I have to say.
I guess that, as a person who is not in the habit of worshiping icons or graven images, I don't need an inanimate object or a pledge to show my respect for our nation. I can show my respect just fine through my actions.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Let's bring it back down to basic levels....
This whole thing started, if I'm following Ken's narrative correctly, with an Athiest father of a young girl reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in her school in California, land of fruits and nuts.
As I understand it, the young girl had no problem reciting the pledge; it didn't make her angry or make her feel she was under pressure to recite it.
It wasn't even her mother; she had no problem with her child saying the pledge.
It was her idiot father, who, it turns out, didn't have the b@!!s to make the complaint to the court in his own name!
He hid behind his daughter when filing the suit. Just because HE, as an Athiest didn't think it was right that SHE recited the pledge in her school, because of the reference to "under God"!
This was revealed on the O'reilly Factor a few weeks back, after it hit the news wires. Oreilly questioned him about this, and the guy started to squirm under the questions O'relly put to him.
So what I'm alluding to here is that this suit we're waxing eloquently over, and getting worked up about, is over a ridiculous suit filed by a father without the conviction to even name himself on the court papers.
Furthermore, as stated, or questioned, how in hell the Calif. Appeals Court "bought into" this mess is unbelieveable.
This whole thing started, if I'm following Ken's narrative correctly, with an Athiest father of a young girl reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in her school in California, land of fruits and nuts.As I understand it, the young girl had no problem reciting the pledge; it didn't make her angry or make her feel she was under pressure to recite it.
It wasn't even her mother; she had no problem with her child saying the pledge.
It was her idiot father, who, it turns out, didn't have the b@!!s to make the complaint to the court in his own name!
He hid behind his daughter when filing the suit. Just because HE, as an Athiest didn't think it was right that SHE recited the pledge in her school, because of the reference to "under God"!
This was revealed on the O'reilly Factor a few weeks back, after it hit the news wires. Oreilly questioned him about this, and the guy started to squirm under the questions O'relly put to him.
So what I'm alluding to here is that this suit we're waxing eloquently over, and getting worked up about, is over a ridiculous suit filed by a father without the conviction to even name himself on the court papers.
Furthermore, as stated, or questioned, how in hell the Calif. Appeals Court "bought into" this mess is unbelieveable.
Which one? How the court "bought into" even considering the case?
You're opinion is not relevant to this case in any way, shape or manner. The fact that some states require their teachers to start the day with the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance or that “forcing” children to recite it in no way makes them more loyal is not at issue in this case. The issue is that because the word God is in the pledge it establishes a government-sponsored religion, which BTW, in my opinion is pure BS.
Bluto,
I’d say pissing contest, because of someone trying to spin it into another unrelated issue. If it was a disagreement about the issue it would be a c0ckfight.
I hope so.... That and the 'In god we trust' on money while they are at it. I myself am a 'self-defined' atheist (as opposed to the other kind?) and find it absolutely apalling that , if the previous posts are accurate, teachers in California are 'required' to recite the pledge. Forget the kids for a moment, what right does a state have to make Bhuddst, Muslim, Wiccan, Druid or self-defined atheist teachers recite an oath to someone elses deity? This is an attempt at sad, tired, useless state recognized religion. A totally ridiculous concept... if there is a god, he/she/it is only interested in the hearts and minds of individuals, not the popular/majority opinion of a country/state. Ramming cliches down the minds of teachers and students by force of law serves no god.
db
I myself am a self-defined atheist too and references to God on our money and in our pledge don't bother me a whit. I even sing "God Bless America" and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" without filing a lawsuit. It doesn't hurt me to do it and it means a lot to other Americans.
I have even learned that God's last name is not "Damn" when in front of my best girlfriend.
I have even learned that God's last name is not "Damn" when in front of my best girlfriend.