Nazirite
Member
Personally, I don’t see why this bothers people so much. All the other problems our country is facing and some folks are concerned about two little words. 
Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
...and get rid of public schools.
Nazirite, that's what I used to think.
I don't think that way anymore. Here's why: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=1412971#post1412971
pax
I honestly don't care whether or not it is in the pledge. My faith, or lack of faith, won't be swayed by some recitation of the Pledge.
Clearly our forefathers didn't intend that every religious reference be removed. That must be what they intended when they decelared a national day of Thanksgiving, gave money to various churches to help convert the "heathens," etc.
Like it or not, it hardly rises to the level of "establishing" a religion.
Clearly our forefathers didn't intend that every religious reference be removed. That must be what they intended when they decelared a national day of Thanksgiving, gave money to various churches to help convert the "heathens," etc.
Like it or not, it hardly rises to the level of "establishing" a religion.
Desertdog
Member
The words "under God" is in our Pledge of Allegiance.
Should it be there? Frankly, I don't know, but it is.
If you say the pledge and leave "under God" out, nobody will send you to jail.
If you stand and keep your mouth shut, nobody will send you to jail.
If you refuse to stand, and refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, nobody will send you to jail.
This, to me, is where a judge should have no reason to even look at the Pledge. There is no law broken if you don't say the Pledge; there is no harm if you do.
So, why in the hell is a judge outlawing something that isn't a law anyway?
This looks to me like one more activist judge is trying to get God out of our society.
Should it be there? Frankly, I don't know, but it is.
If you say the pledge and leave "under God" out, nobody will send you to jail.
If you stand and keep your mouth shut, nobody will send you to jail.
If you refuse to stand, and refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, nobody will send you to jail.
This, to me, is where a judge should have no reason to even look at the Pledge. There is no law broken if you don't say the Pledge; there is no harm if you do.
So, why in the hell is a judge outlawing something that isn't a law anyway?
This looks to me like one more activist judge is trying to get God out of our society.
rock jock
Member
You mean the good old days when the Bible or Bible verses were used on a daily basis in most public schools in the U.S. (not just the "Bible Belt") as a primer for reading? You mean the days when the Ten Commandments were posted and taught in public school? Or, perhaps you mean the days when every school day opened (and often closed) with a daily prayer? Yeah, that whole "God" thing in the Pledge was a radical break from what the Founding Fathers intended or promoted.
"don't cheapen the individual's personal faith by implying the government defiled their graves"
You badly misread me, HSO. I don't see anything cheap about this at all. I'm actually very glad of the fact that the government takes no stand as to what religous symbol they will "approve" for a veterans headstone. I think it should be that way always.
It takes all kinds of people to fight for a country as great as America, and to me, none should ever be excluded.
You badly misread me, HSO. I don't see anything cheap about this at all. I'm actually very glad of the fact that the government takes no stand as to what religous symbol they will "approve" for a veterans headstone. I think it should be that way always.
It takes all kinds of people to fight for a country as great as America, and to me, none should ever be excluded.
RealGun
Member
Your arguments remind me of the Air Force Academy and how bad religious tyranny can get. There is definitely consequence if you don't get with the program.
Desertdog
Member
How about the days when most boys brought knives to school for whittling or playing 'Cut the Pie'. If a teacher saw them with the knives, they were not expelled.
Or guns were brought to school and nobody thought anything about it? They were used for hunting or target practice after school, not shooting teachers or students.
Or cap guns and playing 'Cops and Robbers' and 'Cowboy and Indians' were not frowned upon.
Or students had respect, or maybe fear, of the teachers?
Can anyone find anything wrong with those days??
I can't.
It all boils down to many,a large number , very significant proportion of parents in this country feel extremely negative toward the school system. Those of a religious bent do not want a secular school system for their children. They see it as an infringement of their authority. It is obvious to anyone that over the past 40-50 years the school system has become more secular and leftist. They reject this. All the way from the health classes, to diversity drivil, to non-violence nonsence , to post modern deconstruction of US history. They want FREEDOM. Eventually they will get it with vouchers. There is a angry, concerned large group out there that is being pushed in a manner they do not like. They are going to demand FREEDOM. Let there being red diaper baby schools, atheist schools, secular schools and religious schools that all children have vouchers to choose where to go. Let a million flowers bloom. You want a mulitcultural society well we are well on our way. The religious culture is going to demand their seat at the table. The tip of the ice-burg is the home school movement.
DD,
The judge isn't have to be an "activist judge" to listen to the arguments of the lawyers of the plaintifs and the state and be convinced that this wording of the pledge conflicted with the religious protections of the constitution.
The judge isn't have to be an "activist judge" to listen to the arguments of the lawyers of the plaintifs and the state and be convinced that this wording of the pledge conflicted with the religious protections of the constitution.
rock jock
Member
I would love this to be the case, but the liberal elite in power know that most parents, even those that are not religious, will choose a school with a religious or conservative bent because that is where discipline will be enforced. The liberals hate this because the public school system is where they spoon feed their agenda to the young.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
The phrase "under God" was indeed added during the cold war, as several people have mentioned. What they aren't telling you is that it was added "optionally". That is, those who want to say it may do so, and those that don't want to may choose not to. So, it was freely left to the individual to decide whether or not he wanted to say the words "under God" when reciting the pledge.
During my schoolyears, we recited the pledge every Monday morning. Some of us spoke the phrase "under God", and some of us didn't. I specifically remember one of the teachers spending a morning trying to explain just how precious it was that we had that choice to make.
Isn't this the way "freedom of religion" ought to be?
Now we have a judge in California who thinks it should be HIS choice, not ours, whether ot not we want to say the words "under God". He has arbitrarily eliminated our right to express religion, if we choose to do so, when reciting the pledge.
And all you "pro-freedom" and "libertarian" types think this is a good thing?
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
During my schoolyears, we recited the pledge every Monday morning. Some of us spoke the phrase "under God", and some of us didn't. I specifically remember one of the teachers spending a morning trying to explain just how precious it was that we had that choice to make.
Isn't this the way "freedom of religion" ought to be?
Now we have a judge in California who thinks it should be HIS choice, not ours, whether ot not we want to say the words "under God". He has arbitrarily eliminated our right to express religion, if we choose to do so, when reciting the pledge.
And all you "pro-freedom" and "libertarian" types think this is a good thing?
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
RealGun
Member
Obviously each side is dug in pretty deeply, and no one wants to be persuaded. It's like being assigned to represent a side of an argument. It can be rationalized either way. If one thinks it is black and white, don't talk to me. I think the bigger question is, what are we protecting? I think you have to go back and look at why the phrase was added and recognize that we are seeing the ramifications.
BTW, I was in elementary school when the Pledge was changed, and there was no explanation of any options. We were all good little robots and learned the new version, period. None of us had a clue about the real implications or any real understanding of what the words meant. The issue is whether parents want their children brainwashed or whether they want them educated as critical thinkers. Bible school is a separate institution that is not publicly funded.
BTW, I was in elementary school when the Pledge was changed, and there was no explanation of any options. We were all good little robots and learned the new version, period. None of us had a clue about the real implications or any real understanding of what the words meant. The issue is whether parents want their children brainwashed or whether they want them educated as critical thinkers. Bible school is a separate institution that is not publicly funded.
longeyes
member
A few thoughts...
I'm a Libertarian but "under God" for me means that there is something beyond THE STATE, something that is the ground of all our liberties and natural rights. Maybe I am praying to that spark of the divine inside me, but whatever it is, it's not Hegel's Absolute State or Ted Kennedy's wet dream of welfare state America.
The K-12 system is the vanguard of the socialist revolution in America. The sooner we all grasp that sorry fact the sooner we can do something about it. Yeah, home schooling is one defense. Vouchers are essential to Stop the Insanity and the indoctrination.
We are evolving a country where a growing slice of neurotics--like Michael Newdow--have learned how to use the court system and its resident bedlamites to work out their **** on the rest of us. Talk about theater of the absurd.
I'm a Libertarian but "under God" for me means that there is something beyond THE STATE, something that is the ground of all our liberties and natural rights. Maybe I am praying to that spark of the divine inside me, but whatever it is, it's not Hegel's Absolute State or Ted Kennedy's wet dream of welfare state America.
The K-12 system is the vanguard of the socialist revolution in America. The sooner we all grasp that sorry fact the sooner we can do something about it. Yeah, home schooling is one defense. Vouchers are essential to Stop the Insanity and the indoctrination.
We are evolving a country where a growing slice of neurotics--like Michael Newdow--have learned how to use the court system and its resident bedlamites to work out their **** on the rest of us. Talk about theater of the absurd.
Wanting to do some research on the Pledge. Can someone point me to any info that will explain the real origins, from what I have researched so far the Pledge does in fact have socialists origins, and that hitler like salute does not help matters.
Desertdog
Member
I entered "Pledge of Allegiance history" in Yahoo advance search and I found this and many other articles.
The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History
by Dr. John W. Baer
Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
See also www.PledgeQandA.com
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).
Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.
The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.
In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]
Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.
What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...
If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.
Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'
A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'
The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History
by Dr. John W. Baer
Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
See also www.PledgeQandA.com
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).
Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.
The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.
In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]
Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.
What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...
If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.
Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'
A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'
Last edited:
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
I think the real problem is that atheism is something that people now consider to be a faith. Some people now believe in non-religion as if "non-religion" was a religion itself. It becomes a catch-22.
If you include 'God', then you're respecting Christianity (and the like) and prohibiting the free exercise of athiesm. If you exclude 'God', then you're respecting atheism but prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity (etc).
It's unconstitutional either way.
Perhaps the only thing to do is to leave the Government and the courts out of it entirely. In other words, tell the judge to go piss up a rope. Let the people decide what words they wanna say and when they wanna say 'em.
If you include 'God', then you're respecting Christianity (and the like) and prohibiting the free exercise of athiesm. If you exclude 'God', then you're respecting atheism but prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity (etc).
It's unconstitutional either way.
Perhaps the only thing to do is to leave the Government and the courts out of it entirely. In other words, tell the judge to go piss up a rope. Let the people decide what words they wanna say and when they wanna say 'em.
Desertdog
Member
I wonder if this will have any weight in this argument.
http://www.celebratelove.com/9thcircuit.htm
President Bush Reaffirms Reference to God in Pledge of Allegiance!
Washington (Wednesday, November 13, 2002) - President Bush signed into law on Wednesday a bill reaffirming, with a slap at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and national motto.
Bush signed the legislation without comment. It reinforces support for the words "under God" in the pledge, and for "In God we trust" as the national motto.
The measure was approved unamiously in the Senate and drew just five "no" voites in the House. Congress rushed to act after the federal appeals court in California ruled in June (2002) that the phrase "under God," inserted into the pledge by Congress in 1954, amounted to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.
The legislation faulted the court for its "erroneous rationale" and "absurd result."
The new law also modifies the manner in which the pledge is to be delivered by stating that, when not in uniform, men should remove any "non-religious" headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Previously, the standard dictated that "any headdress" be removed.
http://www.celebratelove.com/9thcircuit.htm
President Bush Reaffirms Reference to God in Pledge of Allegiance!
Washington (Wednesday, November 13, 2002) - President Bush signed into law on Wednesday a bill reaffirming, with a slap at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and national motto.
Bush signed the legislation without comment. It reinforces support for the words "under God" in the pledge, and for "In God we trust" as the national motto.
The measure was approved unamiously in the Senate and drew just five "no" voites in the House. Congress rushed to act after the federal appeals court in California ruled in June (2002) that the phrase "under God," inserted into the pledge by Congress in 1954, amounted to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.
The legislation faulted the court for its "erroneous rationale" and "absurd result."
The new law also modifies the manner in which the pledge is to be delivered by stating that, when not in uniform, men should remove any "non-religious" headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Previously, the standard dictated that "any headdress" be removed.
joab
Member
Not every one that does not believe in the implied Christian god of the pledge is an atheist.
The free exercise of Christianity is not being prohibited the governments endorsement of Christianity is.
RealGun
Member
You want to see a scrap, issue tax-funded vouchers for use in church-sponsored schools.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
I agree.
That arguement is self-contradictory - you can't have it both ways. EITHER "under God" is by nature religious, in which case the gov has no authority to restrict an individual's use of it. OR "under God" isn't religious, in which case there are no grounds to bar it under the 1A. So which is it?
This yutz Newdow needs to get his head screwed on straight. There is a difference between "freedom of religion" (which is guaranteed by the Constitution) and "freedom from religion" (which is a practical impossilility).
Religion exists in the world. There's no escaping that fact. It's an instrinsic part of huan nature.Expecting a judge to scour all traces of religion from a group of people (school, town, state, whatever) is about as sane as trying to remove all traces of blue from the sky. It ain't gonna happen
RealGun
Member
But don't we have to acknowledge that "under Allah" woud be just as valid, but it wouldn't fly? Wonder why?
- Status