A question about the Pledge ruling

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

The 9th Circuit once again strikes down the words "Under God" in the pledge as unconstitutional, because they say it violates church-state separation. The thing is, no one is forced to recite the pledge. The 1947 SCOTUS ruling made sure of that. So, if no one is forced to recite the pledge, meaning students are doing so voluntarily, wouldn't declaring the words "Under God" unconstitutional be a violation of their religious liberty? If the majority of students cannot voluntarily acknowledge God in the pledge, because a few children object to it, is that fair? Remember, no one is being forced to say the pledge, or acknowledge God.

I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm just asking the question. I think the 9th Circuit was wrong. How am I in error, if at all?

[BobBoudelangFan69]

1. When A Teacher Tell The Class To Stand And Say The POA ...

then the students is being forced to recite. Not many (child or adult)are able to resist authority figures.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

3. Students should have the right to refuse to say it.

If teachers and faculty usurp that right, THAT's unlawful. I think we're dealing with different issues, here.

[BobBoudelangFan69]

6. Playground Rules - Any Student Who Resisted ...

would be open to all kinds of pressure to conform. This has been around since forever.

A child in school learns quickly. The mob rules. To try to resist will be seen as a reason for retribution.

Try 'not' standing at a baseball/football/basketball game in USA. You may find yourself escorted from the event.

[noamnety]

2. Kids ARE forced to say it.

I was forced to say it.

I was dragged in front of the class and made to recite it alone for everyone to listen to, after the teacher caught me not saying the "under god" part.

Does anyone REALLY believe kids are all reciting it "voluntarily"? You really believe kids say that stuff of thier own free will because they feel it in their hearts?

Get real. They say it because they are pressured into it. And that includes the "under god" part.

[mikeiddy]

4. age and impressionability

Firstly, the "under God" wasn't added until the mid 50's, so the earlier case you mention could not have addressed the endorsement of religion issue.

Quotes from the 2002 decision explain the rationale:

"In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation 'under God' is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 --monotheism..."

"The coercive effect of this policy is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren, and their understanding that they are required to adhere to the norms set by their school, their teacher and their fellow students."

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

8. When the SCOTUS opens with "God save the United States

and this Honorable Court," or when we place our hands on the Bible, are those coercive as well? I think you're confusing tradition and religion, here. I must repeat again that all this is voluntary with respect to the pledge. The coercive effect of schools is a different issue, and does indeed need to be addressed.

[mikeiddy]

10. I'd change the SCOTUS opener if it was my decision as well.

I think it is just as unconstitutional as the pledge clause (as is the "In God we trust" on money). The oath on a bible is totally optional.

I'm curious why you think the coercive effect of schools (government) is irrelevant? It is central to the analysis and decision, and is the main reason behind the 1st amendment prohibition on government endorsement of religion.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

13. I didn't say it was irrelevant, rather I said it was a different issue

than the constitutionality of the pledge. The thrust of the argument for removing "Under God" from the pledge is that it endorses religion. I say it doesn't because the pledge is not compulsory, meaning no child is (or should be) forced to stand and recite it. If children were forced to acknowledge religion, that would be a endorsement of religion (i.e. mandatory Bible reading). However, when people freely choose, under no impetus of government to freely exercise (remember that Clause, too) to right to say "under God," then that's not an endorsement of religion.

If kids ARE being coerced into saying it, then other methods are called for. Teachers and faculty ought to be disciplined. It's just like if you're fired from your job because of your religion. You cannot penalize a person for being a Christian, but you can do so if that person fires you, if you're not a Christian.

[mikeiddy]

14. Sorry, I misread your last post

I inserted a "not" that wasn't there (does _not_ need to be addressed). I see your point, but I guess I favor a bright line approach. Keep churches out of the government biz and governments out of the church biz. Let people decide when and where they want to express their religion. It would be a lot less messy that way, and save a lot of time, energy and divisive rhetoric.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

15. I agree with that as well, but I think in this case they still are.

I think the fact that the pledge is voluntary is a big point. However, if individual schools are violating that, then we indeed have a problem. We'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.

[mikeiddy]

17. There is still the problem that a federal statute requires

the phrase. If the issue before the courts was simply the optional singing of, for example, God Bless America" I would be more accepting of your position. However, I think the statute is clearly an impermissible endorsement of religion that should have been struck down decades ago.

[brindis_desala]

5. The issue was whether by being forced to stand and listen

his daughter was being given the impression that the school endorsed
a religion. They looked at the reason that "under God" was added and could find no secular basis therefore it was ruled unconstitutional.
Even though politically the Dems are right to be wary of this ruling it is extremely important that the Establishment Clause be upheld.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

7. Not endorsing religion, rather a belief in God.

Again, we're assuming she was forced to say it. If she was, that's wrong. Otherwise, we're back to the free speech issue.

[mikeiddy]

9. Not a free speech issue

Anybody can say "under god" in the pledge if they wish. The decision was that the phrase, with the express approval of the school (government) is an improper endorsement of religion.

In another context - it is the difference of whether any student can pray in school (yes). However, the school cannot mandate a prayer.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

11. Good point, but if the people (the school boards)

decide to allow the pledge, is that a mandate by the government?

[mikeiddy]

12. Government is an expression of the people's will

so the answer is yes. But the issue is broader here. The phrase is mandated by federal law, and recital is _strongly_ encouraged by schools.

The Bill of Rights is often seen as a bulwark against strict majoritarian rule, a recognition that minoritarian positions are entitled to exist and receive protection. For example, even the vilest criminal is entitled to a fair trial, regardless of the majority's desire to have a summary execution.

[brindis_desala]

16. Nope. Not about Speech.

4] In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the
United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of
religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a
belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation
“under God” is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans
believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the
undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding
of the Republic. Rather, the phrase “one nation under God” in
the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge
is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance
to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility,
liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. The
9122 NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS
text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly
takes a position with respect to the purely religious question
of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we
are a nation “under God” is identical, for Establishment
Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under
Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a
nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can
be neutral with respect to religion. “he government must
pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.” Wallace,
472 U.S. at 60. Furthermore, the school district’s practice
of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate
in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and
thus amounts to state endorsement of these ideals. Although
students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the
Pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message
of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires
public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the Pledge.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf

[dsewell]

18. This is an incredibly powerful paragraph

I remember tearing up a bit when I first read it, after the decision was handed down. Even though I knew the language would be savaged by the religious right and even mainstream pundits, it was a pure and simple expression of the truth of the matter.

The Boy Scouts are at least more honest than many of the Pledge defenders, because they overtly decided that that didn't want anyone repeating the Scout Oath who couldn't commit to a belief in its underlying premise that God exists. So they are upfront that avowed atheists and agnostics cannot be Scouts (in the US anyway). Even if recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is not a requirement for attendance at public schools, the Pledge is understood as a communal affirmation of citizenship, an affirmation which is simultaneously an affirmation of monotheism.

[moobu2]

19. Being required to say “under God” in the pledge

Is as offensive to atheists and other religions who find it so, as it would be if a Christian were required to pledge to Allah, Buddha or any God they do not believe in. Voluntarily opting out isn’t the solution because it unnecessarily singles out people who decide not to pledge to a God they do not believe in..