Supreme Court to decide if "Under God" is constitutional

Just broke on CNN.

:eyes:

I expect they will declare the US "under God" now that the Republicans are in charge. The Republican Party will then be the official "party of God". And, people will buy this shit.

Because our major candidates are not political idiots.

You aren't going to get a national candidate to come out against God. "Under God is unconstitutional" is worse than "I will raise your taxes".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-10-14-scotus-pledge_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

<snip>

"generations of American schoolchildren" First paragraph.

Since the phrase "under god" was inserted in 1954, that's, what? Two and a half generations?

They do get around to mentioning 1954 in the last paragraph ...

... we agnostics get to find out if we're full citizens or not.

And by the way, not all agnostics lean towards atheism (as my husband does); that was stated here at DU recently and I totally disagree with that view. Some of us agnostics continue to search and to hope that "something" is out there. We just haven't gotten the proof we need yet. I don't want to believe something just for the sake of believing, though.

I really don't like to be lumped in with atheists, or told to "get off the fence, you know you don't believe, just admit it."

But most of all, I sure as heck don't want my country to force me to utter words I don't believe!

I try to stay away from the religious discussions here, so I didn't see any of the threads where the Agnostic=Atheist point was made. I've never heard it argued that way. Usually it's the other way around. You always get the “there are no non-believers in foxholes” argument and such. That being said I'm agnostic myself and go all over the place with what I think at any given time. As a general rule though I lean towards Atheism. Every once in a while something happens that makes me start to slide the other way but it always wears off. As far as I’m concerned the Pledge doesn’t even belong in school so the whole “Under God” point is moot. I don’t pledge allegiance to anyone or thing except my family.

Jay

that the Pledge itself is laughable and doesn't belong in a country purported to be "free." But I'm always intrigued any time "God" is brought into a legal decision; it's a moment of truth, and I can't wait to see where this one lands! Any common sense ruling would say that the Pledge is a "cute" poem that someone wrote, and as such can legally include whatever words the author desires; but no citizen can be compelled or threatened to recite that poem, or any poem. Where did this idea come from that the Pledge is something authorized by the U.S. government? It's not, as far as I know. What has given it so much legitimacy? Maybe I missed something somewhere along the line, but to my way of thinking, it is nothing more than a poem.

P.S. I cracked up at how you described that feeling as "wearing off." I know that feeling well, that's exactly right, it wears off! But I keep searching. Guess I'll never know until I'm dead....:shrug:

The "under God" bit was added in 1954 when the US was embroiled in a communist scare very similar to the terrorist scare we are in now.
Go here for more on the pledge. http://history.vineyard.net//pledge.htm

I still don't get the jump between a) a man wrote a ditty, and b) Congress inserts its presence in 1954 by adding "God" to the man's ditty. What happened in between these two steps to lend governmental authority to this ditty, to make it something more, to make it so important, to give it apparent legal stature? It's just a friggin poem!

* I'm not expressing myself well today, I was in the ER with my kid all night, LOL! He's fine, it was just croup. Being a mom destroys brain cells due to lack of sleep.

... by passing a law. Just like they had to pass laws to put "In God We Trust" on the currency back around the end of the Civil War.

But that "apparent legal stature" is because it is a law. It is officially the "National Anthem", the "National Motto", etc.

explains how the man's poem achieved its stature as a national motto prior to Congress touching it. Just because the poem was printed in a magazine and people thought it was peachy-keen and started spreading it around...? Is that all it takes to achieve Congressional consideration?? Criminy, if that's all it takes, then why can't Congress step in and rewrite the lyrics to popular songs?

I'm confused.

Gotta be more to this. Sorry to be so dense.

Believe it or not, the guy who wrote it in 1892 was chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. He actually wrote it specifically to be recited in public schools (of course, it didn't include the reference to God even though he was a Baptist minister).

So this man, who has stature in the educational field, just suddenly decides that schoolchildren need to recite something, so he writes up that something and gets it printed in a magazine. How did he then go about getting it "ratified" or enforced? Just because someone decides that all children in America need to do something, recite something, or eat something, surely it isn't as easy as all that?

(I still say he was just some guy, LOL!)

And if it's unconstitutional, a court pulls us back.


"Some guy" (or gal) decided one day that everyone would be better off if they wore seatbelts... it eventually became a law.

"Some guy" thought it would be a swell idea if we had a national motto, a national bird, a national tree - whatever. Get enough people to agree with you? It's a law.

but you're right. Still, the idea of having all children recite something seems to be in a different class somehow. Has there always been a fight against it from Day One?

Thanks for hammering away at my density today. This thing with the Pledge has always bugged me and it's nice to have my questions answered.

on other issues. If I remember correctly, "one nation, indivisible" was a common phrase used by the north in defending it's role in the Civil War, and upset some. He wanted(at least at one point) to add "equality" to "justice for all" but it was opposed by people who though women and/or blacks were not, in fact, equal.

Many liberals add the "equality" and drop the "under God" part when they say it. I believe one or more of our representatives (Hillary, if I'm not mistaken) has been caught on video getting it "wrong", to their public embarrasment.

and what I've learned about this issue today, it staggers me to think that we're still fighting over this all of these years later. The fierce fight serves to demonstrate that you really can't legislate the words that people speak in a free country, can you? Frankly, I've always wondered how we've gotten away with assorted oaths and swearings-in.

Thanks for enlightening me. This is my favorite thing about DU!

I believe Congress passed some kind of ruling in the 40's adopting the pledge (which was written in the 1890's), but I am not sure if it required its recitation in schools, even though that has been a common practice (anyone know what Congress's specific action was?). At any rate, there have been Supreme Court decisions over the years about requiring students to recite the pledge. In 1943 (during WWII), on Flag Day, the court ruled that no-one may be forced to recite it. Subsequently (I think the second major case was in the 60's), they developed that decision further by determining that no-one may be forced to change or assume a position during the recitation of the pledge (stand up, bow head, put hand over heart, for example). So, required recitation of the pledge, as I understand it, is already "uncostitutional," while the question today is whether the "under God" part makes it unconstitutional to even follow the practice of having the pledge in schools.

In practice, most kids and many teachers and administrators believe they must participate in the pledge, and that students must stand even if they do not wish to say it. The consequences of refusal are often harassment and intimidation by fellow students, the school, and even, at times, the community.

Personally, I am not in favor of group rituals pledging loyalty not only to a government but to a flag, particularly if there is a religious section in it. I can't even support the "say it if you want to, don't if you don't" point of view because of the intolerance usually exhibited toward those who, for whatever their reasons (religious, political, or other) don't want to participate. We are not indoctrinating Soviet-style Pioneers, but trying to educate our children. I would prefer real education on what the Constitution is all about.

God is not there.

I suspect if I was in a war I would wonder how God could allow such a thing.

that if there is a God he has forsaken and left this rock to it’s own devices ages ago.

jay

It also excludes:

Polytheists

Goddess-worshippers

Pantheists (if you believe in a deity which is immanent but not transcendent, the word "under" violates those beliefs)

Animists

Gnostics (the old-fashioned kind for whom all governments are agents of the evil demiurge)

Anyone who believes that the divine can be approached only through the individual human conscience and/or through communion with nature and that organized society is an impediment to true spirituality

(Have I left anyone out?)

I don't know if I'd exactly agree with the idea that all governments are agents of the Demiurge. There's definitely a counter-force in all things, including politics, that opposes the Demiurge/Black Iron Prison.

Dont some jews oppose writing "God" out or saying it? not sure.

Also

Hindus, and anyone with more than 1 God in their faith.

And since we know they are referring to the Christian God... its pretty much anyone but christians who believe in a 'concrete' God (aka more conservative christians).

but it'll be reaffirming to hear the Supreme Injustices
leave it in...
I'm for bagging the whole salute...so nationalistic.

then "In God we trust" isn't either.

We have changing values in this country, and I suspect we are changing to a better respect for other (or no) religion, but the authors of the Constitution clearly had no problem with such watered down "yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" religious statements.

They obviously (and demonstrably) would have had no problem with "under God" being recited in a classroom.

Remember, we put all this 'God' stuff in to say that we were real christians and the Soviets arent (around the 1950's). Ironic, considering the history of Russia and Eastern Orthodoxy, they are pratically 1 and the same.

That and we did just as much spying and espionage on them as they did on us.

It wasn't until 1957 that this appeared on paper money, and 1908 when it appeared on coinage. Historical revisionism. Take god off our money please.

--snip--

Before the days of credit and debit cards, one used to see signs similar to the one above in diners, service stations, food stores, and many other establishments, obviously playing on the use of the motto "In God We Trust" that is on our coins and paper currency. It may come as a surprise to many younger and even not so young persons that this was not always so, that the regular use of "In God We Trust" on US coins did not begin until 1908, "In God We Trust" was not made an official motto of the United States until 1956, and the motto did not appear on paper money until 1957. The history of the choice of "In God We Trust" as an official motto of the United States and the practice of placing "In God We Trust" on coins and bills is a tale of historical revisionism, perfidy by our elected representatives and appointed officials, and ecclesiastical opportunism whose results have tended to eat away at the foundations of our liberties and threaten the very idea of the separation of church and state.

http://www.flash.net/~lbartley/au/issues/godtrust.htm

April 22 to be exact. This act put "In God We Trust" on all coinage that could fit it.

being Godless, supporting terrorism and advocating Senator on dog sex. They also will mention Bill Clinton's penis in connection with this case.

what arnie is going to do with energy in Calif....or Energy panel papers appealed to the supreme court (uncle dick wants to keep a secret)

Are we still over there?

"Supreme Court to decide if "Under God" is constitutional". Until God, which ever one it might be, arrives to tell us we will never know. The god named Buck will not retire without a good fight.

they ruled it unconstitutional. It was put in 1954, I think, on the urging of the Knights of Columbus and McCarthyism, Also get rid of that In God we trust on the coins that can in at the same time.

It is the insistance that our children repeat it daily that I object to. Especially if it means pledging to a God they may or may not believe in.

I feel the same way. When I was in school I refused to say it. I didn't feel it was fair to everyone.

My hat's off to the Supremem Court. They take care of their own!

They're the ones who put it on the poltical map.

he's the plaintiff in the suit.

... the courts don't have to give every one of them free airtime.

Besides, I doubt he is attempting to damage the Democratic party. He's acting in what he feels are the nation's best interests.

That "Under God" and similar phrases are constitutional because they've lost most of their religious significance through rote repetition anyway.

If it's so meaningless, isn't that insulting to the millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people who belong to monotheistic religions who don't want to see their god reduced to a throwaway?

"One Nation Under God" shows Uncle Sam
being buggered by bearded Yahweh.
Does anyone have a copy? Please post it.
It ran in The Realist magazine back in the
sixties.

Greg Jungheim
Chicago

http://www.senryusid.com/

Apparently she is getting her wish.

they're going to hear? I would like to read the lower court's opinion.

I'm reading Kimberly Blaker's The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America, and she has much to say about assaults on public education by the Christian Right. Based on her analysis of recent SC decisions on religious activities in the public schools, I hold no hope that the Court will find "under God" unconstitutional.

or U.S. Congress vs. Newdow, because it's an appeal.

and Newdow, the man who brought the suit, is planning to argue it himself in front of the SC.

but can you imagine the right wingers having a melt down if they don't

one can only hope!

I'd imagine it will be the same 5/4 split that installed Chimpy McBunnypants.

<snip> 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.

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20031014/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pledge_of_allegiance>



this is a good thing, as the article states that a 4-4 tie will let the lower court decision stand!!

Maybe we could get more than a deadlock.

To give Bush and his punk-ass Republicans a chance to push a constitutional amendment requiring it. The left will howl outrage and the middle will run screaming into big, fuzzy, Republican arms...Just wait...

The idea that children are forced to say "I pledge allegiance to the flag" is obsurd. First of all, its legal to burn one, pledging allegiance to it seems to acknoledge that it should be illegal (but it should). That, and Ill bet most children don't know what they are really saying, I know that when I was a kid in school, it was just one of those 'things' the grownups liked to make us do, silly grown-ups.

Oh yes, one other thing, we are very divisble.. Should read "One nation, divisible by God-fearing nuts, otherwise, with liberty and justice for most".

Just to reflect the truth of the matter.

Compelling children to recite the pledge was already struck down by the SC even before the words "under God" were added. The Barnette case says, beautifully:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Don't you love it?:kick:

your crystal ball is in fine working order. Alas, that is how it shall come to pass.

It will replace the flag-burning amendment.

Except for how the right wing crazies will completely flip their pointy lids if the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. Oh, that would be so so sweet. I can taste it. The calls for civil war! Impeach the traitors! Cultural warfare! The bulging blood vessel on Pat Robertson's freakishly oversize forehead!

That sets it up for a potential 4-4 deadlock (depending on how readily Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens and Breyer fall for this *obvious* political trap).

MDN

It is so silly:

A "pledge" is a loyalty oath, a vow, or a promise, to the Republic - the government.

We as citiziens of this country give consent to the government to govern. We do not pledge loyalty to it.

The most basic aspects of Freedom of Speech must include the Freedom not to impose vows of loyalty oaths- especially upon children.

We do not let them take any other kind of vows that would be considered meaningful: we don't let them enter into contracts, or marry, or run for public office.

So, either the pledge is a) a meaningless excercise (then why have it at all), or b) an attempt to get impressionable kids to say "yes" to a regime which, instead should be bending over backwards to say "yes" to kids.

Folks, "under God" is the wrong argument: take BACK the power.

I'd say it would be unconstitutional to require people to say the pledge. I wouldn't say the pledge itself is unconstitutional.

And I don't think that other people saying it around you while you refuse to say it places an undue burden on you (though perhaps on kids it would be different). So, for instance, it doesn't bother me that they say it in congress regularly, nor does it bother me that people on both sides change the words a bit when they do. They have to pay whatever political consequences there are for what they believe.

You want to add "born and unborn" at the end? Fine. Just don't expect the vote of people who disagree. It's so much easier to judge what you believe when you come right out and say it. You want to drop "under God" in your version? Fine. Just don't expect the votes of people who think we are (or should be).

Since when to we tell 6 year olds- in a public school - to support Republicans?

That's just stupid.

The Pledge is NOT a Republican oath!

It pisses me off when people imply that Democrats are anti-religion, or anti-patriotism or anti-(whatever good thing you want to put here). But it ticks me off even more when a Democrat is the one implying it. It just gives the other side ammunition. I believe in God and I'm perfectly willing (personally) to pledge allegiance to a nation "under God" (it sure better not be "over God"). I just don't think we ought to FORCE people to do it.

with characterizing "in god we trust" as being "ceremonial" (or something to that effect. I'm pretty sure that ceremonial is the correct word.)

-- Allen

If you want a good place to send people on either side of this issue, check out http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/underGod .

For anyone who doesn't choose to, that's all right, because "Liberals Like Christ" are PRO CHOICE !

and then had to re-learn it with "under God" in 57/58

omg i am old :7...but happy :7 that i can even remember that long ago...i'm ok