Pledge of Allegiance ruled "unconstitutional"

[kenk]

That's funny. Scout, did you watch the same show last night? As I recall Newt was on the Hannity & Colmes show on Fox News.

[Trevorum]

Not to split hairs (wait, that's what we do in this forum, isn't it? ), but we really aren't "ONE NATION", we are many nations - one of them is just much bigger and more powerful than all the others.

 

I've always wondered what does through the minds of people who belong to the Navajo Nation when they say the pledge. Or the Choctaw Nation, or the Seminole Nation ...

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Not sure what this has to do with this thread, but what the heck, that's never stopped us before...

 

 

Now, being given these rights by God is a nice idea and all. Problem is, the US in its history have done a pretty good job of fiddling with the idea of just who "all men" refers to. Didn't stop us much from committing genocide against the great Native American nations that unfortunately happened to be living happily here when the Europeans showed up with a desire for freedom so strong that having to wipe out the current residents was just sort of a nuisance. And, there was the little detail of granting women the right to vote, and allowing Africans to live free from the threat of slavery (hey, only took white folk another 100 years or so after the Civil War to finally figure it out).

 

So, we can get all uppity about saying 2 little words in the Pledge, but guys, if we're under the watchful eye of a God, I have to think he may not be all that impressed by what he sees. Maybe we should be a little less worried about what we say, and a little more worried about what we do.

[johndaigler]

I'm amazed (and chuckling) how quickly we go from parents asking that their children not be daily force-fed a religious preference they don't share - to Stalinist USSR, jailing Scoutmasters and, of course, blaming the ultimate evil that is the ACLU.

 

This isn't about being forced to say the pledge or trying to get the pledge removed from schools - It's about a group of parents trying to get the Courts to see that the pledge as it is used today does not correctly represent all the parents and children expected to attend that school.

 

Would everyone who wants to declare these Parents "Clowns" be so comfortable if their public school's principal recited a bit of the Talmud every day over the loud speaker, or perhaps time was taken during the day when everyone kneeled toward Mecca - of course, your kids could stand and not participate. (Though your tax dollars will still be spent on this time.) Which would be easy if 20 out of 22 kids are standing and not participating, but what if your child is one of two not participating?

 

BTW, the Creator has endowed all men with inalienable rights - NOT GOVTS. (and for many years not women, or blacks, or Native Americans . . .) So, unless we want to declare God a rascist misogynist, let's view the D of I as not intended to be read fundamentally but rather as a guiding spirit for our nation's experiment in democracy.

 

And all those who have fought in varying ways to protect and improve this country would no more agree on this topic than does our own little electronic-campfire subset of America. Let's refrain from trotting out the flag and implying that anyone who disagrees with our own view is less of an American, and/or a person of lesser faith.

 

I can't see God being too shook about this one way or another - but parents sticking up for their kids?? That I understand (and respect) - whether I agree with them or not.

 

jd

[johndaigler]

I just hate it when you're typing up a couple of thoughts that are likely to change the world, and while you're working away some other "great mind" steals a good chunk of your literary thunder . . .

[Torveaux]

From a purely legal standpoint, the reasoning of the judge is faulty and the whole thing could be kicked back due to it.

 

The Judge cited the earlier case that had been effectively vacated by the Supreme Court due to a lack of standing. That SC decision made the 9th circuit's earlier decision moot.

 

So the Judge essentially cited a non-existent precedent.

 

Those who read the Constitution as prohibiting any government acknowldgement of the existence of God simply do not understand the document at all.

[firstpusk]

The SCOTUS decided not to decide this question last year by declaring that Dr. Newdow lacked standing on the basis of non-custody of his daughter. He has since found other plaintiffs. It will be interesting if the Supremes find another way to dodge the question.

 

Where I grew up, we recited the 1924 version of the Pledge until well into elementary school. There are two things worth noting. One, we continued to leave "under God" out of the pledge for well more than a decade after Congress mandated it. Two, this was the same for both the Catholic and public schools in my town.

 

A look at the legislative history of the insertion of "under God" makes it clear that this was an effort to establish a specific religios viewpoint by Congress. It is worth noting that many religious viewpoints are excluded by the insertion of the phrase and I'm not just talking about atheism. On that basis, it seems clear that we should be willing to accept that we should not require the recitation of the pledge in public schools.

 

I have one final note to kenk. I found it interesting that your punctuation lesson left out the word indivisible. The addition of "under God" seems to emphasize our divisions.

[TheScout]

PrarieScout,

 

With all do respect I find it rather offensive that you call what happened to the Indians genocide. To compare that with what Hitler did to the Jews, or what happened in Cambodia, or Rwanda is disgusting.

[Lynda J]

First I know that I am probably going to get beat around the head over this. But here goes anyway.

 

When the Pledge was originally written it did not contain the words "Under God" in it. 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 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.

 

 

I remember in school saying

'One Nation Indivisible, for liberty and justice for all.

 

So why is it wrong to take the Pledge back to the original writting.(This message has been edited by Lynda J)

[packsaddle]

I can just hear Humphrey Bogart right now, "It's the stuff...that (myths) are made of..."

The assumption is being made here that the term 'creator' refers to one or more supernatural beings that we may worship as God(s). Alternatively, it could be mother nature, father time, or one of the alien creatures in 'Life of Brian' that no-one seemed to notice.

As usual, Star Trek (the historical documents) provides a cautionary parable on this subject in episode 37, 'The Changling'. Nomad, a mutated space probe had wandered space - cleansing planets of imperfect life forms and looking for its...'creator'. And guess what? It mistook Captain Kirk as its creator. (It's always all about YOU Shatner!) And for a little while it worked...until it scrambled Uhura's brain and Kirk informed Nomad that she was a woman, one of his biological units. Nomad's reply was that she was a "mass of conflicting impulses".

 

I really get such a charge out of the way my wife slings a shoe at the television during that scene.

 

But ole Nomad knew its creators, or so it thought, until Kirk informed it of its mistake and it proceeded to 'cleanse' itself through the usual well-done pyrotechnics in which a huge explosion is heard in a perfect vacuum. I could be wrong about the 'sound in vacuum' part here.

The moral? Keep an eye over your shoulder for all those who think they actually know something about the creator no matter what bizarre and unbelievable form it takes (especially if it looks like William Shatner) or if it takes no form at all. Oh, and watch out for those vacuums, especially if they are named Kirby.

 

Edited to add disclaimer.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[packsaddle]

Thescout, I'm not sure I understand why you find the 'genocide' comparison disgusting, only that you do. Please explain. In case anyone is interested, some credible scholars think it WAS genocide, others don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_population

 

The answer seems to center on whether or not there was intent, which there certainly was by some, but not by others of the Europeans.

Bon apetite

 

[evmori]

Does this make sense?

 

The whole purpose of these inane rulings that will be over turned is to get these issues in the news so when they actually build a case, the ACLU will have more support?

 

Does this make sense?

 

Torveaux,

Great post. Especially the last paragraph.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[TheScout]

packsaddle, the article you metion states itself, "Therefore, most mainstream scholars tend not to use the term "genocide" to describe the overall depopulation of American natives"(This message has been edited by TheScout)

[packsaddle]

Thescout, that is correct...meaning that some scholars do - they're merely in the minority opinion. I'm not choosing sides here. Rather I was merely curious as to why you are disgusted at the comparison.

[TheScout]

Because you are comparing the actions of American soldiers to those of Hitler's death squads. The comparison can only be made by someone with an agenda he or she is trying to prove.