Pledge of Allegiance ruled "unconstitutional"

[evmori]

If conservatives were genuine supporters of parental rights to control the rearing of ones children, they wouldn't be demanding that my child sit and listen to the government tell her that her father and mother are wrong about their most deeply-held beliefs

 

What a bunch of junk! The entire article is at best anti-American. And when did school children get the right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.?

 

Total garbage!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[fling1]

I know better than to participate in these discussions, but it probably won't hurt to post just one little missive ;-> ...

 

6 pages so far, and only one mention of the crux of the problem: The 14th Ammendment.

 

I so enjoy these arguments, because both sides are right.

 

Yes, the founders had every expectation that God and religion would figure into the governmental process... at the state level. Remember, they founded a federal republic of sovereign states. They went to a lot of trouble to protect the states from abuses of the feds and from being overwhelmed by their fellow states with different interests. Is it OK for Massechussetts to insist that only Christian men hold state offices? Founders say "sure!! -- just don't even think about giving the feds the power to tell them they *have to*. That's up to Massechussetts to decide. If the good folks of Massechussetts don't like it and can't change it, maybe they'll like the way Connecticut operates better."

 

But the 14th ammendment binds the states to the same limitations as the feds. This is done as a response to the War of Rebellion and severely undercuts the sovereignty of the states to run their own affairs. Now enormous swaths of responsibilities of State governments are subject to review by the feds, making sure they do everything to the specification of the federal govt. The old republic is gone, as of the 14th ammendment. It is a changed world.

 

By the old rules, no doubt the pledge is no problem. In fact it is no business of the feds at all to meddle in the affairs of the state education systems.

 

By the new rules, every state has to play the same game with the same umpire, who is duty-bound to prevent the establishment of a religion by any govt entity at any level. So, as Hunt wisely pointed out, if they can't find it to be "ceremonial" (read "completely meaningless"), then "under God" has to go, for public school recitations. Them's the new rules.

 

[FWIW, I find that almost every "culture war" argument boils down to this same issue regarding the rules being changed 150 years ago. One side longs for the ablility to apply the old rules, while the other side insists we play by the new rules. The fact that there are two sets of rules involved in the discussion rarely seems to surface.]

[packsaddle]

Fling1, That is absolutely beautiful. There are so many delicious ironies there that I may overdose on them. On April 12, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard probably had no idea the far-reaching consequences of that first shot. Eeeeee-haaaaaa!

[stlscouter]

Oh, I get it-your first amendment right to free speech means you can do a rebel yell and someone else's 14th amendment right is to consider that hate speech-rather like burning a cross in someone's yard. Great irony.(This message has been edited by stlscouter)

[Kahuna]

Fling1, an interesting analysis, and one I mainly agree with, as far as the issues are concerned (although I'm sure you meant to say "The War of Northern Agression")

 

Sadly, my theory is that the pledge and the phrase on the money will ultimately disappear into the miasma of political correctness. Just as the BSA will decide to change its policies when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, the politicians will ultimately cave to what causes the least trouble. That, of course, will lead to further demands to change other things and on and on.

[packsaddle]

stlscouter, And I always thought 'Rebel Yell' was an brand of bourbon.

http://www.rebelyellwhiskey.com/

but a mediocre one, in my view.

Anyway, I'm not sure that I understand your point..I evidently am missing the irony you mention (and I do so love ironies).

[stlscouter]

Packsaddle-only ironic in the sense that the 1st amendendment (by strict constuction) grants free speech and the 14th amendment (by evolving, increasing inclusion) equal protection of the laws (right not to be offended). Sorry, I thought it was kind of a double irony. The old, original Bill of Rights and the amendmrents currently used to find all of our "new" rights.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

There is no right "not to be offended". The 14th amendment applies some federal constitutional protections to state governments.

[evmori]

There is no right "not to be offended".

 

Then the pledge violates no one's rights!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Then the pledge violates no one's rights!

 

Sure it does, Ed.

 

This is why it's important to understand what the actual legal issues are; the pledge isn't being challenged on the grounds it's "offensive", it's being challenged on the grounds that the government does not have the power to coerce children (who are a nave captive audience) into making a religious avowal, and on the grounds that doing so infringes on the parents' rights to decide what kind of religious teaching their own children receive.

[evmori]

So it is coercion to ask a kid to say the Pledge but it's isn't coercion to have that same kid pay for lunch with currency that has "In God We Trust" printed on it?

 

There is no coercion going on except by the ACLU to try to remove God from everything possible because the use of the word God offends some people. Too bad! Like you posted, Merlyn, There is no right "not to be offended".

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

"Yes, the founders had every expectation that God and religion would figure into the governmental process... at the state level.

 

I am not sure that there is any historial evidence to support that.

 

When adams was asked why the word GOD doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution his response was. "Quite honestly sir the subject never came up".

 

I think what the founders most of whom were theists but not notably christian, had on there minds is EXACTLY what the 14th amendmant state s and nothing more. They did not want to see the government have a creat a religion to use to govern the people as England had. Nor did they want the government to suprress any religions as the British had.

 

As far as the pledge, it will only be meaningful to those who believe in what it speaks of. If you do not have the person beliefs embodied by the pledge then repeating it over and over again will not develop those characteristics in you.

 

Like in Scouting wher the Oath represents who you are only if you choose to be that person.

 

I would not try to force someone who didn't believe in the values of scoutng to say the Oath, nor do I think those who do not want to say it should be telling those who do what they should say.

 

 

[fling1]

 

I wrote: Yes, the founders had every expectation that God and religion would figure into the governmental process... at the state level.

BW wrote: I am not sure that there is any historial evidence to support that.

I am no scholar on the subject, but here's an example I feel sufficient to base the statement on:

Massachusetts drafted their state constitution in 1777, and eventually ratified their first in 1780. John Adams was its principal author, and clearly qualifies as a "founder" and a key figure in the development of the U.S. Constitution. Massachusetts is proud of the fact that many of its concepts helped shape the federal effort as well as the initial consitutions of many other states. Some background can be found at: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/laws/mass1780/mass_main.htmlhttp://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arccol/colmac.htm#1774http://www.mass.gov/courts/jaceducation/johnadamsmassconst.html

The resulting 1780 constitution includes the following excerpts, which you can look up by following the first link above:

 

Part of the First, Art III - ...the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

Chapter VI, (Oaths etc.) Art I - "I, A. B., do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seised and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."

There is more in there, if you look, but these two clearly indicate that the legislature would be expected to compell institutional worship and instruction, and that the governor was to be a Christian man.

As a point of reference, the oath was ammended in 1821 and the First Part was ammended in 1833.

If you look into the early documents of the other 12 states, you will no doubt uncover additional examples of Religion being included in the operation of the state and local governments. As the Federal Republic was architected, the primary effort was to protect this kind of power and sovereignty at the state level. The addition of the bill of rights addressed some individual rights and some additional constraints on Federal authority (both, in the case of the 1st Ammendment, with its liberty and establishment clauses).

The ironic result of the 14th Ammendment is a power grab by the feds (with a corresponding power drain at the states -- the intention of the thing, really) that results in more liberty by individuals, since the states are now compelled to maintain all of the tight constraints on authority originally designed to keep the federal govt in check. The feds were clearly excluded from the business of religious instruction from Day One. Now every level of government is likewise constrained.

[Kahuna]

I think it never came up because they took it for granted that God, if not religion, would be everywhere no matter what they did.

 

I would argue that the best evidence of the framers intent is the language: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." That of course was later extended to the States as well. If they had meant to erect a wall, they could have done so by using different language.

 

To me, it isn't a big deal one way or the other, because kids get their religion, or the lack of it, primarily from their families and saying "under God" or reading "In God We Trust" isn't going to have much effect on them. On the other hand, I believe there are very few atheist kids. Those who profess it are likewise professing what their parents believe.

[SemperParatus]

Hate to disappoint the revisionists, but the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers were indeed Christian.

 

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qtable.htm