A Federal appeals court in San Francisco has just ruled that the “Pledge of Allegiance” is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, and therefore cannot be recited in schools.
The Pledge. Of Allegiance. To the United States of America.
Unconstitutional.
So whaddya say? Time to take the rabid PC puppy out to the woodshed and put it down like Old Yeller? Good, me too. I’ll get the rifle — before we wake up one morning to find the motto on our currency changed to “In everybody equally — regardless of political and ideological allegiances, color, age, race, nationality, size, weight, sex, gender, geographical locale, education, scent, or sexual orientation — do we trust.” Because not me, bub. For instance, short people are notoriously sneaky and I just don’t trust ’em. Period.
(On the other hand, the same court ruled it was okay to toke up in a public park if you happen to be a Rasta-Mon, so ‘taint all bad…)
[via FOXNews]
So what? We are a secular government after all. Anybody?
Not being flip here. Can anyone tell me why it was inserted (c. 1940s I believe, same time we started printing “In God We Trust” on our money) in the first place?
Personally I feel that many of our Nation’s problems stem from Godlessness at home not because our government recognizes a separation between Church and State. Seems kind of venal anyway to have the government endorsing any sort of religious pilosophy doesn’t it?
Not true. The Court struck down the 1954 law which amended the Pledge of Allegiance by adding ‘under God’ to it.
…Which is the only “Pledge” I was taught. So for me, they made my Pledge unconstitutional. Though I’m aware of the 1954 insertion, and of the Knights of Columbus lobbying effort for its inclusion.
Here’s the deal: I’m not religious at all. But I’m bothered by court rulings that disingenuously suggest that the phatic phrase “under God” is “endorsing” religion in a way that is unfairly coercive. No one is forced to say it. That’s enough for me.
I worry, though, that such rulings set the stage for a similar bowdlerization of works of literature, etc. Bowing to a hypersensitive person’s sense of discomfort is worrisome to me.
So what gives?
You’re going to need to be more specific in your questions, Dr. E. What gives with what, precisely?
If you ever visit my site then you know I am both NUTS and STONED!!!
Mr. E, I’m an agnostic (read that as atheist if you feel like it) and this annoys the hell out of me as well.
Many things have less than purely logical roots to them. If we have to get rid of religious language, don’t we have to get rid of a hell of a lot of other stuff as well that’s simply cultural if its based on something less than strict empiricism?
All men aren’t created equal either. Simple fact of life but I don’t see any efforts to get rid of that verbiage.
Jeff, you’re a bastard, you forced me to look up “phatic”.
Shit. Hope I used it correctly. Been awhile since I read Jacobson.
“Phatic” is urban slang, as in, “That new Vanilla Ice song is certainly rather phatic, wouldn’t you agree, Nigel?”
I’ll now be forced to admit that at first I thought Stephen’s explanation might be what Jeff meant.
Forced recitation of The Pledge was ruled unconstitutional way back in 1943. Violation of First Ammendment rights to make citizens say something, basically.
Exactly, Matt. Which is why today’s ruling was so silly. This little girl was injured (the court would have us believe) by other people saying what she didn’t have to say—and the injury is a result of her decision not to say it. In other words, she chose to dissent (as is her right) and then was injured because others didn’t.
Ggghak.
I remember resenting the God bit quite a lot when I was made to recite it in school back in the early ‘70s. Sure it was unconstitutional but how many kids knew that and were going to mention it at home?
It angered me that I was in effect swearing fealty to a supernatural entity as part of loyalty to my nation. I’d be perfectly happy to roll things back to pre-1954 and keep the god stuff separate.
It’s notable that the Baptist minister who originally composed the Pledge did so without the ‘under God’ part even though God was obviously a big part of his life. I guess he really appreciated the Constitution.
I’m with Eric and Dr. E. The words “under God” should have never been added in the first place. How “ridiculous”–wasn’t that Bush’s reaction to the court’s decision?–for kids to be asked (not required, true, but asked, and that’s bad enough) to invoke God in school. (Then again, Bush is busy sending Christian fundamentalists to UN summits to cavort with Islamic fundamentalists in an effort to promote a worldwide crusade against abortion, homosexuality and other abominations, in the name of that same deity. Anyone read about this?) Certainly the Bushies will make much hay of this one, exploiting an opportunity to wave the flag and blame the liberals, which, in tandem with new terror warnings and color-coded charts, just might keep the suckers among us fooled a little longer.
“Stupidity in our government, complacency and self-satisfaction and unwillingness to believe that anything done by a certain class of people can be wrong–you can’t fight those things impersonally.”
–Charles Foster Kane
”[…] for kids to be asked (not required, true, but asked, and that’s bad enough)[…]”
Well, there’s where we disagree. It’s not bad enough to be asked, and it’s not coercive to the point of harm. There is no “establishment” of a religion going on here. You can argue until you’re blue in the face about whether or not Congress should’ve added the phrase or not. Fact is, they did. And the court has overstepped its bounds in making this ruling.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not the religious type, but I’m not threatened by a phrase, either. To pretend that I am would be to trivialize important instances of protection via the establishment clause. Ten Commandments on courthouse walls, “God Bless America,” “in God we trust,” the Pledge—these are not instances in which the establishment clause should be strained.
As to the rest of your comments, Jensen: The Senate voted 99-0 against the decision. Both sides were willing to make political hay out of this.
Yes, a lot of bad has been done in the name of some diety or other. And a lot of good has been done in its name, as well—including the founding and development of this country. It’s a tired argument to point to “all the death and destruction done in the name of God” in order to assume for yourself a position of intellectual and ethical superiority. Lots of murder in the name of No God, too, you’ll remember—which is the reason we have the phrase “under God” in our pledge to begin with.
I remember feeling kind of strange about it as well but what 5 year old would know enough to opt out anyway?
“The National Conference of State Legislatures says half the states require the pledge as part of the school day and half a dozen more recommend it. In the burst of patriotism that followed the Sept. 11 terrorism attacks, bills to make the oath mandatory have been introduced in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi and Missouri.” (Today’s NYT)
I just don’t see what harm taking it out would do? As regards your earlier comment,
“All men aren’t created equal either. Simple fact of life but I don’t see any efforts to get rid of that verbiage.”
Certainly but our secular government IS in the business of promoting equality and justice for all regardless of religion, sex, etc. Even if that is not the reality we hold it as an ideal. They ARE NOT however supposed to be promoting any sort of religious philosophy. I do think things like “In God We Trust” and the Pledge “under one God . . . “ fall into that category.
”[…] but our secular government IS in the business of promoting equality and justice for all regardless of religion, sex, etc.”
Well, what about equality for the 97% of the country who believes in some diety? Again, no particular religion is being “established” here. The law permits an opt out. This next step—to argue that being forced to hear the word “God” in a public building is injurious—is PC taken to its most abrasive extreme.
“Lots of murder in the name of No God, too, you’ll remember—which is the reason we have the phrase ‘under God’” in our pledge to begin with.”
1954, to be exact, at the height of McCarthyism. All the more reason to take it out. The guy who wrote the pledge in the 1890s was very religious, but he understood the concept of the separation of Church and State. Where would you have stood on adding God to the pledge in 1954? Would you have been swept up by anti-Communist fervor and supported it, or would you have said, “No, that’s just not what we’re about.”
God does not belong in the classroom. Plain and simple. And forget whether or not the words “under God” are injurious to atheists or anyone else; it’s simply UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There are still people out there, lots of them, who want prayer in school, and even some who want to creationism to be taught. This is what’s ridiculous. Read the original words of the Pledge. It should have never been altered.
If you really want to see where all this is going and what it has wrought, read this article. It’s depressing and revolting. How dare our elected officials purport to speak for me or any other American in calling this a nation that “values our relationship with the Almighty,” or that the decision is out of step with the “traditions of America.” What cluelessness, what pandering, what drivel. Our founding fathers–despite their private religious beliefs, which they insisted should be kept private, and away from public institutions–would have never rallied for God in Senate chambers. This is sad and embarrassing. Politicans suck.
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (June 27) – In an extraordinary show of defiance, virtually the entire Senate showed up for a morning prayer Thursday, heads bowed behind their desks, to affirm that the United State is ‘’one nation under God,’’ after a federal appeals court declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
Moments later, a nearly full House gathered to recite the pledge, with some shouting ‘’under God.’’ They followed with a sustained standing ovation, and a few House members joined hands to sing the first line of ‘’God Bless America.’’
Both houses of Congress start each working day with the pledge, but typically only a few lawmakers are in the chambers to recite it.
‘’We acknowledge the separation of sectarianism and state, but affirm the belief that there is no separation between God and state,’’ Senate Chaplain Lloyd Ogilvie said in the morning prayer.
The Senate floor and partly filled visitors galleries were hushed as Ogilvie proclaimed that ‘’we are one Senate, united under You, to lead a nation that is free to say confidently, ‘In God we trust.’’’
House members, who rushed to steps in front of the Capitol on Wednesday to recite the Pledge of Allegiance immediately after the court’s decision, planned to pass a resolution later Thursday condemning the ruling.
President Bush denounced the ruling as ‘’out of step with the traditions and history of America.’’ He promised to appoint judges who would overturn such rulings.
‘’America is a nation … that values our relationship with the Almighty,’’ Bush told reporters. ‘’We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God.’’
In calling the Senate to order, its president pro tempore, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said Ogilvie would lead ‘’the prayer to almighty God, the supreme judge of the world.’’
‘’We are one nation under God. We affirmed that today as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats, and we did so proudly,’’ said Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who on Wednesday called the court’s decision ‘’nuts.’’
‘’What’s next?’’ Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., asked Thursday. ‘’Will our courts, in their zeal to abolish all religious faith from public arenas, outlaw ‘God Bless America’ too?’’
The House began reciting the pledge in 1988, and the Senate in 1999.
A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Wednesday that the use of the words ‘’under God’’ violates the Constitution’s clause barring establishment of religion. The ruling, if allowed to stand, would bar schoolchildren from reciting the pledge in the nine Western states covered by the court.
Less than four hours later, senators passed a resolution denouncing the court’s decision, which came in a lawsuit filed by a California father who objected to his daughter’s being compelled to listen to her second-grade classmates recite the pledge.
‘’I think we need to send a clear message that the Congress disagrees, the Congress is going to intervene, the Congress is going to do all that it can do to live up to the expectations of the American people,’’ Daschle said.
Other lawmakers, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., a potential 2004 presidential candidate, called for a constitutional amendment to make sure the words stay in the pledge.
‘’There may have been a more senseless, ridiculous decision issued by a court at some time, but I don’t remember it,’’ Lieberman said.
If Wednesday’s ruling is not overturned by the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court probably will review the case next year, constitutional scholars said.
The decision was written by Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, whom Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., called an ‘’atheist lawyer.’’
‘’I hope his name never comes before this body for any promotion, because he will be remembered,’’ Byrd said.
The 9th Circuit Court is known as the most liberal appeals court in the nation. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting all year over the pace of the Senate’s confirmation of Bush’s conservative judicial nominations.
Democrats pointed out that it was a Republican, President Nixon, who appointed Goodwin to the appeals court in 1971.
AP-NY-06-27-02 1107EDT
Again, JD: The Pledge WAS altered, by an act of Congress. Your assertion that it’s unconstitutional is simply wrong—and is a dangerous misreading of the establishment clause.
Listen to what you just wrote, for Chrissakes: “God does not belong in the classroom. Plain and simple.” Well, uh, “God” (the word, not the Deity itself) appears in many of our founding documents, in many great works of literature, etc. Simply invoking the word God is not the same as forcing belief in a God. Until you can see beyond that, you won’t be in line with Supreme Court precedent. And until you recognize that there is no “Separation of Church and State”—but rather a prohibition against the establishment of an official religion—you’ll be misunderstanding the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Jensen: Agreed re: pandering politicians. But hey, politicians pandering to the 97% of the populace that believes one thing ain’t all that unusual.
Ignore them. Instead, try looking at the implications of this ruling. If it’s allowed to stand on the basis of coercion, we’ve gone along way to surrendering to language. We control language. It doesn’t control us.
Amen! JENSEN!! This is ridiculous. Next we’ll have Lieberman leading a seder on the Senate steps!!
So we’re just stuck with any poorly conceived legislation that comes out of the Congress? So just how is “One Nation, under God . . . “ NOT an endorsement of a particular religion and what harm would taking it out of the Pledge do really? How would you feel if it was “One Nation, Under Vishnu?”
Now who’s slippery slopin’ it? Me or you G? No, really . . . I’m not sure?
Is the US population really 97% Christian? If it is it won’t be for long. I see your point about language etc . . . Language and words can be very, very powerful tools so I think the leaders of this country ought to be a little more circumspect about how they use them.
Philosophically I agree with you but you’re asking a 5 year old to come to the same conclusions on their own?
No. A five-year old is citing a civic pledge by rote. I used to do the same kind of recitation with my ABCs—which became one step in my learning language.
97% of the population believes in some God or other, not necessarily the Christian God. The pledge doesn’t articulate a specific God. It doesn’t establish a particular religion. It’s generic, not particular. (Vishnu is particular; Jesus is particular; Allah is particular; “God” is not).
Taking the phrase out wouldn’t “hurt” anything in the sense most people have been using the term. And I’m not arguing that we “need” that phrase in the Pledge.
What I’m arguing is that the way we interpret law is at stake here —and that such considerations are absolutely crucial to the way our country runs. Lobbying the Congress to remove the phrase “under God” is one thing; ruling that, legally, such mention of the word “God” in a public building is injurious—well, this is extraordinarily dangerous.
I’m an atheist and I wish I wasn’t sometimes. It irritates me to no end that some of my fellow atheists are, well, jerks. We’re a tiny minority that is for the most part invisible and unmolested until one of our gang feels this perverse need to stand up and give the majority the finger.
Oh, and by the way, the jerk that started this whole thing – as I understand it – also has a lawsuit to remove “In God We Trust” from money.
Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resources in peace and war.”
Point taken D.
I also read in the paper (a real paper paper, ha!) that this guy Newdow called the pledge “a religious idea that certain people don’t agree with.” I’m not buying that.
It doesn’t matter that 97% of Americans believe in some god or another. I’m part of that 97%, yet I don’t think that religion–whether particular or general–should be promoted in public school; and asking children to rise, place their hands over their hearts and utter the words “under God” is an affront to religion (which for me is a very personal, private thing) and more importantly, a perversion of American principles. The author of the original pledge felt that way too, and so did the Framers and Founders–men of real genius, not like the idiots running our country today. This equation of God with patriotism is sickening. The ruling itself–that the word God is somehow injurious–is missing the point, in my opinion. But I can assure you I would be taking the same stance in 1954 as I do now. It breaks my heart to see “God” turned into a political football among opportunistic politicans. Disgusting.
As I wrote over on the Atrios blog:
Don’t argue that something is “promoting” religion lightly.
“Again, JD: The Pledge WAS altered, by an act of Congress. Your assertion that it’s unconstitutional is simply wrong—and is a dangerous misreading of the establishment clause.”
Simply wrong? That’s awfully definitive. No room for nuance here? Seems to me that the words “under God” might possibly presume an established monotheism, and thus promote it.
“Listen to what you just wrote, for Chrissakes: ‘God does not belong in the classroom. Plain and simple.’ Well, uh, ‘God’ (the word, not the Deity itself) appears in many of our founding documents, in many great works of literature, etc. Simply invoking the word God is not the same as forcing belief in a God.”
There’s a big difference between God the Word appearing in a historical document or in literature, and asking schoolchildren to repeat a pledge that presumes the existence of God the Idea (and to be sure, that line was added in ‘54 to distinguish us from the godless Soviets–a move that conflated religion with patriotism, which is just the sort of thing we ought to avoid). I was referring of course to the latter.
Then if you were referring to the latter, you’ll concede that no one is forced to say the Pledge, or that part of the Pledge, or etc.
As for nuance…declaring something “unconstitutional”—as in, not allowed by the constitution (as you did)—is about as definitive an assertion as you can have. I simply swung the pendulum the other way. Both of us beg the question in that regard, but we do so for rhetorical purposes.