GuntherBait
Banned
Exactly.shoplifter said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Supreme Court dismisses Pledge of Allegiance case
- Thread starter Ripclawe
- Start date
- Status
The legal reason why Under God can be defended in the Pledge is that God is stated to be a very broad term, so therefore it can mean anything that is of upmost importance to an individual. For example, if I dont believe in a god-like entity (like Allah,) and instead I worship liberty, then liberty itself is my God.
Now this is bullshit, but thats the legal justification given.
Now this is bullshit, but thats the legal justification given.
shoplifter
Member
Matt said:
What's even more messed up is that the justification does not match at all the reasoning given for the bill that changed the pledge.
GuntherBait
Banned
wow.Matt said:
Phoenix
Member
Okay here we go:
1) The pledge was written by a Baptist minister Francis Bellamy with the original text
In 1924 required you to pledge allegiance to the United States of America (not required before)
In 1942 the government recognized the pledge
In 1954 the courts added 'under God'.
2) Since the pledge was not created by the government it is as maleable as the courts want it to be. This is an issue that I'm sure they didn't want to tackle as well, because recognizing the pledge is the equivalent of picking a school fight song - it has the same level of usefulness.
3) The whole secular diesm thing is not accurate. There were a large number of protestants involved in the founding of the country. In fact many of them came here to escape religious persecution. In reality the founding fathers WERE religious as the opened up the first congress with a prayer and one of the acts that was performed at the first congress was to establish christian missions on indian lands (funded by the country BTW).
1) The pledge was written by a Baptist minister Francis Bellamy with the original text
In 1924 required you to pledge allegiance to the United States of America (not required before)
In 1942 the government recognized the pledge
In 1954 the courts added 'under God'.
2) Since the pledge was not created by the government it is as maleable as the courts want it to be. This is an issue that I'm sure they didn't want to tackle as well, because recognizing the pledge is the equivalent of picking a school fight song - it has the same level of usefulness.
3) The whole secular diesm thing is not accurate. There were a large number of protestants involved in the founding of the country. In fact many of them came here to escape religious persecution. In reality the founding fathers WERE religious as the opened up the first congress with a prayer and one of the acts that was performed at the first congress was to establish christian missions on indian lands (funded by the country BTW).
Phoenix
Member
Kuramu said:
Well this is where it gets tricky because the establishment clause goes both ways. The purpose of the establishment clause was to prevent the establishment and funding of a state religions as was all the rage in other countries at the time. The establishment clause as written prohibits the establishment of a state religions AND prohibits the state from preventing one from practicing religious beliefs.
Another point to make is that the pledge is voluntary (in the school systems that I'm familiar with). Unless you are coerced into saying it, the supreme court generally tries to stay out of things.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
"Another point to make is that the pledge is voluntary (in the school systems that I'm familiar with). Unless you are coerced into saying it, the supreme court generally tries to stay out of things."
Well, I'd sure like to be the one kid in the class not saying it, what with people saying "Like i've always said, if you can't look at the American flag and say a few words, get the FUCK out of my country."
Well, I'd sure like to be the one kid in the class not saying it, what with people saying "Like i've always said, if you can't look at the American flag and say a few words, get the FUCK out of my country."
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
When Congress passed the act that added the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, the act stated that the hope was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon
the Creator
[and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism."
When President Dwight D. Eisenhower passed the bill 50 years ago today, he said that from then on, "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
When President Dwight D. Eisenhower passed the bill 50 years ago today, he said that from then on, "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
Phoenix
Member
Mega Man's Electric Sheep said:
And there is the biggest problem. Does protecting one childs desire to not say the pledge/pray trump others desire to say the pledge/pray. THAT is at the heart of many of these issues and is one of the biggest reasons why its so hard to resolve the situation.
Phoenix said:
But this shouldn't be an issue under a government backed institution. The fact that you are mentioning the pledge as pledge/pray is just the main point of it. It's a pledge to our country, not to any religious institution.
Yes, let's outright separate children from atheist people from the rest of the children so that super conservative religious parents can start telling their children to stay away from those that don't recite the pledge. This is certainly a solution to keep a country united.
-jinx- said:
What if we define god as that which nothing greater can be concieved. This really is not a negation as it is equivilent to that which is the greatest thing that can be concieved. This would give attributes to god such as omnipotence, which is the ability to do all that is possible (there is no negation here), and omniscience, which is knowing all that is the case (once again there is no negation). You write that god is not limited in his knowledge. I write that god knows all that is the case. They say the same thing, do they not? What's the difference? Why is saying that god knows all that is the case ill-formed?
Comparing this to a shirt that is "not blue" is wrong. We should instead compare this to a shirt that is "not any color other than blue." That is a more similar statement.
sorry for rambling.
Anyway, from the definition of god you can say that god exists. It is greater to exist in actuality than the mind alone and, since god is the greatest possible being (and it is possible for god to exist) god must exist in both the mind and actuality.
shoplifter
Member
Phoenix said:
Then send them to a private school.
Its not the same, because the Pledge is being lead by the school and teachers. A school cant run a prayer session, or support prayer in school (see Engel v. Vitale, Lee v. Weisman, etc.) Hell, students cant even vote to have a prayer read in support of a school (see Santa Fe School District v. Doe.) Now, kids can on their own say whatever prayer they want to, but when its being conducted by a government institution, its a completely different issue.Phoenix said:
If the Pledge was something made up and said by one school and was challenged, there is no way it would pass the Lemon Test.
Phoenix
Member
Matt said:
Engel v Vitale is different because it relates to starting off the school day with a prayer that was drafted by school administrators. Clearly that would be in violation. The pledge (which some people consider a prayer) is much more ambiguous and as such a move to remove the words "under God" from it would immediately meet opposition from the other side who could (successfully) argue that not being able to say it impacts their first ammendment rights.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
Has anyone ever worked at Wal-Mart? Every day before a shift, they do a chant. "W-A-L-SQUIGGLYTHING-M-A-R-T!"
I just mention this because I find ritualistic practices such as this puzzling. Most people seem to do it because they are told to, not because they want to. They teacher says stand for the pledge or whatever....
Here in Canada, our national Anthem says "God keep our land glorious and free", but I've seen a lot of schools just play an instrumental of this.
Of course, when I was in elementary school, I had to say "Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be they name. Thy kingdom come, etc etc" every morning in school. This was in the 80's! I wasn't remotely religious, but I said it anyway. The only thing that made me stand out was when a guy came to class to give us bibles. He asked us if anyone didn't believe in the devil, and I was the only one in the class who raised his hand.
All of this is sorta off topic, but this has been my experience with religion in schools. I imagine noone would have given me a hard time for not saying the God stuff, but I live in Canada where patriotism isn't enforced under penalty of ejection from the country.
I just mention this because I find ritualistic practices such as this puzzling. Most people seem to do it because they are told to, not because they want to. They teacher says stand for the pledge or whatever....
Here in Canada, our national Anthem says "God keep our land glorious and free", but I've seen a lot of schools just play an instrumental of this.
Of course, when I was in elementary school, I had to say "Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be they name. Thy kingdom come, etc etc" every morning in school. This was in the 80's! I wasn't remotely religious, but I said it anyway. The only thing that made me stand out was when a guy came to class to give us bibles. He asked us if anyone didn't believe in the devil, and I was the only one in the class who raised his hand.
All of this is sorta off topic, but this has been my experience with religion in schools. I imagine noone would have given me a hard time for not saying the God stuff, but I live in Canada where patriotism isn't enforced under penalty of ejection from the country.
Phoenix
Member
IJoel said:
Not in this instance. At the heard of the pledge case is whether or not the pledge is in fact a prayer due to the use of the words 'under God.' The Supreme Court has been able to dodge this bullet, but the issue remains to be resolved at some point in the future. Did it become a prayer in 1954 or not.
To the second issue you raise, that is incorrect. People in a government institution are not free to pray or to express religious beliefs in a variety of ways on public property. That was one of the root issues behind the 10 commandments debacle a few months ago. You couldn't even donate a religious piece to a government facility and expect them to do anything other than give it back to you despite how the people who work their might believe.
Phoenix said:
You are free to exercise your religious beliefs by praying in such a way that it doesn't reflect the views of the institution. The deal with the 10 commandments reflects views from that institution, which is not protected by the government due to the government/church separation.
I guess what I meant is that our freedoms allow us to pray to whatever, wherever, as long as it doesn't represent the institution. And with such freedom, your kids are protected to make a prayer at the school if they choose to.
Phoenix
Member
Matt said:
Wallace v. Jaffree was obvious as well and didn't pass the Lemon Test because it was obvious that the intent in adding a moment of silence at the beginning of the day was to allow prayer.
NONE of these are the same as the pledge because at issue is whether or not the pledge is in fact a prayer.
No, the issue is what is implied by the phrase Under God. Wallace v. Jaffree was decided because the moment of silence was an obvious lie, just as the idea that Under God is anything other then a support of religion is. How can you say that taking Under God out of the pledge would violate the 1st Amendment Rights of religious people, and then turn around and say its not really a prayer?Phoenix said:
I already stated the supposed legal justification for the phrase, but one can look at the original documentation for its addend and see thats not really its purpose.
Hey, me too (or at least have somewhat and will more.)Phoenix said:
And I hope your not taking anything I say as personal attacks or whatever. I think this is interesting too
Anyway, in Lynch v. Donnelly, a creche located in a municipality was found to not be in violation of the establishment clause, because it was not placed in a location of central importance and was more of a holiday decoration then a religious one. Then, in Allegheny County v. ACLU, a similar creche was found to violate the establishment clause, because it was placed in a position of central importance enough that it appears to be a support of religion by the Allegheny County Courthouse. It must be noted that this display also contained a Menorah, which was found to NOT violate the establishment clause, because the Menorah was not in a position of central importance. See, all about how its done.
It must also be noted that in Widmar v. Vincent the court specifically said that the use of otherwise free public facilities for religions functions cannot be denied to people, as long as the government has no direct involvement in the services themselfs.
Phoenix
Member
Matt said:
Becasue there are two sides to it. If it IS a prayer then a removal becomes a 1st ammendment violation. If it ISN'T a prayer (which is clearly what the courts are saying) then the word "God" has broader meanings in a legal context that go beyond the need to remove it from the pledge.
Now - the original purpose of the 'pledge' wasn't even as a pledge of allegience to the United States, so if we're going to go there then we must examine the pledge from its roots.
Tilde. It's a fucking tilde.
As far as this whole question goes; it's moot. The case should've never made it to the Supreme Court anyway because the man didn't have legal fucking custody of his child. Legally, it's the same thing as me picking a random 3rd grader and then trying to sue on their behalf.
The only reason the case got as far as it did is because it was the 9th circuit court and there was at least blood relation. The 9th circuit violated due process and the case got smacked down as a result.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled logic wrestling match.
Nathan
Phoenix
Member
Matt said:Hey, me too (or at least have somewhat and will more.)
And I hope your not taking anything I say as personal attacks or whatever. I think this is interesting too
Nah, I consider it good debate (though I wonder if anyone else is still reading)
The reason why I say that this is so 2 sided is that it all hinges entirely on whether or not the pledge can be considered a prayer. Otherwise you end up with judgements that are seemingly contradictory such as Minersville School District v. Gobitis which said that national unity was a sufficient enough reason to require students to salute the flag. Then in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette it was determined that requiring students to salute the flag was unconstitutional.
Depending on whether or not its a prayer will give entirely different opinions in the supreme court.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
"Tilde. It's a fucking tilde."
Hey man, don't tell me, tell them. I was too busy gritting my teeth so that I wouldn't laugh to actually do the chant. They were trying to hype us up about how much of a profit the store was making that week. Why should I care if my minimum wage pay is enabling WalMart to make a profit?
Hey man, don't tell me, tell them. I was too busy gritting my teeth so that I wouldn't laugh to actually do the chant.
They were trying to hype us up about how much of a profit the store was making that week. Why should I care if my minimum wage pay is enabling WalMart to make a profit?DJ Demon J
Banned
gblues said:
Wal-Mart is usually spelled like this, separated by a hyphen. The actual Wal-Mart logo is separated with a star:
And back on-topic, fuck religion.
Phoenix
Member
Matt said:
The courts didn't remove prayer from public schools - that's the point. There is no Supreme Court decisions which prohibits prayer in public schools. The government cannot determine when, where, how, and if students are allowed to pray. They prohibit it from being required or situations where people are coerced into praying - but they haven't and cannot remove prayer from schools.
If the pledge IS a prayer, however, that would mean that schools would not be able to lead students in saying it nor give students an opportunity to say it - even though it is not required.
SolidSnakex
Member
teepo said:
I remermber having to do that, it was a choice at my school too except if you didn't do it the teacher would call you out in front of everyone for not doing it. I still never did it, not because I didn't want to say it but because I was always sleeping aty the point in class (since it was always done before anything started).
DJ Demon J
Banned
teepo said:
IAWTP, fuck propaganda.
- Status