Federal Court Rules "God" in Pledge Constitutional

[iNow]

Objective evidence that people are harmed by the use of the word "god" in the pledge, not including emotional or psychological harm that is derived by the recipient but not intended as such.

I'll tell you what. You first try responding to my argument on constitutionality and I will consider exploring the red herring of harm with you depending on how well you do. Deal?

 

That's just it. From the beginning, I've framed this issue in it's real terms... Constitutionality. Let's focus there, shall we?

[Pangloss]

I'll tell you what. You first try responding to my argument on constitutionality and I will consider exploring the red herring of harm with you depending on how well you do. Deal?

 

That's just it. From the beginning, I've framed this issue in it's real terms... Constitutionality. Let's focus there, shall we?

 

Eh? I didn't ask you for anything, I just answered your question. I don't want something from you, though you apparently need something from me. You seem to want me to change my opinion, and if I don't do so then you'll heap ridicule. I'm not really interested.

 

But since you've asked me another question, I will certainly answer it, in this case by pointing out that I already have, when I said this:

 

Or they just don't subscribe to your interpretation of how that word should apply to a democratic government.

 

And:

 

Secular presence in government does not automatically denote or require lack of religion in any and all all aspects of government, therefore it's not hypocritical to have a secular government in which official documents carry the occasional footprint of one religion or another.

 

You went on to state a perfectly valid opinion about what the court decided (in this post). I don't see an unanswered question for me there, just this statement:

 

You are welcome to disagree and hold a counter opinion if you wish, but both you and the court are wrong on this issue if you do.

 

(shrug) Then in your opinion I'm wrong. More power to you. Not every argument has to be resolved, you know.

[iNow]

My assertion: The governments insertion of "under god" into the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional.

 

Your mandate: Prove my assertion wrong.

 

 

I dunno... Maybe I should type the word shrug to show how serious I am about discussing the issues rationally and fairly, without resorting to derisive, demeaning and debasing tactics.

[bascule]

My assertion: The governments insertion of "under god" into the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional.

 

My assertion, which has gone unanswered, is a lot more specific than that:

 

Mandatory recitation of a pledge which specifies that America is "under god" forces one to profess a belief in a deity and therefore violates the limits set forth in Everson v. Board of Education

 

[fyi]

[jackson33]

bascule; Here would be my answer to both your question and iNow, both correct with my explanation....

 

The Pledge of Allegiance, no less IMO, than calling the President "Mr. President" or a thousand others acts or ceremonies (raising of the flag, 13 gun salute etc.) are based on tradition that developed over the history of the US and before.

 

While Benjamin Harrison (1892), offered a 'Proclamation', encouraging Public Schools to recite the pledge, there would have been and was not any enforcement, accepted and then becoming 'Traditional'.

 

However, in 1954, when Congress 'Passed an act' (a law), inserting wording into the Pledge "Under God", implied enforcement became an issue, not only for the Pledge, but the wording of "under God", THEN giving the individual legal standing in the US Court system, otherwise said; That a tradition would then be by law and enforceable. Since then, both the "under God" or the forced reciting of the pledge itself have been found unconstitutional, or that forcing ANY individual to comply is illegal under the US Constitution.

 

Personally, it would be my opinion, President Eisenhower (introduced the idea to Congress), not the "McCarthy Era" was the foundation for the act, based on a personal viewpoint of a Religious viewpoint and the act itself, then was unconstitutional. Even if it were the McCarthy anti Communism (Godless) scenario, the Constitution would prevent any National display of a Religion to combat another National view of religion.

[Pangloss]

My assertion: The governments insertion of "under god" into the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional.

 

Your mandate: Prove my assertion wrong.

 

 

My mandate? Why is that my mandate, iNow?

 

 

 

My assertion, which has gone unanswered, is a lot more specific than that:

 

Mandatory recitation of a pledge which specifies that America is "under god" forces one to profess a belief in a deity and therefore violates the limits set forth in Everson v. Board of Education

 

Can you show us any places where the recitation of the pledge is mandatory?

[bascule]

Can you show us any places where the recitation of the pledge is mandatory?

 

Maybe I'm just confused, but I was under the impression this case involved a state law mandating recitation of the pledge...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Nope. From the court's decision:

Lemon’s second prong is also met. The effect of California Education Code § 52720 and the School District’s Policy is stated quite clearly in each: each school shall conduct “appropriate patriotic exercises” daily. There is no mention of anything religious in either. Further, although the recitation of the Pledge “shall satisfy” this requirement, it is not mandated under California law. Schools could decide to have the children learn and recite a different historical document each week, or participate in another patriotic activity, such as working on a project to help the nation. Recitation of the Pledge is just one of many ways to satisfy this patriotic requirement.

[iNow]

My mandate? Why is that my mandate, iNow?

 

Because your position in this thread has been one counter to my own. You have openly supported the opposing view. If you're unwilling to defend your position or attempt to negate mine, then what's the point of posting at all?

 

I have laid out why I maintain the position I do. You have repeatedly stated that you disagree and think that "under god" in our pledge is acceptable. Now would be an appropriate time for you to support your disagreement with something relevant to the constitutional argument put forth in earlier posts.

[Pangloss]

I have laid out why I maintain the position I do.

 

As have I.

 

 

My mandate? Why is that my mandate' date=' iNow? [/quote'']Because your position in this thread has been one counter to my own.

 

Please point to the section of the rules in which a response is "mandated" when a member posts an opinion that's different from that of another member.

 

 

You have openly supported the opposing view.

 

That is not an action that warrants recrimination, ridicule, or demands of "mandatory" responses. In fact opposing views are something we actively encourage on this forum.

 

 

Now would be an appropriate time for you to support your disagreement with something relevant to the constitutional argument put forth in earlier posts.

 

I did. I'll post it again, for the third time:

 

Does anyone even know what the word "secular" means anymore? Apparently' date=' our courts don't. [/quote']

 

Or they just don't subscribe to your interpretation of how that word should apply to a democratic government.

 

Secular presence in government does not automatically denote or require lack of religion in any and all all aspects of government' date=' therefore it's not hypocritical to have a secular government in which official documents carry the occasional footprint of one religion or another.

[/quote']

 

Following which you posted a perfectly valid opinion:

 

As Mr.Skeptic correctly reinforced above, our governments action of inserting god (clearly, a religious idea and concept specific to particular religions) into our currency and into our pledge of allegiance gives preference to the religion of some... specifically at the expense of those who worship many gods or none whatsoever.

 

A perfectly reasonable opinion and a good argument, which I happen to not agree with.

 

And then you welcomed me to disagree:

 

You are welcome to disagree and hold a counter opinion if you wish

 

I do.

 

Do you have any other questions for me?

[iNow]

Yes, I have a question for you.

 

Are you capable of making even a single point which rebuts the argument that having "under god" as part of the pledge is unconstitutional, or are you content to continue pretending that all opinions are equal (even when one of them is wholly unsupported and lacking in merit)?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Please point to the section of the rules in which a response is "mandated" when a member posts an opinion that's different from that of another member.

 

I believe iNow appeals to rules much higher than ours:

 

 

http://xkcd.com/386/

[Pangloss]

Are you capable of making even a single point which rebuts the argument that having "under god" as part of the pledge is unconstitutional, or are you content to continue pretending that all opinions are equal (even when one of them is wholly unsupported and lacking in merit)?

 

That is exactly what I am going to keep saying. But there's nothing "pretend" about it. All opinions are equal on this forum. I believe in equality, much like someone I know who recently said:

 

Since when is it not enough to defend equality for its own sake, even though the inequality appears minor to a few outside observers?

 

As for the first part of your question, I don't believe that opinions need rebutting. Neither your opinion nor mine is objectively established as fact, and therefore in need of rebuttal. I've stated why I feel differently, I have answered all questions put to me, and I have remained open to further discussion.

 

I believe there is value in the sharing of opinions even when no conclusions or reached, and no minds are changed. The value comes from gradual, long-term understanding one another and the seeking common ground.

 

I understand if you feel differently.

[Mr Skeptic]

All opinions are equal on this forum.

 

However, things stop being opinions when they extend past yourself yet are expressed with certainty.

[toastywombel]

That is exactly what I am going to keep saying. But there's nothing "pretend" about it. All opinions are equal on this forum. I believe in equality, much like someone I know who recently said:

 

 

 

As for the first part of your question, I don't believe that opinions need rebutting. Neither your opinion nor mine is objectively established as fact, and therefore in need of rebuttal. I've stated why I feel differently, I have answered all questions put to me, and I have remained open to further discussion.

 

I believe there is value in the sharing of opinions even when no conclusions or reached, and no minds are changed. The value comes from gradual, long-term understanding one another and the seeking common ground.

 

I understand if you feel differently.

 

I agree with the above, the access to opinions on the forum should be equal, and it should be left up to the author to decide which opinion he agrees with the most.

 

On that note, the "under god" part of our pledge is not constitutional, I mean it is pretty blatant.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

However, even though it is unconstitutional (which doesn't totally discount an idea, its good to try and be practical as opposed to governing under old documents) I don't think it is a battle worth fighting. There are many pressing issues facing us today.

 

Look at it simply, this under god in the constitution debate is a group of people arguing with another group of people over what jumble of words is appropriate for/and to represent a society such as ours. Really its rather archaic, we make a verbal sound, like any other animal, that represents our tribe/society/group. It is truly a small aspect of everyday life.

[iNow]

That is exactly what I am going to keep saying. But there's nothing "pretend" about it. All opinions are equal on this forum. I believe in equality, much like someone I know who recently said:

Right then. You will deem opinions which are supported and defended as wholly equal with those which are put forth with no support or justification whatsoever, or which are even demonstrably wrong, and you will then assert that you are doing a good thing for this forum by doing so.

 

We've had this discussion in numerous other threads already... where it has been explained to you the dangers of allowing unsupported opinion to rest on the same footing as justified and supported opinions... where it has been discussed how nobody here is talking about silencing people... where it has been discussed that we are merely asking for the elementary requirement that posters support their posts and address questions with something of relevance and substance when it is asked of them... instead of allowing them to say, "that's my opinion" as if that's somehow enough.

 

You have a chance here to really defend a meaningful principle... to lead by example and ensure that opinions which are put forth get supported with something more than "that's just what I think, that's why"... You have a chance to acknowledge that... NO, not all opinions are equal... a chance to bring this subforum more inline with the rules and guidelines enforced in other topic arenas at the site.

 

If you choose not to... and if you continue to offer up this strawman of an idea that anyone is trying to silence anyone else, then you will ultimately do a great disservice to this area of the site. You will open the door for debate tactics taken directly from the playbook of creationists, and you will afford them undeserved protection as a result of this misguided principle of yours... and you will do so at the expense of those members who use facts and reality to justify their stance.

 

No... All opinions are NOT equal. You can repeat yourself on that assertion until you are blue in the face, but it won't suddenly become valid or accurate. On this planet where we exist, opinions which are supported with fact, substance, and logic will nearly ALWAYS be better than those which are simply put forth as opinion alone and left at that.

 

I don't know why I'm bothering to type this, though. It's already been covered in numerous other threads, and apparently it fell on deaf ears/blind eyes then, too.

 

I've opened a separate thread so other members can contribute to this exchange without further derailing the existing conversation. Go here to participate: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50100

 

 

---

[line[/hr]

I don't think it is a battle worth fighting. There are many pressing issues facing us today.

 

Look at it simply, this under god in the constitution debate is a group of people arguing with another group of people over what jumble of words is appropriate for/and to represent a society such as ours. Really its rather archaic, we make a verbal sound, like any other animal, that represents our tribe/society/group. It is truly a small aspect of everyday life.

I tend to disagree. Correcting this issue doesn't suddenly mean we cannot focus on other things in parallel. It's not like we must choose one at the cost of the other, nor is action mutually exclusive (by example, it's not like we can't engage in operations in Afghanistan or try to improve the economy should we decide to try removing the "under god" segment of the pledge and return it to the form it was in prior to the 1950s).

 

Additionally, this is not an argument merely about religious words or the vocalization of sound, and I would never phrase this discussion in that way (just like earlier in the thread I tried to remind readers not to focus solely on the offense they feel). This battle is rooted in a desire to keep religion out of our politics, to endorse the mandates outlined in our constitution, and to correct a previous wrong.

 

The addition of a religious concept (god) into a pledge which all children recite every single morning (while not compulsory, in practice, pretty much everyone says it) is in direct opposition to our constitutional protections (primarily those articulated in the Establishment Clause and reinforced through multiple SCOTUS decisions such as Emerson and also Lemon). Children are free to use these words whenever they please, but our government is not equally free to insert them into its documents in this manner.

 

In addition to the complete disregard for our constitutional laws and protections, this phrase (which I stipulate many people find innocuous) is flagrantly disrespectful to all US citizens who do not ascribe to the monotheistic belief systems, and also flagrantly disrespectful to all citizens who happen to give a damn about the rights explicitly protected through the words of our founding fathers in our governing charter.

 

It's not about words... not for me, and not for a lot of people like me. This is about equality, reinforcing the wall of separation between religion and state, and improving our collective futures by correcting a past wrong... ensuring that ALL citizens of our country have available to them the same constitutional protections... not just those who happen to believe in god.

Edited March 21, 2010 by iNow

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The addition of a religious concept (god) into a pledge which all children recite every single morning (while not compulsory, in practice, pretty much everyone says it) is in direct opposition to our constitutional protections (primarily those articulated in the Establishment Clause and reinforced through multiple SCOTUS decisions such as Emerson and also Lemon). Children are free to use these words whenever they please, but our government is not equally free to insert them into its documents in this manner.

If schools gave students the option of alternately singing a Hindu hymn (do they have hymns? I have no idea) instead of the Pledge, would that also violate the establishment clause, despite being optional?

[iNow]

If schools gave students the option of alternately singing a Hindu hymn (do they have hymns? I have no idea) instead of the Pledge, would that also violate the establishment clause, despite being optional?

If the United States Congress wrote that hymn and treated it as an oath of loyalty to the flag and to republic, and if congressional sessions opened with the swearing of that hymn, then... YES... It too would violate the Establishment Clause.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So is your problem with schoolchildren reciting the hymn or with Congress making it "official" by using it?

[iNow]

So is your problem with schoolchildren reciting the hymn or with Congress making it "official" by using it?

My answer is, Yes.

You've presented a false dichotomy.

 

However, I've focused my argument on the congressional side since I have the constitution to support that particular position, and AFAIC that is enough to correct any downstream impacts such as the effect on school children you've referenced.

[Pangloss]

However, things stop being opinions when they extend past yourself yet are expressed with certainty.

 

I agree. I have to constantly remind myself to state my opinions in such a manner that they won't be taken as facts, and I expect everyone else to do the same. By the same token, I think you have to be cautious about assuming that a factually-stated post in THIS subforum is NOT an opinion, and give the poster a chance to explain themselves further.

 

It's about the conversation, not the conversion.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Right then. You will deem opinions which are supported and defended as wholly equal with those which are put forth with no support or justification whatsoever, or which are even demonstrably wrong, and you will then assert that you are doing a good thing for this forum by doing so.

 

You've changed the subject. We weren't talking about whether people should be challenged for their opinions, we were talking about why your opinion is more valuable that those of others, why you require them to change their opinions or stop posting, and why you ostracize them before this community.

 

The entire leadership team supports the concept of challenging opinions. This is well established, and I am 100% in accord with that policy.

 

 

where it has been discussed that we are merely asking for the elementary requirement that posters support their posts and address questions with something of relevance and substance when it is asked of them... instead of allowing them to say, "that's my opinion" as if that's somehow enough.

 

That position has not been stated by me in this thread. That has not what I have done in this thread with my opinion. I've answered every single question you've asked of me. I've supported my opinion with facts that are not in dispute (the 9th circuit's ruling). You've responded by last-wording me and ignoring my arguments.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.