Llywelyn

This seems timely and while we have discussed related issues, the matter has never formally come up.

My thoughts are that I never wanted this to come before the supreme court, because I can see only bad things coming from it. If the court rules in favor of keeping the phrase, we have indelibly (at least unless they reverse themselves--not bloody likely) added G-d where religion has no business.

On the other hand, if it is struck down (which would be the correct thing to do) we are looking at the very real possibility of a constitutional amendment. I dislike that option more than I dislike the court upholding it.

The third possibility is, of course, a tie or a dismissal. These have the same consequences as above, depending on exactly how its worded (IANAL, but I believe a tie would go to the lower court--which declared it unconstitutional--while I believe a dismissal would remove that decision but only delay the inevitable before someone with better grounds challenges again).


Ellen Goodman has made some excellent points on the subject.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi..._little_words/

aniron

mk im in the middle on this one. I think everybody should have the choice to say it or not say it. I personally dont say the pledge for two reasons
1. I dont like that god was brought into it. I think it should be Seperation of Church and State. Some people could be offended by haveing to say that.

2. I dont feel comfortable saying it. Im not proud of how my country has been ran lately and i dont agree with the wars etc. Thus i opt out not to say it because i do not pledge to a country that endorses violence.Nor do i pledge to a country that is being ran by an idiot.

Sheep

The Supreme Court should rule that The Pledge of Allegiance is stupid anyway and just abolish the whole thing.


Presumably, couldn't schoolchildren who have the brainpower to memorize the entire Pledge also remember that they've already pledged allegiance without having to remind themselves by reciting the whole thing in its entirety every freaking day?

Head

Why do American children have to pledge allegiance to their country, "under God" or otherwise? It seems a little paranoid to me. It sorta makes me think that your Powers That Be look upon schools as "Training grounds for Good Little Americans", which I find worrying. i've never been asked to pledge allegiance to anything in my life. (Unless you count signing the Official Secrets Act)

Slightly off topic - Do you guys have the option of taking a purely secular Affirmation in court, rather than the traditional 'swear on the Bible' malarkey? I know it's a side issue, but it points to a certain mentality here. We can... (which is just as well, or the last time I was called to give evidence, i would have been unable in all good conscience to do so).

diviphon

Do students even still say the Pledge of Allegiance? I don't remember when, but I know we just stopped saying it in school. I think that the best way to solve this problem is by removing it from public schools. It doesn't fit anymore. The whole pledge thing is kind of creepy if you think about it. It's a little too Adolf Hitlerish for me. However, I'm afraid that it will go so far that children who actually want to say "under God" will be forbidden, because that is where our country is going, and I think that is very sad. There has to be something in the middle.

E-Unit

I actually had to write an essay for school about this. Most kids in their essays believed that "under God" should stay in the pledge. Personally, I don't think it should be in the pledge. Some people say that if you don't like it, don't say it. I think that is absolute BS because the pledge is supposed to represent ALL Americans. If some people don't feel comfortable saying it, something is obviously wrong with it.

I don't know why Truman decided to add "under God" to the pledge in the first place...

cruithne

I wholeheartedly agree. First of all, the Pledge was written by a socialist and written during the time (1892) that the Prussian model of education had been adopted finally in all 50 states. The practice of standing at attention and reciting those same monotonous jingoistic words every day is part of a system that promotes conformity over individuality.

From http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Gee/gee8.html:
By 1889, U.S. Commissioner of Education William Torrey Harris was assuring railroad magnate Collis Huntington that American schools were “scientifically designed” to prevent “over-education” from occurring. In 1896, John Dewey at the University of Chicago said “independent, self-reliant people were a counter-productive anachronism in the collective society of the future.” Dewey went on to assert that, in modern society, “people would be defined by their associations – not by their own individual accomplishments.”

Such was a long leap toward state socialism, a vision that runs counter to the traditional American purpose – to prepare the individual to be self-reliant. The underlying premise of Prussian schooling, and therefore that of the American system, is that the government is the true parent of all children, i.e., the State is sovereign over the family.

And the movement to add "under God" to the Pledge stemmed from the Cold War. Since the USSR and Marxism were atheistic, the movement wanted to have the US declared a religious nation. This movement couldn't understand that selcularism and atheism were not the same animal. And how ironic that a pledge written by a socialist was crammed down kids' throats in the name of anti-socialism!

Now those most adamant toward keeping the Pledge as is give the argument that the US has a "Judeo-Christian" foundation (as if the two religions are not different), but there's another thread for that.

Whether two words remain in the Pledge is only important if it raises the bigger question of whether or not to continue this--as my link confirms--counterproductive and anti-individual compulsory education system.

Fallen Angelia

All that the "majority rules" mentality achieves is to crush all minorities and anyone who is different. historically, 90% of americans don't know what they are doing. the point of the constitution is to protect the rights of anyone against the ignorance of everyone. this is only a case between following the constitution, giving the majority what they want.

Llywelyn

Hence why Democracy devolves into mob rule.

Lowercountry

But that is what our form of government is loosely based upon - majority rules. In fact I find it alarming that, say, 10% of the country, could dictate to the other 90%. There are no grounds for that reversal.