Pledge of Allegiance ban upheld in courts

http://www.msnbc.com/news/878913.asp?0cv=CB10

The 9th District court that originally ruled in favor of the Pledge of Allegiance ban isn't going to reconsider their ruling, meaning the Pledge ban is currently upheld.

Note that the Pledge is only banned in the 9 western states that fall under that district.

Looks like the DOJ is going to take this to the Supreme Court.

[CandyAss]

Patriotism is a sin...and not to step on any toes, but so is much of religion.

[xryptic]

Being raised Catholic, I am so anti-religious it hurts at times, and don't even go on about misguided "patriotism."
Still, this is a horrible thing, WTF is the government doing banning things like this, and wasting money people pay in taxes for it? I don't believe any person, student, whatever, should ever be forced to say the pledge(I was once suspended from school for refusing, the funny thing was that when I got back I still refused and they didn't bother suspending me again,) but the less governemnt interferance we have in our lives the better and a ban on this is absolutely ridiculous.

They didn't ban the pledge outright. they banned government-run institutions (schools, etc) from being able to make people say the pledge.

The reason for this is the terminology "under god" dictates government support for religion, which violates the church / state separation principals implemented by the US Consitution.

Also, it isn't really the "government" doing the banning. A private citizen brought the case to court, because he was an athiest and didn't want his daughter saying "under god" in school.

Most higher powers within the government have *strongly* opposed the ban. This includes all of the House of Representatives, the Senate, Bush and his cabinet.

...

One thing to note, the Pledge of Allegiance (as originally written) never actually contained the words "under god".

Those words were added to the pledge in 1954 by Congress.

1954 was during the age of McCarthyism (when the US was terrorized of Communists, and branded numerous innocent US citizens as such in witchhunts)

One of the primary motivations for adding those words to the pledge was to unify the nation against the Soviet Union, a communist regime that was considered godless. They thought that by branding the communists as godless it would help drum up support against them.

...the point is, lots of people are complaining about how we're "destroying tradition" and "ruining a time-honored practice". This isn't really true. The pledge was written in the 1890's and never contained that terminology. We changed the pledge (which could be argued as ruining a time-honored practice as it went against the original motivations of the pledge author) for political reasons, nothing more.

just some thoughts

[xryptic]

In that case, it's all good, I never did like those stupid you gotta say it rules.

And I know a private citizen obviously brought the case to court, but if it had been a case as ridiculous as them outright banning students from saying it(which in my opinion is like banning students from praying in school, which has been attempted before) then even if it were a private citizen I would expect a judge to throw the case out, unfortunately judges often allow cases to proceed that are in direct contradiction to freedoms given in the constitution.

[Edwin Watson]

Originally posted by Oblique
They didn't ban the pledge outright. they banned government-run institutions (schools, etc) from being able to make people say the pledge.

The reason for this is the terminology "under god" dictates government support for religion, which violates the church / state separation principals implemented by the US Consitution.

Also, it isn't really the "government" doing the banning. A private citizen brought the case to court, because he was an athiest and didn't want his daughter saying "under god" in school.

Most higher powers within the government have *strongly* opposed the ban. This includes all of the House of Representatives, the Senate, Bush and his cabinet.

...

One thing to note, the Pledge of Allegiance (as originally written) never actually contained the words "under god".

Those words were added to the pledge in 1954 by Congress.

1954 was during the age of McCarthyism (when the US was terrorized of Communists, and branded numerous innocent US citizens as such in witchhunts)

One of the primary motivations for adding those words to the pledge was to unify the nation against the Soviet Union, a communist regime that was considered godless. They thought that by branding the communists as godless it would help drum up support against them.

...the point is, lots of people are complaining about how we're "destroying tradition" and "ruining a time-honored practice". This isn't really true. The pledge was written in the 1890's and never contained that terminology. We changed the pledge (which could be argued as ruining a time-honored practice as it went against the original motivations of the pledge author) for political reasons, nothing more.

just some thoughts

You just said everything I was gonna say. Very nice and props on the history lesson. Impressed.

WarLord, you are correct that the case is about voluntary recital of the pledge. I misspoke in my original post when I used the terminology "make people say the pledge". Thanks for pointing that out.

However, regarding "nobody is ever going to change the pledge", and "The issue is not "under God"....the issue is whether a voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, NOT compulsary, with the words "under God" being part of that recitation, abrogates the rights of the child in question", you are quite *incorrect*.

First of all, the plaintiff's original case specifically asked the president to "alter, modify or repeal" the pledge by removing the words "Under God". Of course, the President has no authority to do this, but there is the obvious desire to potentially change the pledge text itself. But we'll get to that in a minute.

I've read the court decision (available here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newo...56BE3007FEE32/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement) and it says that:

1. The plaintiff does indeed have authority to challenge the 1954 act adding "under god" to the pledge.

2. In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act adding
the words "under God" to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD's policy
and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with
the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause.

They also state that the 1954 act was insitituted with the sole purpose of advancing a "support of the existence and moral authority of God, while denying atheistic and materialistic concepts".

For anyone curious about the establishment clause,

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government's endorsement or advancement not only of one particular religion at the expense of other religions, but also of religion at the expense of atheism.

...

anyways, back to removing "under god" from the pledge. The 9th district court states that not only does the President not have authority to remove these words, but that they don't either. However, they rule (in addition to the arguments about the constitutionality above), that:

The mere enactment of the 1954 Act in its particular context constitutes a religious recitation policy that interferes with Newdow's right to direct the religious education of his daughter. Accordingly, we hold that Newdow has standing to challenge the 1954 Act.

...notice the last sentence. They're saying that the plaintiff does indeed have authority to challenge the 1954 act adding "under god" to the pledge.

...

Therefore, WarLord, the issue is not solely "whether a voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, NOT compulsary, with the words "under God" being part of that recitation, abrogates the rights of the child in question" as you previously stated.

The plaintiff has the clear goal of changing the text of the pledge itself, by posing challenge towards the 1954 act that added these words. The 9th district court agrees that he has the authority to make such a challenge.

You don't even have to go deep into the court decision to find this, as the very first paragraph says:

"Newdow argues that the addition of these words by a 1954 federal statute to the previous version of the Pledge of Allegiance (which made no reference to God) and the daily recitation in the classroom of the Pledge of Allegiance, with the added words included, by his daughter's public school teacher are violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

He's arguing against both daily recitation of the pledge (with the words included) *AND* the 1954 federal statute adding those words.

Therefore, WarLord, I ask *you* to re-read the court decision.

[thefncrow]

My first reaction to the ruling was that, while really something I think should have been done, it was such a little minor thing that it really didn't matter at all.

Then I saw the protests and bitching by people trying to get it back in. I had misjudged this. I thought it was something small, that wouldn't matter, and the fact that so many people went out and complained about the court's decision tells me that not only was this decision the right thing, it was a NECESSARY thing.

Apparently, these people really do want to continue mixing church and state, and if that's the will of the people, well, thank god (heheheh) for the attitudes of the judiciary and the first amendment.

This has been decided on precedent from Engle v. Vitale. New York formerly had a rule that the school day would begin with a prayer. This was a voluntary prayer, but the court ruled it unconstitutional, because of the peer pressure factor it placed on anyone who would not pray. The Pledge is a similar issue, for now. Knock out the words 'under God', that accursed highly unconstitional phrase which was added after lobbying by Knights of Columbus (a catholic organization), and one which led Eisenhower to say:

Quote Eisenhower, then President:
"These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.

In every sense of the way, the change in the pledge was religiously motivated, which means that an argument that it is a secular statement is complete bullshit.

[per1sh]

warlord....? 7 hours with no retort? IS HELL FREEZING OVER? AAAHHHHHHHH