Should "under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

Mesquite writes:

Quote:

Judge Foxfyre,
Rather than ranting willy nilly, why not read the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and comment on whatever wording in the opinion you disagree with. It's really not that difficult to understand. The Ungodly Opinion

Sorry that you consider my expressing an opinion to be 'ranting willy nilly'. I believe I have read every formal opinion written on this subject. Some I agree with. Some I do not. I do not owe allegience or pay homage to judges however and reserve my constitutional right to disagree with judicial opinion when I believe an opinion is flawed. Don't you do that?

0 Replies

The Ninth Circuit Court's opinion will be over-ruled (as they typically are) but that won't have anything to do with the Pledge itself. IMO, the USSC will rule that Nedow never had standing to file the case to begin with.

The 9th ruled Nedow had standing under Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. ("Parents have a right to direct the religious upbringing of their children and, on that basis, have standing to protect their right.") and Grove v. Mead Sch. Dist. (("Appellants have standing to challenge alleged violations of the establishment clause of the First Amendment if they are directly affected by use of [the challenged book ] in the English curriculum. [Appellant] has standing as a parent whose right to direct the religious training of her child is allegedly affected.")")

But Nedow has no standing in this case. He was stripped of all custody of his daughter and SOLE custody and ALL decision making authority regarding her education (including religious training) was granted by a court to her mother. Nedow DOESN'T have the authority or right to direct anything with regard to his daughter.

NOTE: Nedow did have joint custody/decision making authority when he first filed his case but a year later lost that and his wife was granted sole custody and decision making authority.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Mesquite writes:

Quote:
Judge Foxfyre,
Rather than ranting willy nilly, why not read the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and comment on whatever wording in the opinion you disagree with. It's really not that difficult to understand. The Ungodly Opinion

Sorry that you consider my expressing an opinion to be 'ranting willy nilly'. I believe I have read every formal opinion written on this subject. Some I agree with. Some I do not. I do not owe allegience or pay homage to judges however and reserve my constitutional right to disagree with judicial opinion when I believe an opinion is flawed. Don't you do that?

Sorry that you considered my expressing my opinion in another thread to be providing "comfort and encouragement to the terrorists" also.

I do note that neither you nor fishin' have expressed what part of the opinion of the Ninth Circuit that you disagree with.

0 Replies

Mesquite writes:

Quote:

"I do note that neither you nor fishin' have expressed what part of the opinion of the Ninth Circuit that you disagree with."

It was a lengthy opinion but the thrust was that 1) the phrase "under God' was not added until 1954, 2) the purpose of adding the phrase was to interject a particular religious viewpoint into the pledge, and 3) the athiest who brought the suit maintained his child was harmed being required to recite the phrase in a state-run school.

I agree with the part that it was included in 1954. That's when it went in and everybody had a tough time re-memorizing the pledge to say it with the phrase 'under God' in it. I can even agree that the intent of the proposed phrase was to interject a religious viewpoint into the pledge. But, as in most things, what viewpoint is expressed is in the eye of the beholder. There is nothing in the pledge that specifies what one means by reciting any phrase of the pledge. Even the word 'allegience' is ambiguous. I would imagine any 10 people writing a definition for that word as expressed in the Pledge would come up with some widely diverse ideas about it. I cannot agree that any child is harmed by reciting the pledge or having it recited in his/her presence.

The wording I disagree with in the Ninth Circuit opinion is the wording that declares the Pledge unconstitutional. For reasons I have given in several posts in this string, I do not think it is. I think the Ninth Circuit is dead wrong on this one. We'll see soon enough whether the Supreme Court concurs with the Ninth Circuit which, in my opinion, has come up with a number of questionable decisions over the years.

In the case of the Ninth Circuit opinion re the pledge, even the Democrat Senator Tom Daschle called it 'nuts' Smile

0 Replies

The bottom line is, when Congress specifically amended the Pledge in 1954 to add the 'under God' language, they were doing it to promote religion. That's pretty much the heart of what the Establishment Clause is designed to prevent.

0 Replies

But this is where we can respectfully disagree. The intent may have been to include a religious expression but that is not in any way foreign to the history or social makeup of this country. It does not establish any form of religion or require one to believe or not believe in any particular religion. That's why it is not unconsitutional. There is no establishment of religion.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

I do note that neither you nor fishin' have expressed what part of the opinion of the Ninth Circuit that you disagree with.

I see you can't read so well. It's spelled out right there for you in the post right above the one where you posted this silliness. Nedow didn't have standing for this case to even remain in court.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

mesquite wrote:
I do note that neither you nor fishin' have expressed what part of the opinion of the Ninth Circuit that you disagree with.

I see you can't read so well. It's spelled out right there for you in the post right above the one where you posted this silliness. Nedow didn't have standing for this case to even remain in court.

Nothin wrong with my reading. I was getting at the fact that you expressed nothing about the opinion itself, ie how the phrase violated the establishment clause. By the way it is "Newdow".

0 Replies

Quote:

It does not establish any form of religion or require one to believe or not believe in any particular religion.

so I am guessing that the phrase "one nation under god" does not actually refer to "god"?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But this is where we can respectfully disagree. The intent may have been to include a religious expression but that is not in any way foreign to the history or social makeup of this country. It does not establish any form of religion or require one to believe or not believe in any particular religion. That's why it is not unconsitutional. There is no establishment of religion.

I don't think any wording could accomplish that "require one to believe or not believe".

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The history of the United States is checkered with efforts by many to interject into law their particular religious beliefs or lack thereof. I am as vigorous as any of you in resisting efforts of that kind.

It does not follow, however, that should a law (or custom) compliment or be in agreement with a particular religious belief that it is necessarily flawed or favors a religious tenet, and it certainly is not an establishment of religion.

Unless anybody can show me scientific or even empircal evidence that the words 'In God we trust' on coinage or the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegience is a requirement of any person, adult or child, to be religious or believe anything, or that children are so impressionable that the phrase causes them to rush willy nilly into the nearest church or send up prayers to whatever diety, or that teachers have license to interject a Jewish or Christian or Islamic or whatever diety into the phrase, then I maintain the phrases themselves are not unconstitutional.

That some are fanatically religious and some despise or object to being exposed to anything religious is not a concern of the Constitution other than to say everybody is entitled to his/her own belief.

Whether or not it influences anyone, it is very biased. By the same logic we could add "And we don't like black people" to the end of the pledge, and say that was okay, because nothing in the constitution prohibits it.

0 Replies

well, that would be ok 'cause we would not require "black people" to say it.

0 Replies

You're right Dys, I guess it would be okay. Nevermind, Fox.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

fishin' wrote:
mesquite wrote:
I do note that neither you nor fishin' have expressed what part of the opinion of the Ninth Circuit that you disagree with.

I see you can't read so well. It's spelled out right there for you in the post right above the one where you posted this silliness. Nedow didn't have standing for this case to even remain in court.

Nothin wrong with my reading. I was getting at the fact that you expressed nothing about the opinion itself, ie how the phrase violated the establishment clause. By the way it is "Newdow".

Whether or not he had standing IS a part of the opinion itself. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Speaking of the standing problem, I have a what-if question: What happens if the Supreme Court decides that "under god" violates the establishment clause, but that Nebow didn't have standing to complain about it? Would that only make a difference to Nebow and other fathers without custody of their children, or would it also make a difference to what version of the pledge will be recited in schools?

0 Replies

It's interesting, Thomas, because the Supreme Court can do both, or one or the other or neither. If they decide the unmarried father in this case has, or has not, got any standing it will affect custody cases throughout the States.

("But I want him to try out for football! "
"You want? You haven't any say in the matter."
"But all the other mothers love to watch their kids play!"
"You should have thought about that before you ran off with that guitar guy!"
"So he's not going out for the team?"
"No, he going to attend design classes for fashion and make purses like his old man!!)"

They can decide he has no standing and the case is therefore moot until someone comes forward with a dog in the fight or they can throw him out and still decide to decide whether the 'under God' words can remain. That will be fun to watch and a little horrific. I myself do not want my country declaring itself a theocracy, especially at this point in time.

==
I am also curious about the idea that Foxfrye has been putting out, that not all the words in the Pledge compel anyone to really mean them.

It is a pledge after all, a kind of vow, not the kind of pledge one makes to NPR and then forgets to send the check, the Pledge, at least for me, is real.

So I guess my question is two part: if one can not be compelled to believe or not believe based on the wording of the pledge, which portion of my wedding vows should I pick to consider as innocuous, trivial and of no consequence?

Joe

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

It's interesting, Thomas, because the Supreme Court can do both, or one or the other or neither. If they decide the unmarried father in this case has, or has not, got any standing it will affect custody cases throughout the States.

I'm not sure how you see it will affect custody cases in general but, yeah, the appeal is on two points. The USSC can rule on both or on just one.

Ruling that he doesn't have standing is their "safe" position. They can dismiss the case on that basis and avoid the 2nd question.

0 Replies

Joe writes:

Quote:

"I am also curious about the idea that Foxfrye has been putting out, that not all the words in the Pledge compel anyone to really mean them.

It is a pledge after all, a kind of vow, not the kind of pledge one makes to NPR and then forgets to send the check, the Pledge, at least for me, is real."

The Pledge is real to me too. I do not recite the words thinking our country always measures up to them, but rather I recite them as our constitutional right to be all that the words say. That we screw things up and don't measure up is another issue but we all can share in a part of the blame for that and we can all share in a part of the solution for that if we put our minds to it.

The point is, that the pledge be recited is not a requirement to believe it. There is no lawful punishment or penalty if one does not believe the words and no reward if s/he does. Those who wanted 'under God' inserted into the Pledge may have had a certain image of God, but there is no requirement for any of the rest of us to adopt their image. It is not an 'establishment of religion' as so many seem to want it to be and therefore it is not unconstitutional as I understand the intent of the First Amendment. Yes, I know I disagree with court rulings, but I don't believe our judiciary is incapable of error either.

Religion has played a huge role in the rich and diverse history of our relatively young nation and perhaps the 'under God' belongs in the pledge because most Americans do believe in some sort of diety. As I have repeatedly said, however, I will not object a great deal if the phrase is dropped out of respect for the non-believers who cannot say it in good conscience. But I see this as a matter of courtesy. I do not see it as a constitutional matter.

I will lead the charge with you if any law or any public school teacher, Christian, Muslim, Pagan, Jew, etc. etc. etc. presumes to push any particular religious belief on children. I just don't believe the Pledge does that.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

They can decide he has no standing and the case is therefore moot until someone comes forward with a dog in the fight or they can throw him out and still decide to decide whether the 'under God' words can remain. That will be fun to watch and a little horrific. I myself do not want my country declaring itself a theocracy, especially at this point in time.

Well, in your nomenclature, America has already "declared itself a theocracy" back in the fifties, and the question now is whether it ought to un-declare itself. Thanks for the clarification about the options available to the Supreme Court!

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Ruling that he doesn't have standing is their "safe" position. They can dismiss the case on that basis and avoid the 2nd question.

As you did. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Should "under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know