The Bobcat Nation

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2005 8:48 pm**

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1127106

First off, let me say that I'm not a very religious person. However, all this makes me think is...what kind of a place are we going to live in the future with these kinds of decisions. Our own declaration of Independence makes a reference to God and a creator.

My view is this (and tell me if you think I'm out of line). If you don't believe in it, just don't say it. Or, tell your kid not to say. It's not that hard. But to take this up to the high courts? Where are we headed? What's the next court decision?

I can see it now, the headline in the Cronicle...
UM VER
A football player from MSU was fined and suspended today for making the sign of the cross after a touchdown pass and looking up to the sky. His court date is set for next Thursday. In other news, Michael Newdow will be in town for a motivational speech where a packed house at the brick is expected. His speech will incude the reasons why all crosses on churches should be banned from public viewing and those pesky little white death markers on Montana's highway's...are they legal.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:30 pm**

I agree that this isn't a matter that is of dire importance either way. That being said, this is absolutely the right legal decision. The legislative history of the "under God" addition to the pledge in the 1950s as well as the context of the pledge make it obvious that, if forced to be recited (which is the key point) in schools, is a form of the government promoting religion. It's particularly sensitive as it is promoting religion to children, who are less able to separate between ceremonial, symbolic refereces to God (references in the Declaration to Creator, in god we trust on money, etc.) and the preaching of a religion.

The only legal argument that gets us away from this result is the concept I mentioned above where it is deemed that the god content is, for lack of a more appropriate term (that's slipping my mind right now) immaterial and does not exceed the threshold necessary to be considered promoting religion. That argument is certainly plausible for this case. However, the very nature and voracity of the backlash, and the outrage displayed over these decisions by people who are religious (and who declare that this is a Christian country and that the under god in the pledge is a reflection of that) seem to defeat that presumption. In an ironic twist, the outrage of those against the decision oftentimes is the strongest assertion that the decision is correct.

It is very important to note, though, contrary to many talking heads (that I already heard on the way home) and headline writers, this is not a ban of the pledge. People can still say the pledge any old way they want anytime they want to, just like virtually anything else in this last of free speech (until the FCC is finished with their work, anyway). All this ruling says is that schools can't force kids to recite a pledge every morning that proclaims an allegiance to God. When you boil it down to that essence, it's pretty hard to say that it's a bad ruling. Even if one thinks that we do need to promote god in school, they would agree that forcing kids to pledge allegiance to Allah in schools would be a bad thing, and there are Muslim-majority communities in America that could have their school boards to exactly that if this ruling was overturned.

I do understand that you can tell a kid to just not say it, but if any of us remember grade school well, we all know that being the one non-Christian kid who didn't use the same lyrics to the pledge would be a fast road to being a social pariah. Why put kids in that position? It's not the way the pledge was originally written, it totally messes up the meter of the poem, and it mixes religion and patriotism in a country that supposedly separates church and state. It's just unnecessary.

It's just a lot easier to have church and state completely separate. Then everybody should be happy to practice whatever religion they want whenever they want without government intervention.

Again, though, even though I agree with the ruling, I dread that this is going to become an issue again. There are so many more important things to worry about without letting such a minor issue take an undue amount of attention (as well as energize the conservative base around another completely pointless wedge issue). The "atheist attorney" (as is sneered on right wing radio whenever his name is mentioned) is really doing nobody any favors in pushing this right now, but maybe at least this time the Supreme Court will hear the case (which sounds like the motivation of the judge's ruling -- he was basing it on precedent and whined that the Supreme Court needs to clean up the issue once and for all) and clarify the whole Church/State issue so all of these gray areas become more black and white in the eyes of the law.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:12 am**

Have we as a society become so thin-skinned that anything that anyone could ever possibly view as offensive needs to be removed from everyone's lives?

I like bacon, but Jews and Muslims can't eat it--are pork products going to be banned from public consumption? What about alcohol? Muslims--and other religious groups, I'm sure--can't have it and construe its use as offensive. Are bars going to be closed?

Regardless of my personal feelings on this particular legal matter, we are setting a dangerous precedent in our country.

BAC wrote:In an ironic twist, the outrage of those against the decision oftentimes is the strongest assertion that the decision is correct.

Does that mean that if Roe v. Wade ever gets overturned that the outcry from NARAL and NOW, et al, means that the overturning of Roe v. Wade was the correct decision? Your argument, BAC, has got to go both ways for your logic to pass muster.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:06 am**

'93HonoluluCat wrote:I like bacon, but Jews and Muslims can't eat it--are pork products going to be banned from public consumption? What about alcohol? Muslims--and other religious groups, I'm sure--can't have it and construe its use as offensive. Are bars going to be closed?

C'mon now HC93, if you're going to use hyperbole, at least compare apples to apples.

To answer your question (as if it were a serious one), no, I don't think we're going to be banning pork products anytime soon. However, if all children in public schools were fed bacon in school every morning, wouldn't you agree that the religious rights of Jewish and Muslim children were being violated? Sure, they can always just not eat it, but like BAC said, when you're eight years old it's not easy to resist the pressure not to be different from your peers.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:22 am**

I know I pledge allegiance to bacon.....and steak, and ham, and.....

By the way, I bet myself that BAC would be the first to respond on this thread. I win, beer for me.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:48 am**

'93HonoluluCat wrote:Have we as a society become so thin-skinned that anything that anyone could ever possibly view as offensive needs to be removed from everyone's lives?

I like bacon, but Jews and Muslims can't eat it--are pork products going to be banned from public consumption? What about alcohol? Muslims--and other religious groups, I'm sure--can't have it and construe its use as offensive. Are bars going to be closed?

Regardless of my personal feelings on this particular legal matter, we are setting a dangerous precedent in our country.

BAC wrote:In an ironic twist, the outrage of those against the decision oftentimes is the strongest assertion that the decision is correct.
Does that mean that if Roe v. Wade ever gets overturned that the outcry from NARAL and NOW, et al, means that the overturning of Roe v. Wade was the correct decision? Your argument, BAC, has got to go both ways for your logic to pass muster.

This isn't about being offended, HC, it is about the government promoting religion. The government is not allowed to endorse or promote any religion over any other point of view. That's the law as it is written in the constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The Roe v. Wade counter-argument you make isn't applicable, as what I was talking about was the legal argument set forth by Supreme Court precedent relating specifically to Church and State issues. And, again, it has nothing to do with whether people are upset or not. It's about whether the item in question is significant enough to be merely incidental, ceremonial, a mere figure of speech, or if it is, indeed, significant enough to consider it to be the government promoting religion.

It is people mixing the arguments like you just did that intentionally muddy this issue. NOTHING IS BEING BANNED BY DECISIONS LIKE THIS. IT ONLY PRECLUDES PUBLIC SCHOOLS FROM FORCING YOUNG CHILDREN TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO GOD (or Allah, or Buddha, or Satan, depending on the community norm of that particular school district).

We are still free to worship as we like, eat whatever we want, say the pledge as frequently as we want with the added "under God" phrase (even saying that part twice as loud, just to show how much we resent "activist judges" who enforce the minority rights written in the Constitution), and essentially do whatever we want with regards to our religions and personal philosophies. Decisions like this have zero impact on any of that. This decision merely makes it less likely that religion will be forced upon impressionable young children by public schools.

Again, all of that being said, this particular issue isn't, to me, a big deal either way. I don't think the pledge is all that obnoxious, although I do find it silly in the history of its Cold War addition of "under God" to show those commies how godly we were. But if it stays, I'm not convinced that it is a big deal. The larger issue, however, if very relevant to all of us, and strikes at the heart of this freedom thing we are supposed to have.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:40 am**

Bay Area Cat wrote:
In an ironic twist, the outrage of those against the decision oftentimes is the strongest assertion that the decision is correct.

All this ruling says is that schools can't force kids to recite a pledge every morning that proclaims an allegiance to God. When you boil it down to that essence, it's pretty hard to say that it's a bad ruling. Even if one thinks that we do need to promote god in school, they would agree that forcing kids to pledge allegiance to Allah in schools would be a bad thing, and there are Muslim-majority communities in America that could have their school boards to exactly that if this ruling was overturned.

Not sure what you mean by that first paragraph I quoted and two points on the second one quoted.
First, it is "one nation under God" not under a Christian God so your reference to Allah doesn't make much sense. ALLAH IS A GOD. They are not establishing a specific religion in the pledge or on coins for that matter. This is why it's an ATHEIST who is challenging this and not a MUSLIM or BUDDHIST, and also why Muslim majority communities HAVE NOT changed it to "Under Allah"

Secondly, show me a school that forces kids to say the "Under God" part of the pledge. Meat had a good point on this. Just don't say it. And when the Supreme court over rules this decision my prediction is that this will be the reason. No one is forced to say Under God, and if someone wants to say under Allah they can or that person can simple omit the two words when they say it.

If this Publicity Hound Atheist wanted to have a legitimate shot of seeing his name on the news, which is all he is doing, IMHO, he should have gone after our money. I'd say he would have a lot more legal ground to work with than attacking speech.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:43 am**

I've only skimmed this issue, but I have a question:

Does this ruling mean schools CAN'T organize the kids each day to recite the Pledge? Does it mean that they can do so but kids aren't required to recite any/all of the Pledge? I don't have time to peruse all the postings right now, but I was just hoping to know what the bottom line of the ruling was/is?

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:53 am**

El_Gato wrote:I've only skimmed this issue, but I have a question:

Does this ruling mean schools CAN'T organize the kids each day to recite the Pledge? Does it mean that they can do so but kids aren't required to recite any/all of the Pledge? I don't have time to peruse all the postings right now, but I was just hoping to know what the bottom line of the ruling was/is?

It means the former: any teacher-led recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional (at schools within the jurisdiction of the court that issued the ruling, of course).

--GL

EDIT: Although, I believe teachers may still choose to lead a recitation of the pledge with the words "under God" omitted.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:59 am**

Grizlaw wrote:
El_Gato wrote:I've only skimmed this issue, but I have a question:

Does this ruling mean schools CAN'T organize the kids each day to recite the Pledge? Does it mean that they can do so but kids aren't required to recite any/all of the Pledge? I don't have time to peruse all the postings right now, but I was just hoping to know what the bottom line of the ruling was/is?
It means the former: any teacher-led recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional (at schools within the jurisdiction of the court that issued the ruling, of course).

--GL

EDIT: Although, I believe teachers may still choose to lead a recitation of the pledge with the words "under God" omitted.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:06 am**

Ponycat wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
In an ironic twist, the outrage of those against the decision oftentimes is the strongest assertion that the decision is correct.

Not sure what you mean by that first paragraph I quoted and two points on the second one quoted.

I don't want to put words in BAC's mouth, but I think I know what he meant by the paragraph you cited (and if I'm wrong, he'll correct me, and this can just be my point and not his

):

The primary argument of those who support having the words "under God" in the pledge is that the words don't "really" have religious significance (i.e., are not an "establishment" of religion, as contemplated by the First Amendment). In the simplest terms possible, the argument is that the words themselves "just aren't that big of a deal," and that those who they offend should just shut up and deal with it.

The irony is that, if that were really true, then removing the words from the pledge would not be a big deal, either. By arguing so strenuously in favor of keeping the words "under God" in the pledge, religious groups are proving that the words do, in fact, have special significance, at least to them. How can they then turn around and argue that the words shouldn't have the same significance to atheists (and thus, incite the reaction that they have incited)?

--GL

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:16 am**

Good point GL.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:01 am**

Ponycat wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
In an ironic twist, the outrage of those against the decision oftentimes is the strongest assertion that the decision is correct.

All this ruling says is that schools can't force kids to recite a pledge every morning that proclaims an allegiance to God. When you boil it down to that essence, it's pretty hard to say that it's a bad ruling. Even if one thinks that we do need to promote god in school, they would agree that forcing kids to pledge allegiance to Allah in schools would be a bad thing, and there are Muslim-majority communities in America that could have their school boards to exactly that if this ruling was overturned.

Not sure what you mean by that first paragraph I quoted and two points on the second one quoted.
First, it is "one nation under God" not under a Christian God so your reference to Allah doesn't make much sense. ALLAH IS A GOD. They are not establishing a specific religion in the pledge or on coins for that matter. This is why it's an ATHEIST who is challenging this and not a MUSLIM or BUDDHIST, and also why Muslim majority communities HAVE NOT changed it to "Under Allah"

Secondly, show me a school that forces kids to say the "Under God" part of the pledge. Meat had a good point on this. Just don't say it. And when the Supreme court over rules this decision my prediction is that this will be the reason. No one is forced to say Under God, and if someone wants to say under Allah they can or that person can simple omit the two words when they say it.

If this Publicity Hound Atheist wanted to have a legitimate shot of seeing his name on the news, which is all he is doing, IMHO, he should have gone after our money. I'd say he would have a lot more legal ground to work with than attacking speech.

It doesn't say "a god," it says "God," so it's quite generally understood that we aren't talking about Buddha or Allah. Regardless, it still holds that the state isn't supposed to endorse religion, so even if one makes the argument that the 1950s Congress was, in fact, meaning to include all religions, faiths, and philosophies, it still doesn't change the holding.

You don't have to have a gun at someone's head (especially a child) to functionally force them to do something. Adults are a different matter -- they can just not say it if they don't want to. We all know that kids are a different matter -- you can't put them into a position to have to take a stand on something like this. They are naturally going to do what everybody else does for fear of being ridiculed/beat up/ostracized by their peers. We all remember what you do to the kid that didn't fit in.

And like I've said, I agree with you in thinking that this just isn't a fight that needs to be fought. I do, however, disagree with your suggestion that the atheist is "attacking speech." That just isn't the case. Anybody can still say anything they want at any time. It's simply a matter of not allowing a school to force kids to say something. Not allowing someone to force someone else to do something is not the same as not allowing someone to do something.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:03 am**

Grizlaw articulated my point about the holding/reaction to the ruling much more articulately than I was able. Thanks for deciphering my garbled point for me!

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:24 am**

To Muslim's Allah is "god" not "a god" or "our god" but GOD. I agree with you that its a religion thing but I was pointing out that your comparison to Allah didn't make sense in this context.

And I guess we'll agree to disagree on the aspect "forcing" someone to say Under God when saying the pledge. Maybe I'm not following the case close enough but I don't think its "grade school specific." Again if this guy wanted to pursue this "God" issue our money would have made a lot more sense to go after since you ARE "Forced" to use it and it says "God" on it.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:30 am**

Bay Area Cat wrote: It doesn't say "a god," it says "God," so it's quite generally understood that we aren't talking about Buddha or Allah.

Isn't Allah the same God Christians and Jews worship? I always thought it was the same God, main difference is Jews and Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, Christians believe Jesus was the son of God, and part of God in the Holy Trinity?

I wonder if this ruling will affect Native Americans worship practices on public property?

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:32 am**

Ponycat wrote:To Muslim's Allah is "god" not "a god" or "our god" but GOD. I agree with you that its a religion thing but I was pointing out that your comparison to Allah didn't make sense in this context.

And I guess we'll agree to disagree on the aspect "forcing" someone to say Under God when saying the pledge. Maybe I'm not following the case close enough but I don't think its "grade school specific." Again if this guy wanted to pursue this "God" issue our money would have made a lot more sense to go after since you ARE "Forced" to use it and it says "God" on it.

Yes, some Muslims do use "God" and "Allah" interchangably, but generally just when they are trying to find common ground with Christians to make nice. Since the Christian god is just called God, that does make a Christian God reference seem like it could apply to anyone.

On the contrary, though, if a Muslim district did invoke "Allah" in a pledge, it would be immediately evident to everyone that this was crossing a Church/State boundary, whereas "God" is just so familiar to us that we don't necessarily realize how it sounds to people who aren't just like us. That was the point I was trying to make. Any reference to a religious figure, if significant enough to be deemed to be promoting religion, shouldn't be put forth by our government. We are just conditioned to not realize these sorts of things unless they are in a context that isn't second-nature to us, however.

The case relates to schools only, so it is definitely just a matter of minors we are talking about (and grade school kids are the subset that strikes me as the most relevant area of concern). Non-public school groups can still say the pledge however they please (including references to Satan, Allah, Fred, GWB or whoever or whatever they want, just as it has always been).

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:38 am**

grizbeer wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote: It doesn't say "a god," it says "God," so it's quite generally understood that we aren't talking about Buddha or Allah.
Isn't Allah the same God Christians and Jews worship? I always thought it was the same God, main difference is Jews and Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, Christians believe Jesus was the son of God, and part of God in the Holy Trinity?

I wonder if this ruling will affect Native Americans worship practices on public property?

If a school forced kids to do Native American worship practices, then and only then would I assume this ruling would be at all relevant. It's my understanding that the courts have held that religious groups of all kinds are allowed to use public facilities, and that you can't discriminate for or against any particular religion or group. As long as an institution's rules are applied consistently (allowing any religion that wants to use it as opposed to only allowing favored religions), then it holds up to legal muster. If I'm wrong on this point (I can't remember specific case details or anything, so I could well be), somebody please correct me.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:41 am**

Bay Area Cat wrote:This isn't about being offended, HC, it is about the government promoting religion. The government is not allowed to endorse or promote any religion over any other point of view. That's the law as it is written in the constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court.

I think it is "about being offended," but I'll follow you.

In that case, the history of the Pledge has different origins. According to FlagDay.org:

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States, according to James A. Moss, an authority on the flag and its history, was first given national publicity through the official program of the National Public School Celebration of Columbus Day in October 1892. The Pledge had been published in theYouth's Companion for September 8,1892, and at the same time sent out in leaflet form throughout the country.During the Celebration it was repeated by more than 12,000,000 public school pupils in every state in the Union.

It wasn't until 1954 that those oh-so-controversial words "under God" were added to the Pledge. If religion is really the issue here, let's just change the Pledge back to the way it was before President Eisenhower offended everyone by adding those foul words.

BAC wrote:This decision merely makes it less likely that religion will be forced upon impressionable young children by public schools.

Well, I guess the Pledge didn't work on you, BAC, with your opinion of God. I think if the Pledge was created by some Christian elitist/extremist, it would have involved much more mind control elements and much less statement of the nation's heritage.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:46 am**

grizbeer wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote: It doesn't say "a god," it says "God," so it's quite generally understood that we aren't talking about Buddha or Allah.
Isn't Allah the same God Christians and Jews worship? I always thought it was the same God, main difference is Jews and Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, Christians believe Jesus was the son of God, and part of God in the Holy Trinity?

Allah for the Muslims and God for the Judeo-Christians are not the same, though they're both called "God" by their applicable groups.

(Note: I won't go into the differences here, for fear of hijacking the thread.)

The Bobcat Nation

Judge bans the Pledge

Judge bans the Pledge