Pledge of Allegiance: unconstitutional?

[Anamatar IV]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is the first amendment right of the U.S. Constitution. The words "under God" have been ruled unconstitutional in the state of Calinfornia by the 9th curcuit court of appeals. President Bush recently signed a bill legalizing Under god and making 'In god we trust' the national motto.

Does 'under god' belong in the pledge of allegiance (this can include whether it is unconstitutional)?

I believe it does not belong in the pledge of allegiance. The very original pledge did not include this verse. Only during the cold war was it added to the pledge to 'counter' communist Soviet Union which banned religion. The cold war has long ended and there is no communist nation which bans religion for us to counter--thusly there is no reason to include 'under god'

[Nardil]

Although the pledge alliegance isn't technically unconstitutional, I would like to see that portion removed. In a nation which is founded upon freedoms of many kinds, including religion, little religious nuances like that seem out of place in the pledge of alliegance, our money, and deffinitly as a national motto.

[FREEDOM!]

Actually, that was originally part of the Pledge of Allegiance. And America was established as a Christian nation, the Pilgrims were trying to get away from the corrupted church of England. I think it "should" be part of the Allegiance!!

[Ciryaher]

Actually, no, Freedom. Francis Bellamy wrote the original Pledge around 1891, a long long time after the Pilgrims came to America. His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

After several more amendations, the words "under God" were added in 1954 from a campaign by the Knights of Columbus.

I think God is an abstract concept that has more than just one religious meaning, but seeing as not all people are as open minded as they'd like to think, I don't see why it should remain in the Pledge.

[Khamul]

There's no point in lying, it's not a nation under God anyways.

[Aslan]

First of all, the Pledge of Allegiance isn't a law. Having "Under God" does not violate anyones rights. No one has to say it. No one has to believe it. It is a pledge that is consistent with what the founding fathers embodied in their beliefs. For our government to say that anything relating to God has to be removed from public places is a violation of our rights. A motto or a pledge does not make God real or otherwise and no one is being forced to believe or not. Our nation was founded "Under God" This is an historical fact. A bunch of liberals have said it is unconstitutional. Constutionalists, fortunately, know better.

[Arvedui]

For our government to say that anything relating to God has to be removed from public places is a violation of our rights .
I do not agree with you. At least not wholehartedly. If you were to include God in your allegiance, then it would be a violations of the rights of anyone who is not Christian, wouldn't it?
Now, I am not from the US. In the constitution of my country it is stated clearly that Christianity is the religion of the nation. The King is the head of the Norwegian church, and at least half of the member of the cabinet have to be Christians.
Would you want to have it that way? I would prefer not...

[Ciryaher]

That's not anything resembling a logical or valid opinion, Khamul.

Also, you don't have to be Christian to say "under God"...you could also be Jewish, Baha'i, or Muslim (as well as many others). That's not really the point though, because there are Buddhists and other philosophies that don't have a deity, and others like Hinduism that have more than one deity.

[HLGStrider]

The pledge of allegiance isn't a law, and it isn't required in most schools... in other words you can refuse to say it on religious grounds. If it were required I would be against it because I am against a lot of things being required. However, now it is forbidden to say it...

It should be optional to say it, for forbidding it violates rights as much as having it in.

That's one reason I believe in privitizing the educational system... then schools and parents could make the decision instead of governments and ultimately everyone would get what they want.


Of course, that isn't likely to happen.

The school system is out of hand. A lot of people emerge from it with faulty beliefs, and I don't mean in religion, I mean history.

You remember that the Boyscouts were having their tussle with the atheist member? Well, a guy wrote the paper saying that it shouldn't be a problem that he was an atheist because even George Washington was....

Which he wasn't. I mean that is ahistorical fact. He was a Christian. He signed a declaration to join the masons which would have had him acknowledge a diety... and in his speeches he acknowledged God various times..
Why are we sacrificing historical fact to secularism? It doesn't make sense?

[Anamatar IV]

People have been saying that it is not required to recite the pledge of allegiance and it isnt a law and such but actually in my school it sort of is. My homeroom teacher finds it disrespectful when some kids don't say it every day...and I agree but if they refuse to say it they get a detention. So in my school it is required to recite it.

[Ciryaher]

In the state of New Mexico, it is required for the school to say it over the P.A., but students don't have to participate. In fact, in my Government class, we had to argue the constitutionality of forcing students to say the Pledge. We found that it isn't, and that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

[Khamul]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
That's not anything resembling a logical or valid opinion, Khamul.

Also, you don't have to be Christian to say "under God"...you could also be Jewish, Baha'i, or Muslim (as well as many others). That's not really the point though, because there are Buddhists and other philosophies that don't have a deity, and others like Hinduism that have more than one deity.
Making a God a variable for the nation's current cultural identity. Being under God is also a variable for I could call George Bush, God. I am a Christian, but I really don't like to hear someone be forced to say something that they don't want to. Many schools require you to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and in doing so, you are also required to state something that is not necessarily your personal opinion. If we let ourselves be fooling into thinking that this nation relies on God as it once did, we will only open the door for more internal strife and political conflict over issues that hold absolutely no value on the political globe. You cannot please every religion, and I hope no one will ever try.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Khamul
I am a Christian, but I really don't like to hear someone be forced to say something that they don't want to. Many schools require you to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and in doing so, you are also required to state something that is not necessarily your personal opinion.

I don't fully agree with this. No one can be forced to say anything. If they decide to take disciplinary action against you for standing there with your mouth shut, then there is an issue. However, there is no violation of any rights should you have the option of not speaking. I will not be screaming "Discrimination!" should I find myself in the middle of an Islamic meeting and they are praising Allah, why should I be offended or threatened? However, if they put a gun to my head and tell me that there will be dire consequences should I not recite it with them, then there are problems.

We live in Christian dominated countries (Canada and US). Freedom of religion implies just that. No one is forced to believe something they don't in North America. Therefore, all this complaining about "No prayer this" and "Take God out that" is nothing more than intolerance and in itself a violation of the First Amendment. People are so intent on political correctness in society, that they don't realize their complaints against what they percieve as discrimination are discriminatory.

[Aerin]

What we also have to remember about Free Speech is that *everyone* who is a citizen of the United States of America has a right to stand up and say *whatever* they believe. If someone wants to get up and preach about how Christianity or Islam or Judaism is the "one true religion", fine; they have that right guaranteed them under the First Amendment. The same thing goes for someone who wants to talk about how there is no God.

Another point that should be brought up in conjunction with the Pledge of Allegiance: Why do we have to repeat it so many times? When a pledge or pact is sworn, it is usually said only once, not hundreds of times. What is the purpose of repeating it? More to the point, how many people fully understand the implication of the words they are mindlessly repeating?
Last year, in public high school, most of my first period class absently mumbled the words along with the P.A. system. Yet, as I looked around, I don't think I saw a single person who really understood the Pledge. Our teacher was strict with any who didn't show proper respect to the flag, which is allowable; the flag represents much more than just a coloured piece of cloth hanging on the wall.

As Thorin said, as long as those in authority don't forcibly make you repeat the Pledge, what problem is there? If someone had an issue with the words "under God", then don't say them. That should meet at least most peoples' quarrels with the Pledge; you can say what you want; that is Free Speech.

Freedom of religious beliefs was part of what this country was founded on. The Puritans and Quakers came to America to escape religious persecution (among other things....), but when they got here, they wanted everyone to be the same religion and demonination as themselves.
It is the same problem I have encountered in some who call themself Christian; the Bible states that you should "love your neighbour as yourself", but too many interpret that to mean "love your neighbour who looks, acts, thinks, believes, dresses, and talks like you, love that neighbour as yourself, but condemn everyone else." That, to me, is religious discrimination. :rolleyes:


By the by, wasn't there another thread about the Pledge of Allegiance somewheres in the GoP?
Edit: Found it! You can view the other thread about the Pledge here. (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=4970)

[HLGStrider]

That was a good thread...

I still am going for privitization to solve the problems...

and as long as their isn't a law that requires you to say it it doesn't violate the first amendment anymore than having a Christian teacher who gives her opinion on issues from a Christian view point would... and if that does we have some major free speech violations in the constitutions.

The only difference is that this is a tradition, something constant, instead of something that would change from school to school.

[FREEDOM!]

I have come to this conclusion:

The Pledge of Allegiance is exactly that, a pledge of allegiance to the country you are in. Whether it says Under God or not, it is still a pledge of allegiance. Basically a pledge of allegiance is to show your support to your country. I personnally think Under God should be in it, but I think that saying it means you pledge yourself to that country, and if you refuse to say it, then you are not pledging your support to that country.

[faila]

First of all, it has already been stated by the supreme court that the pledge of allegiance can not be forced to be said, that as a long time ago, technically your school is supposed to allow you to just sit their or (stand thier) and not say anything. (people of some religons do this). THe words under God also do not have to be said. Since they do not have to be said than it is ot unconstitutional the most reason arguement for the pledge of allegiance being changed was, the father didnt want her Daughter hearing it. I see no federal law constitution or otherwise saying that people have a right not to hear something.

[HLGStrider]

I wonder if there is a constitutional right to wear earplugs?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...