Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional

**Xiahou** · 09-15-2005, 01:00

Originally Posted by AdrianII

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Open and shut. My kind of judge.

The saying of the pledge of allegiance is neither coerced nor a requirement. The judge was wrong on both counts. Looks like we'll get to see Roberts overturn the 9th Circus for the first of undoubtedly many times when he gets confirmed.

**Adrian II** · 09-15-2005, 01:03

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The saying of the pledge of allegiance is neither coerced nor a requirement. The judge was wrong on both counts. Looks like we'll get to see Roberts overturn the 9th Circus for the first of undoubtedly many times when he gets confirmed.

The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

**Xiahou** · 09-15-2005, 01:09

In 1943, the US Supreme Court decided in WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE that students can't be required to recite the pledge.

**Proletariat** · 09-15-2005, 01:10

Heh, spoken like a true non-veteran of the Virginian Public School system.

What's your impression of Virginia, Adrian? What are you taking 'requirement' to mean? That children who sit during the pledge are suspended or expelled or sent to gulags?

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 09-15-2005, 01:20

Its pretty sad how the 1st amenddments protection of religion has come to mean you cant mention god or pray out loud in school. By establishment of religion the founding fatrhers were refering to things like the Church of England where the church and the government were one and the same. They beleived that religion should be taught in school in fact that it was unconstitutional not to and yet today we deny federal funds to schools just because they also teach religion.

**AntiochusIII** · 09-15-2005, 01:29

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Its pretty sad how the 1st amenddments protection of religion has come to mean you cant mention god or pray out loud in school. By establishment of religion the founding fatrhers were refering to things like the Church of England where the church and the government were one and the same. They beleived that religion should be taught in school in fact that it was unconstitutional not to and yet today we deny federal funds to schools just because they also teach religion.

Yup. Claiming monopoly on intrepeting the minds of dead men in a different age. Oh well...

Perhaps they've gone too far and the word "God" should be uttered without inconvenience (unless, of course, they're actually preaching in public schools outside of a clearly-labeled "Christianity" class) but that doesn't mean people should be forced to use the word "under God." This situation is more like a philosophical/political gesture, as in reality I just stand there in silence, feeling no patriotic emotions whatsoever; nor did I utter the meaningless words. It may be annoying to the politically passionate (as me sometimes) but it's really just a nothing issue, no better than things like "oooh abortion!!!" and "gays marrying? NOOOOO!!!!!" True loyalty relies on logical and realistic support, not chickenhawk-style declarations. This, of course, is not directing at you, Gawain.

**Adrian II** · 09-15-2005, 01:22

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Heh, spoken like a true non-veteran of the Virginian Public School system.

What's your impression of Virginia, Adrian? What are you taking 'requirement' to mean? That children who sit during the pledge are suspended or expelled or sent to gulags?

The words 'under God' were added only in 1954 by a joint resolution of Congress. I have little recollection of Virginia except for its beautiful scenery. I suppose if the words 'under God' have no religious meaning, they could easily be replaced by 'under Allah'. Or better still: 'under the Flying Spaghetti Monster'. I have no doubt the good citizens of Virgina would shrug it off, just like atheists are supposed to thrug off the words 'under God'.

**Proletariat** · 09-15-2005, 01:38

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I suppose if the words 'under God' have no religious meaning, they could easily be replaced by 'under Allah'. Or better still: 'under the Flying Spaghetti Monster'. I have no doubt the good citizens of Virgina would shrug it off, just like atheists are supposed to thrug off the words 'under God'.

I was just worried that you thought it was genuinely required in Virginia, an impression I gathered from your quote.

It sure has religious meaning, but I still can't fathom anyone reasonable caring. Like when PETA has a protest to change the label for people with pets from 'pet owners' to 'pet guardians.'

Who cares about this kinda stuff? It's pretty stupid 'under God' was added in the first place, and now we compound the stupidity a half century later by bringing it up and fighting tooth and nail over it.

**Adrian II** · 09-15-2005, 01:41

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Who cares about this kinda stuff? It's pretty stupid 'under God' was added in the first place, and now we compound the stupidity a half century later by bringing it up and fighting tooth and nail over it.

It speaks to the kind of nation you are/want to be. Nothing stupid about that, my lady.

**Red Harvest** · 09-15-2005, 01:31

Originally Posted by Xiahou

In 1943, the US Supreme Court decided in WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE that students can't be required to recite the pledge.

That's odd. Nobody ever said it was optional when I was a kid in Kansas. They said we would recite the pledge, we did so, no questions asked.

The pledge is a fairly minor issue. "Under God" was added in 1954 to distinguish the U.S. from the "Godless communists." Seemed to work fine without the religious reference before, so I fail to see why "under God" should be required.