PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- Thread starter krishna
- Start date
WhhhooooHooooo!!! and a Yippy Kay hay!
I am not anti US. But I am from another country and when I was a little person I HAD to say the pledge (like everyone else). Not only did I have no idea what I was saying (as I barely knew English) but I felt bad since I was FORCED to say it. I think like other things in life it should not be forced on kids, especially w/ out explination or education on the matter. U can't force nationalism or patriotism on kids b/c once they grow-up they will most likely reject it.
LOL. I used to say "I pledge alligance to the Frog of the... " and other miswordings. No one ever took the time to explain it or really tell me what I had to say. :classic:
I am not anti US. But I am from another country and when I was a little person I HAD to say the pledge (like everyone else). Not only did I have no idea what I was saying (as I barely knew English) but I felt bad since I was FORCED to say it. I think like other things in life it should not be forced on kids, especially w/ out explination or education on the matter. U can't force nationalism or patriotism on kids b/c once they grow-up they will most likely reject it.
LOL. I used to say "I pledge alligance to the Frog of the... " and other miswordings. No one ever took the time to explain it or really tell me what I had to say. :classic:
I
I wonder when the Constitution itself will be declared unconstitutional.
I guess I'll offer the dissenting opinion here on this topic. While I believe that everyone has the protected right to not pledge allegiance if they are so inclined, to declare the Pledge of Allegiance "unconstitutional" is ridiculous.
I, myself, am more than happy to pledge allegiance to the flag of the country that affords me rights that I would not have otherwise. If you don't want to do pledge, fine. But to raise issue and say that no one should do it in public is asinine.
It seems fashionable to be "Anti-America" nowdays. Some of you ask why you should support the policies of our country and endorse the actions made by our governing bodies? Because, regardless of poor decisions made in Washington, you are still Americans and, as such, enjoy luxuries that many in the world do not. I think everyone can agree that our politicians are a shady group of characters who may not always be looking out for the best interests of Joe Public, but I think we can also agree that none of us are starving or being executed in the streets by those politicians either. No one in America agrees completely with the decisions made on Capitol Hill. Politicians are elected officials; you have the power to vote them in or out of their positions.
For those of you who consider the Pledge of Allegiance brainwashing, I think you should worry more about what our children are learning from watching the T.V. each day.
I guess I'll offer the dissenting opinion here on this topic. While I believe that everyone has the protected right to not pledge allegiance if they are so inclined, to declare the Pledge of Allegiance "unconstitutional" is ridiculous.
I, myself, am more than happy to pledge allegiance to the flag of the country that affords me rights that I would not have otherwise. If you don't want to do pledge, fine. But to raise issue and say that no one should do it in public is asinine.
It seems fashionable to be "Anti-America" nowdays. Some of you ask why you should support the policies of our country and endorse the actions made by our governing bodies? Because, regardless of poor decisions made in Washington, you are still Americans and, as such, enjoy luxuries that many in the world do not. I think everyone can agree that our politicians are a shady group of characters who may not always be looking out for the best interests of Joe Public, but I think we can also agree that none of us are starving or being executed in the streets by those politicians either. No one in America agrees completely with the decisions made on Capitol Hill. Politicians are elected officials; you have the power to vote them in or out of their positions.
For those of you who consider the Pledge of Allegiance brainwashing, I think you should worry more about what our children are learning from watching the T.V. each day.
t.v. is one thing,but in school as a kid your obligated to say the shit,its like 9/11,they tell us all this shit the talibans doin but they wont tell you what the U.S. has been doin,we got "bombed",but in reality the u.s. was doin the same kinda shit before that happened."we" were killin civilians out side of war,we were bombing villages.america aint flawless ya'll but they dont tell you what we do because in times like these they want us to be on their side.dont get me wrong,i aint with the tali and what they did but i aint nessicarily on the Governments side....
the streets are a war,why cant we pack heat legaly for our own protection.if somebody burns our house down can we blast them on the count of revenge? naw,thats penitentiary talk,but they want us to go there and blast them foos,im wid it but theres a war going on here too every day....
the streets are a war,why cant we pack heat legaly for our own protection.if somebody burns our house down can we blast them on the count of revenge? naw,thats penitentiary talk,but they want us to go there and blast them foos,im wid it but theres a war going on here too every day....
You know what, the pledge of allegiance is almost totally cool if you drop the God thing. Then it can be as voluntary as it is now. The God part has no place in there. Drop the god and people of all beliefs who love and support this country will feel at ease pledging their undying support for it. But when you force a religious system on people through the government its wrong.
Remember "under god" wasn't even in the pledge until 1954. (Thanks Ike
) Just cut it out of there and things will be cool.
Then when kids understand the rest of the pledge they will state it, if they support it.
Right now people who are atheist or have any non-Judeo-Christian faith are alienated and torn between their allegiance for the country and their faith. That’s not right. People shouldn't be forced to choose between showing support for their government or betraying their religious beliefs or lack there of. You take it out and all these people will be able to do the pledge, if they support it, and that’s all this is really about. Don't alienate millions of people in the country by putting them in such a position.
The government should not be allowed to endorse a particular religious philosophy. Plain and simple. Remain secular and there is no problem. People can praise the lord for the U.S. on their own time and in their own way, they don't need the government dictating to them on how and when to do it.
That's what this is about. Its not about if people have to say the pledge or not, because if you don't support it you don't have to say it(in theory). But the people that do want to say it shouldn't have to choose between their faith and their government.
Taking "under god" out of the pledge would be patriotic and would uphold the principles of the constitution.
Its a shame the supreme court's corruption will cause them to over turn this verdict.
P.S. I wish federal judges in my district had the balls of those 2 of 3 judges over in district 9.
Remember "under god" wasn't even in the pledge until 1954. (Thanks Ike
) Just cut it out of there and things will be cool.Then when kids understand the rest of the pledge they will state it, if they support it.
Right now people who are atheist or have any non-Judeo-Christian faith are alienated and torn between their allegiance for the country and their faith. That’s not right. People shouldn't be forced to choose between showing support for their government or betraying their religious beliefs or lack there of. You take it out and all these people will be able to do the pledge, if they support it, and that’s all this is really about. Don't alienate millions of people in the country by putting them in such a position.
The government should not be allowed to endorse a particular religious philosophy. Plain and simple. Remain secular and there is no problem. People can praise the lord for the U.S. on their own time and in their own way, they don't need the government dictating to them on how and when to do it.
That's what this is about. Its not about if people have to say the pledge or not, because if you don't support it you don't have to say it(in theory). But the people that do want to say it shouldn't have to choose between their faith and their government.
Taking "under god" out of the pledge would be patriotic and would uphold the principles of the constitution.
Its a shame the supreme court's corruption will cause them to over turn this verdict.
P.S. I wish federal judges in my district had the balls of those 2 of 3 judges over in district 9.
THANK YOU ColdBlooded
I tottally agree. I can say first hand at my graduation, that I was more then willing to do the pledge of allegiance, but I did feel extreemly uncomfortable being forced to say, and hear "one nation under god" and I am very pleased with this desicion. The government promoting god by saying "one nation UNDER GOD" is a violation of the constitution and to think otherwise is rediculous.
Another issue I'd like to bring up, is in a press confrence Bush condemned the decision and condemned the judge and pretty much said himself that he is only going to choose judges that believe in god!!!!!! Will somebody send Bush a copy of our constitution because this fool knows nothing about it I swear!!!
I tottally agree. I can say first hand at my graduation, that I was more then willing to do the pledge of allegiance, but I did feel extreemly uncomfortable being forced to say, and hear "one nation under god" and I am very pleased with this desicion. The government promoting god by saying "one nation UNDER GOD" is a violation of the constitution and to think otherwise is rediculous.
Another issue I'd like to bring up, is in a press confrence Bush condemned the decision and condemned the judge and pretty much said himself that he is only going to choose judges that believe in god!!!!!! Will somebody send Bush a copy of our constitution because this fool knows nothing about it I swear!!!
US "Pledge" ruling exposes political scoundrels
By Bill Vann
28 June 2002
http://www.wsws.org/
The ruling by a three-judge federal appeals court panel in San Francisco that compelling the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to “one nation under God” in public schools is unconstitutional has afforded yet another opportunity for America’s politicians to make fools of themselves.
The decision did no more than reaffirm the essential right to freedom from government “establishment of religion” and the principle of separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
“The statement that the United States is a nation ‘under God’ is an endorsement of religion,” the court’s majority wrote. It added that the pledge “sends a message to unbelievers ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.’”
As written, the court said, the pledge is no less a violation of the constitutional protection against establishment of religion than if it described the US as “a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god.’” The First Amendment, it continued, “prohibits the government’s endorsement or advancement not only of one religion at the expense of other religions, but also of religion at the expense of atheism.”
From both a legal and a democratic standpoint, all of this is unassailable. Yet the ruling has ignited a nationwide furor, with congressmen and television “personalities” tripping over each other to be the loudest in braying out their protest against the court’s action.
Meanwhile, fascistic thugs, taking their cue from these political “leaders,” have made death threats against both the California man who brought the lawsuit against the pledge and his daughter, a child in the second grade.
The Senate organized a hasty 99-to-0 vote denouncing the court’s reaffirmation of one of the most fundamental democratic rights upon which the country was founded. Over 100 Congressmen poured out onto the Capitol steps to recite the pledge and sing “God Bless America.”
The frenzied reaction was bipartisan. President Bush called the ruling “ridiculous.” Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat, said it was “just nuts.” House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri railed against any attempt to change “the time-tested, venerable pledge that is such a central part of our country’s life and our nation’s heritage.”
These scoundrels know little and care less about the “nation’s heritage.” The House of Representatives began its “tradition” of saying the pledge each morning only in 1988, as the result of a dirty tricks campaign by the Republican Party and George Bush Sr. against Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. The Massachusetts governor had vetoed a law requiring the Pledge of Allegiance in all public schools, correctly calling it a violation of the First Amendment. The Republicans sought on that basis to brand him as “un-American.” For its part, the Senate began the practice only two years ago.
The origins of the 31-word oath lie in the relatively recent history of America, a history that does not bear much probing as far as the pledge’s modern-day defenders are concerned.
Its author was Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister who was pressured into giving up his Boston pulpit because of the church’s opposition to his Christian-socialist sermons. He was a first cousin of Edward Bellamy, author of the well-known socialist-utopian novel, “Looking Backward.”
He wrote the pledge in 1892 for the magazine The Youth’s Companion. It included no reference to God, which would only be tacked on 62 years later.
He chose the words, he later wrote, with his mind on “salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution ... with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...”
In short, the democratic ideals of the American Revolution, the Civil War and the abolition of slavery animated the original pledge. Bellamy acknowledged, however, that he had wanted to include the words “liberty, justice and equality for all,” but left out equality because he knew that it would be opposed by fellow members of the National Education Association, who stood against equal rights for blacks and women.
Even so, the pledge as written rankled the reactionaries of that period, and it was not long before they set about changing it. What had begun as an idealistic tribute to the universal democratic principles of the country’s founding, was soon transformed into a vow of obedience to a rising imperialist power that was to exert its military might around the globe.
The drive to make recitation of the pledge compulsory began only in the early 1920s, amid the wave of reaction that followed the Russian Revolution and gave rise to the anticommunist Palmer Raids and a nationwide anti-immigrant witch-hunt. Spearheading the campaign for the pledge were the American Legion and the Ku Klux Klan, both notorious for their role in the wave of lynchings that swept the country during the same period.
This campaign also involved a critical change to the text drafted by Bellamy, substituting for the original, “my flag,” the words, “the flag of the United States of America.” Bellamy protested this nationalistic revision, aimed against foreigners and “reds.” He had intended the oath not as one of American jingoism, he said, but an international pledge of peace, adaptable to all nations. His opinion, however, was drowned out by the patriotic ranting of the American Legion and the KKK.
After the US entry into World War II, the manner in which the pledge was delivered underwent an alteration as well. Until then, students were instructed to recite it with their right arms rigidly extended, shoulder high. The resemblance to Nazi youth swearing fealty to Hitler was too close for comfort. Americans were instructed to place their hands over their hearts instead.
The second major change in the text, introducing the words now defended so vociferously by both major parties, was carried out in another period of deep reaction, at the height of the McCarthyite witch-hunt of the 1950s. Congress, responding to a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic men’s organization, added “under God.” The clear aim was to mobilize religion in the campaign against “godless communism” abroad, and to further the persecution of socialists, communists and atheists at home.
Bellamy had died decades earlier, but his granddaughter said that he would have opposed the introduction of religion. In the end, the mutilation of his original text recalls nothing so much as Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” in which the principle that “all animals are created equal,” was twisted into “some animals are more equal than others.”
It is hardly an accident that a challenge to the introduction of “God” into the pledge evokes such a visceral reaction from ruling circles today. The “heritage” of McCarthyism, police-state repression and anti-immigrant crackdowns is being revived with a vengeance, and with the backing of both political parties.
In the wake of September 11, there has been a concerted campaign to promote cheap patriotism and inject ever-larger doses of religion into national life as a means of diverting the American people from any critical examination of the roots of the present crisis.
Doubtless the correct decision of the Ninth Circuit will be overturned by the black-robed reactionaries on the US Supreme Court, if it is not struck down first by the full appeals court. Nonetheless, the event has had the singular value of providing a self-exposure of a Congress, presidency and media that are permeated with stupidity and cowardice and united in virulent opposition to the most elementary democratic principles.
By Bill Vann
28 June 2002
http://www.wsws.org/
The ruling by a three-judge federal appeals court panel in San Francisco that compelling the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to “one nation under God” in public schools is unconstitutional has afforded yet another opportunity for America’s politicians to make fools of themselves.
The decision did no more than reaffirm the essential right to freedom from government “establishment of religion” and the principle of separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
“The statement that the United States is a nation ‘under God’ is an endorsement of religion,” the court’s majority wrote. It added that the pledge “sends a message to unbelievers ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.’”
As written, the court said, the pledge is no less a violation of the constitutional protection against establishment of religion than if it described the US as “a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god.’” The First Amendment, it continued, “prohibits the government’s endorsement or advancement not only of one religion at the expense of other religions, but also of religion at the expense of atheism.”
From both a legal and a democratic standpoint, all of this is unassailable. Yet the ruling has ignited a nationwide furor, with congressmen and television “personalities” tripping over each other to be the loudest in braying out their protest against the court’s action.
Meanwhile, fascistic thugs, taking their cue from these political “leaders,” have made death threats against both the California man who brought the lawsuit against the pledge and his daughter, a child in the second grade.
The Senate organized a hasty 99-to-0 vote denouncing the court’s reaffirmation of one of the most fundamental democratic rights upon which the country was founded. Over 100 Congressmen poured out onto the Capitol steps to recite the pledge and sing “God Bless America.”
The frenzied reaction was bipartisan. President Bush called the ruling “ridiculous.” Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat, said it was “just nuts.” House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri railed against any attempt to change “the time-tested, venerable pledge that is such a central part of our country’s life and our nation’s heritage.”
These scoundrels know little and care less about the “nation’s heritage.” The House of Representatives began its “tradition” of saying the pledge each morning only in 1988, as the result of a dirty tricks campaign by the Republican Party and George Bush Sr. against Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. The Massachusetts governor had vetoed a law requiring the Pledge of Allegiance in all public schools, correctly calling it a violation of the First Amendment. The Republicans sought on that basis to brand him as “un-American.” For its part, the Senate began the practice only two years ago.
The origins of the 31-word oath lie in the relatively recent history of America, a history that does not bear much probing as far as the pledge’s modern-day defenders are concerned.
Its author was Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister who was pressured into giving up his Boston pulpit because of the church’s opposition to his Christian-socialist sermons. He was a first cousin of Edward Bellamy, author of the well-known socialist-utopian novel, “Looking Backward.”
He wrote the pledge in 1892 for the magazine The Youth’s Companion. It included no reference to God, which would only be tacked on 62 years later.
He chose the words, he later wrote, with his mind on “salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution ... with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...”
In short, the democratic ideals of the American Revolution, the Civil War and the abolition of slavery animated the original pledge. Bellamy acknowledged, however, that he had wanted to include the words “liberty, justice and equality for all,” but left out equality because he knew that it would be opposed by fellow members of the National Education Association, who stood against equal rights for blacks and women.
Even so, the pledge as written rankled the reactionaries of that period, and it was not long before they set about changing it. What had begun as an idealistic tribute to the universal democratic principles of the country’s founding, was soon transformed into a vow of obedience to a rising imperialist power that was to exert its military might around the globe.
The drive to make recitation of the pledge compulsory began only in the early 1920s, amid the wave of reaction that followed the Russian Revolution and gave rise to the anticommunist Palmer Raids and a nationwide anti-immigrant witch-hunt. Spearheading the campaign for the pledge were the American Legion and the Ku Klux Klan, both notorious for their role in the wave of lynchings that swept the country during the same period.
This campaign also involved a critical change to the text drafted by Bellamy, substituting for the original, “my flag,” the words, “the flag of the United States of America.” Bellamy protested this nationalistic revision, aimed against foreigners and “reds.” He had intended the oath not as one of American jingoism, he said, but an international pledge of peace, adaptable to all nations. His opinion, however, was drowned out by the patriotic ranting of the American Legion and the KKK.
After the US entry into World War II, the manner in which the pledge was delivered underwent an alteration as well. Until then, students were instructed to recite it with their right arms rigidly extended, shoulder high. The resemblance to Nazi youth swearing fealty to Hitler was too close for comfort. Americans were instructed to place their hands over their hearts instead.
The second major change in the text, introducing the words now defended so vociferously by both major parties, was carried out in another period of deep reaction, at the height of the McCarthyite witch-hunt of the 1950s. Congress, responding to a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic men’s organization, added “under God.” The clear aim was to mobilize religion in the campaign against “godless communism” abroad, and to further the persecution of socialists, communists and atheists at home.
Bellamy had died decades earlier, but his granddaughter said that he would have opposed the introduction of religion. In the end, the mutilation of his original text recalls nothing so much as Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” in which the principle that “all animals are created equal,” was twisted into “some animals are more equal than others.”
It is hardly an accident that a challenge to the introduction of “God” into the pledge evokes such a visceral reaction from ruling circles today. The “heritage” of McCarthyism, police-state repression and anti-immigrant crackdowns is being revived with a vengeance, and with the backing of both political parties.
In the wake of September 11, there has been a concerted campaign to promote cheap patriotism and inject ever-larger doses of religion into national life as a means of diverting the American people from any critical examination of the roots of the present crisis.
Doubtless the correct decision of the Ninth Circuit will be overturned by the black-robed reactionaries on the US Supreme Court, if it is not struck down first by the full appeals court. Nonetheless, the event has had the singular value of providing a self-exposure of a Congress, presidency and media that are permeated with stupidity and cowardice and united in virulent opposition to the most elementary democratic principles.