A federal judge ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is unconstitutional, saying the pledge's "reference to 'under God' violated school children's right to be 'free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.'"
This will likely go all the way to the Supreme Court. I hope this ruling holds up. I don't like the idea of a "coercive requirement" to affirm God or State. Most people who object to the pledge do so because of its reference to God. But isn't it somewhat Orwellian, somewhat totalitarian, to require children to pledge their allegiance to the nation? Patriotism should not be forced onto people. But then again, you could debate for hours on whether or not a nation-state could hold up without being somewhat coercive.
I don't know what the big deal is. I thought conservatives didn't even talk about God these days. They should just change the pledge to, "One nation, under an Intelligent Designer..." and everyone would be happy.
Perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Like this post? Get updates via|
Comments (6)
From http://underthenews.blogspot.com ...
A federal judge in California has ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because the pledge’s reference to “under God” violates school children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”
OK, it's California, where a guy with a petition to repeal the suffrage of hamsters could get 10,000 signatures in 30 minutes. It's ironic that ours is a nation where burning the flag is defended as free speech, but kids saying "under God" should be gagged. But really, is this the most pressing issue before a nation at war, a nation rabbit-punched by a hurricane, and a nation with a big al Qaeda target painted on its back?
On one hand, if God intended to reward us for including him in our daily affirmations before class, He might go a little easier on the hurricanes. I mean, don't you think that admitting we're "one nation under God" should invite some tender mercies?
On the other hand, maybe He doesn't care what we force schoolkids to say out loud, and is more interested in how we conduct ourselves when nobody else is looking.
Who knows? The Lord hasn't really been keeping up his blog, so we're not sure what He's thinking. But I can tell you what I'm thinking: These attention-starved atheists are starting to be as annoying as megawatt televangelists.
Posted by Ron Franscell | September 14, 2005 11:25 PM
It's ironic that ours is a nation where burning the flag is defended as free speech, but kids saying "under God" should be gagged.
What exactly is ironic about that? No one forbids people from talking about God freely, but when it is a mandatory requirement in publicly funded schools, it is unconstitutional.
No one said it was the most pressing issue to the nation, but that doesn't mean it isn't important.
But, just to be clear, you are saying that more public praying - as opposed to, say, reducing greenhouse gas emissions - would stop hurricanes? I'm sorry, but if your God would destroy an entire city and kill thousands of people just because we don't offer enough meaningless praise, well... He doesn't exactly deserve much praise.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari | September 14, 2005 11:44 PM
It would be totalitarian for a teacher to fail a student who didn't say the pledge of allegiance.
It would be totalitarian for a state to sponsor children as spies to spy on other children and report them for not saying the pledge of allegiance or saying the pledge of allegiance incorrectly by omitting or adding things.
It would be totalitarian to sponsor a state of fear in which the power of the school is applied to students that refuse to say the pledge of allegiance.
It is, however, utter nonsense to claim that in the United States of America, where a teacher tells you to stand up when the pledge of allegiance is spoken, that this then means there is COERCION on the student required to stand up to say the pledge of allegiance along with the rest of the students who do.
Utter nonsense. There is no freaking mention of administrative punishment for students that don't do so, there is no freaking mention of any actual STUDENT RESISTANCE, but there is plenty mention of protests by the atheist parents. It seems faintly ironic that if students have a right not to be coerced into the pledge of allegiance, it is their parents doing it for them...
You are endowed by your Creator with the inalienable rights of free speech. If there was no Creator, then you are given your right to complain and moan from the government, and if the government decides you need to shut up, then the government has both the right and power to do so. Without a Creator, a God who is more powerful than government, Government is all Powerful, making people the pawns and stupid folk.
Atheist Religion is then imposed by the government for government, by government, for the purposes of maintaining government absolute totalitarian and Orwellian power.
Which is why a lot of people, who don't know jack about the logical consequences of anything in this world, have no problem with ACLU coercive practices that affect the great majority of American parents and students.
Posted by Ymarsakar | September 15, 2005 8:12 AM
The students nodded, emphatically agreeing with a statement which upwards of sixty-two thousand repetitions in the dark had made them accept, not merely as true, but as axiomatic, self-evident, utterly indisputable. - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
Of course, Ymarsakar, the pledge isn't totalitarian. It's only somewhat totalitarian. It is a form of prayer in the schools. And it is not that patriotism or expressing it is harmful, but it is not what school teachers are paid to do, and it is not something that children should be coerced into.
You find it ironic that the parents rather than the children are the ones objecting to the pledge. But these children are reciting this from as early as kindergarten, and most, probably all, of them do not understand the meaning of the pledge. Hell, many probably don't even know what "indivisible", "liberty" or "justice" mean at that age.
You are endowed by your Creator with the inalienable rights of free speech. If there was no Creator, then you are given your right to complain and moan from the government,
The logical conclusion, if you assume there is no Creator, is not that the government gives us free speech. On a philosophical level, we are all born with free speech, and it is the government or society that takes a certain amount of it away.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari | September 15, 2005 3:49 PM
http://index1.lopoiv.com >cumberland falls state resort park http://index2.lopoiv.com >sportplanes http://index3.lopoiv.com >labetalol side effects http://index4.lopoiv.com >it is a sin to jerk myself off http://index5.lopoiv.com >toyota of nasjua
http://index3.riuipa.com >roxanne bracewell http://index1.riuipa.com >simsbury ct cinemas http://index5.riuipa.com >russian ladies http://index4.riuipa.com >redmangear http://index2.riuipa.com >american 20indian
Posted by feechka-ju | August 27, 2008 9:59 AM
http://index1.lopoiv.com >cumberland falls state resort park http://index2.lopoiv.com >sportplanes http://index3.lopoiv.com >labetalol side effects http://index4.lopoiv.com >it is a sin to jerk myself off http://index5.lopoiv.com >toyota of nasjua
http://index3.riuipa.com >roxanne bracewell http://index1.riuipa.com >simsbury ct cinemas http://index5.riuipa.com >russian ladies http://index4.riuipa.com >redmangear http://index2.riuipa.com >american 20indian
Posted by feechka-ju | August 27, 2008 9:59 AM