Pledge of Allegiance in Schools
 

Schools are eliminating the Pledge of Allegiance because of "UNDER GOD." My sincerest apologies if this has been posted already.

By DEBERA CARLTON HARRELL AND MARGO HORNER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTERS

A federal appeals court has ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because it includes the words "under God," violating the separation of church and state.

The 2-1 decision -- handed down yesterday by a three-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco -- was heralded by atheists and civil rights activists and vilified by citizens ranging from President Bush to elementary school students.

NOTE: This article has been updated since it was originally published in the newspaper.
The judge who wrote the opinion put the ruling on hold indefinitely Thursday until fellow members of the 9th Circuit decide whether to reconsider the case.

If allowed to stand, the ruling would mean children in Washington and eight other Western states covered by the court could no longer recite the pledge in public schools.

It could also open the door to broader interpretation, legal experts say, banning the Pledge of Allegiance before city and county council meetings, school board meetings, and other public arenas.

After the ruling, U.S. House members gathered on the front steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge en masse -- the same place they defiantly sang "God Bless America" the night of the Sept. 11 attacks.

And senators, who were debating a defense bill, angrily stopped to unanimously pass a resolution denouncing the decision.

Indeed, the ruling elicited passionate responses from those on each side of the issue.

"I think in a sense the ruling stops the government from imposing religious pressure on people," said Dave Anderson, director of the Washington Chapter of American Atheists.

"The government is sponsoring a pledge that includes religious rhetoric."

Anderson said he believes the ruling would apply to all government functions.

The American Civil Liberties Union called the court's finding "correct and is consistent with recent (U.S.) Supreme Court rulings invalidating prayer at school events."


For the entire article, click here

I'll post when I hear some responses.

I saw this on the news yesterday. I find it ironic that the man that brought the debate is atheist/agnostic (I'm not sure which), but that his ex-wife is Christian and doesn't agree. She said that she doesn't want her child to be known as the child that caused for the pledge to be outlawed.

I don't agree with the removal of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools however, I always found it strange that students could acknowledge a flag or what it represents but are not allowed to pray/acknowledge God in schools.

I disagree too! If it was a time that Christians need to speak out, it's now.

I stopped saying the pledge back when I was in grade school. I didn't find it to be true, so why say it. I caught a lot of flack for that because I went to a catholic school, but my parents stood behind me with it. When I got to high school, which was also a catholic, it got worse, but I was older then, and I was really like yeah right like you gone make me say that.

This is true...but it seems like too many Christians are trying to be tolerant of any and everything instead of actually standing up for something :mad: :eek:

Yes, I say her interview on GMA. Apparently, when she was married she was atheist just like her husband, but has since become a born again Christian. :D

I don't see anything wrong with saying the pledge of allegiance nor saying "under God".

Let him (the atheist that's bringing this suit) get into a life threatening situation. I guarentee he will be calling on the name of Jesus! *lol* :D

But seriously, I agree. We as bible believing Christians should be more vocal. God clearly tells us that we should stand for what's right and pure according to His word even if there are those people that don't like (remember we are not above our Lord, so if the world didn't like what He stood for, we can expect the same if not worse treatment).

For those interested in becoming active with keeping Christian values "alive and kickin'" in our society, check out www.afa.net .:)

Not to bring the religion aspect into it, if you dont want to say Under God, then dont' say it. If you dont want to say the Pledge, then dont say it. I have an issue with other people telling me what I can and can't say, period.

Public Institutions should be free of religion. Let people worship (or not worship) as they wish outside of school. The pledge has undergone quite a few mutations and, according to our country's founding fathers, the phrase should never have been inserted. While there are places where church and state seem to intersect, they don't threaten religious freedom because they are not endorsed by public institutions (the gov't).

This case is not about the pledge but serves to reinforce a need to keep very clear the separation between church and state within the public sphere. I think we, as a country, need to be mindful about letting too much "church" seep into our public institutions. Many people have no problem saying "under God" because our country is predominantly Christian. But we are not a "Christian" country (as Italy is a Catholic Country). What if the phrase was "under Allah," or "under Jehovah-Shalom," or "through Buddha," or "under Mother Earth?" Because this country was founded on a belief that our public institutions should be free of religious bias, if we recognize one religion's name for "The Supreme Being" (in Christianity, "God") shouldn't we recognize all of them? How is it possible to choose one? Additionally, it follows that if we're going to recognize religious beliefs, then we must recognize non-belief also, since one is also free in this country to be atheist (which is very different from agnosticism, even though they are often equated as like). What about substituting "under nothing?" Schools are public institutions in a country that should not have religious bias. Do you see where the problem lies? Why should one religion be favored in an institution created to serve the populace?

I realize that every student has the right not to say the pledge because of religious beliefs; they are welcome to choose to sit with mouths closed. However, I don't think a decision to affect non-participation in an activity the school endorses should be made based upon CONFLICTING religious beliefs. I say "conflicting" religious beliefs because not participating in the pledge is a response to an opposing belief, not solely because of the student's own religious dogma.

We've done a pretty good job of keeping church and state separate. Let's not erode what the founding fathers set out to do and the reason so many people come to this country. If you are really adamant that your religious beliefs be a part of your child's daily schooling, you are welcome to send them to any private religious school of your choosing.

Thank you Choo-ChooAKA!
 

This is not about whether one is a Christian or any other kind of religion. Especially since not every religion calls its deity God.

It is simply about the separation of church and state and the mandating of a pledge being recited that has religious overtones in an institution that is funded by public dollars. And if you go back and research why the amendment was passed in the first place it had to do with folx being persecuted by governments because of their religious beliefs. Think Ireland and the Catholic/Protestant wars.

And it is the same reason why every May/June we send letters to all public schools in Minnesota reminding them that mandating prayer at graduation is in violation of the Constitution. Every year we get schools who do it, and students/parents who then want to sue the school. And these aren't necessarily aetheists, but people of different religious beliefs who feel their particular belief is not being respected. Think Jewish students who are forced to listen to a prayer praising Jesus.

Personally, I do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor do I sing the National Anthem. But that's a whole 'nother issue.

I saw the same story on GMA and The Early Show. Hubby and I believe that this man who wants Under God removed from the pledge is using this to divert from the problems that he is really having with his ex-wife over custody/child support/visitation issues involving the little girl. Does anyone else feel that way, or noticed how he kept throwing up those issues when he was interviewed?

As for the pledge, if you don't want to say it, then don't. Sit down somewhere. But as for me and my house, we believe in God and we will fight to keep Under God in the pledge.

I know that is right Soror! The comments in this thread represent secularism at its best! Folx always wonder why God let this and that happen....and then they forget that they have pushed God so far out of the public arena :(

For those that don't know there is a war going on physical and spiritual....I hope my brothers and sisters in Christ leave the house everyday with their armour on!!;) :D

No I won't go sit down somewhere. I just don't recite it and it has nothing to do with the phrase Under God. And as for me and my house we also believe in God but we also believe in the Bill of Rights and separation of church and state.

And very honestly, the God in whom I believe is not so vain as to be upset that a phrase using his name may be eliminated from a pledge that is really about allegiance to a flag and a republic (which by the way brought our ancestors here as slaves.)

It is not about allegiance to Him.

Ladygreek, I know this thread is old but this is the first time I've read it. If you could see me now, I'm giving you a standing ovation!

You're not late
 

Nupe4Life, I just posted that yesterday so you are right on time. And thank you for the ovation. I'm just glad that someone else sees the issue I see. :D

Thanks, Lady Greek!
 

Wow, this is the first time I've visited this forum since I posted.

I didn't mean to leave you stranded, Ladygreek; Ditto your response. This is not about belief or non-belief. It's about separation of church and state. As stated earlier, different religions call their deities by different names, and as advocates of a separation between church and state, we are trying to insure that religious freedom continues; not limit it.

While the pledge is a small issue, it is important to PAY ATTENTION to anything that sets court precedent – especially in defense of our freedoms. If you had ever lived in a country where you were privy to religious persecution (Ireland, for example, as Ladygreek pointed out), you too, would be very attentive to anything that looks even remotely close government endorsed religious bias.

To draw the conclusion that Ladygreek and I are "secular" because we believe in a separation between church and state is rather ridiculous. The man who is raising the pledge issue is atheist, but most of the people who support this separation, including me and Ladygreek, are not. Be careful about assumptions. They are almost always inaccurate and they can also be hurtful and serve to limit discussion, thereby curtailing meaningful dialogue that can bring clarity to emotion-laden issues.

Now, understanding that both I and Ladygreek use the word GOD in our homes and with our families on a daily (and sometimes, for me, moment-to-moment) basis, is it possible to view separation of church and state not as an attack on Christianity but as a meritorious defense of one of the freedoms that we enjoy in this country and don’t want to see eroded through the process of court precedent? If the decision that “Under God” can stay in the pledge comes down, it may seem as if Christiandom has been defended, but in actuality they are setting a court precedent that limits freedom (not just religious, but on all fronts). Recently, this is a consistent trend in this country and it’s happening because many Americans don’t see the forest for the trees.

im also on the "chill out with the pledge" side of the fence. theres a reason why separting church and state exists in the law (then again, a lot of our laws stem from christian beliefs, so...)

however, what happens when that kids gets in trouble for protesting the pledge? this happened in school (from elementary up to high school) and kids would get letters and phone calls, suspensions, all sorts of crazy mess. i personally think its a waste of time (i know red flags are goin up and ppl are gonna jump down my throat). i mean, do we need an public educational institution telling us that to start our day off, we need to pledge allegiance to the flag under god? teachers would throw a fit if you didnt stand up, put ur hand over ur chest, everything. to the point where if you didnt to it with the class, you had to recite it to the class afterwards, which took up even more time, and then the kid looks like a fool.

ive not once felt any better or worse in school (or any public institution) by saying the pledge.

Check this out for some history on the matter. Note when Under God was added and why. Also note what happened to the Jehovah Witnesses and why. (Hope you can open it since we can't post the article itself anymore :(. j/k I understand perfectly why we can't.)

http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4691323.html

Thanks for sharing, LadyGreek!

Yes, thank you. That was a fantastic article. The pledge, in its entirety, is kind of silly.

GOD STAYS
 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._allegiance_10


I never read this thread and just happened to skim it just now and OH MY WORD at part of the exchange in here. :eek: :eek:

ladygreek, thanks for posting the history of the pledge changing during the McCarthy era, and adding in "under God". It is important to know the context of why it was changed and when. One difference of this situation, to that of "In God we Trust" printed on our money, is that the pledge was altered, whereas the money was originally that way. Not saying it is right or wrong, but it does make a difference.

Personally, I would prefer it to not be there, as it was not originally intended by the author. Yes I am a Christian, but I believe Freedom of Religion extends to all faiths and those who don't have a faith equally. For those of us who do believe in God, he won't disappear because if his name isn't in the pledge. In a public, government funded school, it is a conflict of beliefs. In a private school, they can do as they please.

Re: GOD STAYS
 

YAH!!!!!!!:D

Re: GOD STAYS
 

But you know they punked out. They did not rule on the constitutionality of it but just his ineligibility to speak for his child since he is a non-custodial parent. This is not really resolved.:p

Re: Re: GOD STAYS
 

Very true Soror.:)

Re: Re: GOD STAYS
 

Which, of course, is the genius of this decision. They sidestepped the true question that they know is on everyone's mind: Is the use of the word God on government tender constitutional? Obviously they are trying to not to give the extreme right wingers a victory...but their point got across. Now, of course, someone who is of age will bring a suit and use themself as the sole interest represented in the case. We shall see the fancy footwork the court will do next time.

As a former school teacher (2 years...they drove me crazy!!) I can honestly say that if there is anywhere that God is needed it is in our schools.

Side note:
Every morning when the pledge was being said, I never said it. I haven't said it since middle school. I didn't even require kids to stand and recite it if they didn't want to. I would just face the flag which was in the front of the room and turn my back to the kids with my hand over my heart.

Truth be told, I didn't know schools still said it. As a child of the 80s, I remember saying the pledge during elementary school, but it stopped after that.

Re: Re: Re: GOD STAYS
 

A whole 'nother issue. :D