Having read through the opinion (okay, skimmed)… I think the court did a good job. The fact that it was voluntary was important. Never sure I bought into the whole “ceremonial deism” thing- but hey, precedent and all.
I think it just provides further evidence that this whole area of jurisprudence is messed up. *sigh* A little clarity would be nice for everyone.
(As a final note, as to the merits…. I have two opinions (2!). On the one hand, I do feel for the kids, assuming it’s not a parental ploy. It does suck when all of your classmates are doing something and to be singled out as different for not doing it. On the other hand, it should be a lesson in tolerance for them. They could just say the pledge with their classmates and *not say* the under god part. I think it’s unfortunate that we added that part in our anti-communist fervor, but it’s there now, so might as well deal.)
I’m a little confused by the strategic element here. Surely they could have waited for a Supreme Court that fostered a more Establishment Clause-friendly environment? Even the slightly more liberal Court that dealt with this last time responded with a firm “please, don’t make us rule on this”.
With regard to the phrase “under God” in the Pledge, Senator O’Hearn stated, on the floor of the New Hampshire Senate:
Justice Brennan of the Supreme Court wrote, “we have simply interwoven the motto ‘In God we Trust’ so deeply into the fabric of our civil polity that its present use may well not present that type of involvement [with religion] which the first amendment prohibits. . . The reference to divinity in the revised Pledge of Allegiance for example, may merely recognize the historical fact that our nation was believed to have been founded under God. Thus, reciting the pledge may be no more of a religious exercise than the reading aloud of Lincoln’s Gettysburg address which contains an allusion to the same historical fact.”
Senator O’Hearn was mistaken about “historical fact” and the decision compounds the error. President Lincoln didn’t say anything intended to mean that the United States of America were “founded under God.” Until much later than the Gettysburg Address, the expression “under God” meant “God willing.” Thus, in 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was amended to change “one nation indivisible” to something that means “one nation, God willing, indivisible.” This was explained by linguist Geoff Nunberg in 2004, but the misunderstanding continues.
Thus, in 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was amended to change “one nation indivisible” to something that means “one nation, God willing, indivisible.”
[emphasis added]
But does that re-interpretation, or perhaps more accurate interpretation, make the G word less offensive to the antitheists?
I’m also not sure that the interpretation of “Under God” in 1954, when it was inserted into The Pledge, was in any way related to the accepted meaning in 1864.
Everyone may remember that Michael Newdow took this issue to the Supreme Court, only to lose on standing grounds. However, it is less widely known that Mr. Newdow found a new group of plaintiffs (Hindus and atheists) and starting back over in District Court.
The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on December 4, 2007. The panel has been sitting on the decision for almost two years now.
It’s time for someone to make a stink about this. Win or lose, outrage or complacency, it doesn’t matter. A court shouldn’t be allowed to duck an issue by just never issuing an opinion.
While everybody’s just “thinking of the children” —or themselves*— nobody seems to have paid attention to the results of removing the ‘G_d’ word from the pledge.
Like many —possibly most— legislated items, the addition of “under God” to the Pledge was made for several reasons. Some legislators undoubtedly wanted the G-word for its own sake. Some undoubtedly wanted reference to (their beliefs about) the nation’s founding era.
But it is also fact that several legislators of the time made reference to Communism’s characteristic use of itself as a religion; that the State was the ultimate ethical, moral, and legal authority. In its original form, the Pledge is no different; subordinating oneself to the “flag and to the Republic for which it stands”.
No matter the application of other interpretations, the phrase “under God” simply and clearly removes any doubt about the position of government. Without the phrase, MLK would be a common, rabble-rousing criminal; with the phrase King is what he is, holding the government to a standard higher than itself.
The Pledge is a pledge, a promise, little if any different from an oath. You have to wonder about ‘G_d haters’ like Newdow and Kirkland, whose aim is to swear unqualified allegiance. Absolute, unconditioned, total loyalty and commitment . . . to a nation that —sometimes— is headed by a George Bush or makes some people second-class citizens.
Recitation of the Pledge is repugnant to an huge number of people; the ‘under God’ phrase makes it slightly less loathsome whether you believe in G_d, some higher power, or not.
*
Newdow, an atheist of Jewish origins, sued “on behalf” of his daughter, whose openly Christian mother has custody. In light that the daughter voluntarily offered to lead the Pledge, Newdows’s sincerity is questionable. It’s really a custody dispute.
1. D oyou have any…. evidence… for your assertions? How many is “several” legislators? Is there evidence in the contemporaneous legislative record?
2. Why does this make it any better? Are we pledging to a theocracy now? The rest of your assertions aren’t any better- yes, we pledge allegiance to the flag and the Republic, not to Bush, or Obama, or a current office holder. It doesn’t subordinate us to disagree with the laws (thanks to the 1st Am.). So, uh, yeah.
Loki13 stutters, “Are we pledging to a theocracy now?”
Only if you pledge to “. . . one nation, indivisible. . .”; in which the state is god, or at least equal to G_d.
Loki13 claims, “The rest of your assertions aren’t any better- yes, we pledge allegiance to the flag and the Republic, not to Bush, or Obama, or a current office holder. It doesn’t subordinate us to disagree with the laws (thanks to the 1st Am.).
Sloppy thinking; you have no basis for free speech —not to be confused with the right to it— since you already agree with the government.
Loki13 argues, “So, uh, yeah.”
Indeed. Take another toke, down another shot, snort another line; then post some more about how TheMan™ is oppressing you with the ‘G_d’ word.
BTW, underfather, it’s good to see you back! I just don’t feel like myself unless subjected to your scintillating wit. The use of “indeed” PLUS the withering hippy putdown…. you are too kind!
Anyway, I’m looking forward to your google results.
loki13 says:
Having read through the opinion (okay, skimmed)… I think the court did a good job. The fact that it was voluntary was important. Never sure I bought into the whole “ceremonial deism” thing- but hey, precedent and all.
I think it just provides further evidence that this whole area of jurisprudence is messed up. *sigh* A little clarity would be nice for everyone.
(As a final note, as to the merits…. I have two opinions (2!). On the one hand, I do feel for the kids, assuming it’s not a parental ploy. It does suck when all of your classmates are doing something and to be singled out as different for not doing it. On the other hand, it should be a lesson in tolerance for them. They could just say the pledge with their classmates and *not say* the under god part. I think it’s unfortunate that we added that part in our anti-communist fervor, but it’s there now, so might as well deal.)
October 1, 2009, 1:21 pmChrisTS says:
Does anyone know exactly what it would take to get these words removed or, put another way, to return us to the original pledge?
October 1, 2009, 1:47 pmblargh says:
legislative act, probly. Weren’t they stuck in there by Congress in 1954 or so?
October 1, 2009, 1:52 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
ChrisTS:
I think Congress would have to amend it.
October 1, 2009, 1:54 pmChrisTS says:
Oh well. Forget that idea.
October 1, 2009, 2:07 pmGuy says:
I’m a little confused by the strategic element here. Surely they could have waited for a Supreme Court that fostered a more Establishment Clause-friendly environment? Even the slightly more liberal Court that dealt with this last time responded with a firm “please, don’t make us rule on this”.
October 1, 2009, 2:48 pmArthurKirkland says:
What’s the problem with inserting God into something for children to recite? Children love fairy tales.
October 1, 2009, 7:30 pmeyesay says:
From the decision:
Senator O’Hearn was mistaken about “historical fact” and the decision compounds the error. President Lincoln didn’t say anything intended to mean that the United States of America were “founded under God.” Until much later than the Gettysburg Address, the expression “under God” meant “God willing.” Thus, in 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was amended to change “one nation indivisible” to something that means “one nation, God willing, indivisible.” This was explained by linguist Geoff Nunberg in 2004, but the misunderstanding continues.
October 1, 2009, 11:12 pmDennis N says:
[emphasis added]
But does that re-interpretation, or perhaps more accurate interpretation, make the G word less offensive to the antitheists?
I’m also not sure that the interpretation of “Under God” in 1954, when it was inserted into The Pledge, was in any way related to the accepted meaning in 1864.
October 2, 2009, 7:09 amChris Bell says:
Everyone may remember that Michael Newdow took this issue to the Supreme Court, only to lose on standing grounds. However, it is less widely known that Mr. Newdow found a new group of plaintiffs (Hindus and atheists) and starting back over in District Court.
The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on December 4, 2007. The panel has been sitting on the decision for almost two years now.
It’s time for someone to make a stink about this. Win or lose, outrage or complacency, it doesn’t matter. A court shouldn’t be allowed to duck an issue by just never issuing an opinion.
October 2, 2009, 7:47 amsubpatre says:
While everybody’s just “thinking of the children” —or themselves*— nobody seems to have paid attention to the results of removing the ‘G_d’ word from the pledge.
Like many —possibly most— legislated items, the addition of “under God” to the Pledge was made for several reasons. Some legislators undoubtedly wanted the G-word for its own sake. Some undoubtedly wanted reference to (their beliefs about) the nation’s founding era.
But it is also fact that several legislators of the time made reference to Communism’s characteristic use of itself as a religion; that the State was the ultimate ethical, moral, and legal authority. In its original form, the Pledge is no different; subordinating oneself to the “flag and to the Republic for which it stands”.
No matter the application of other interpretations, the phrase “under God” simply and clearly removes any doubt about the position of government. Without the phrase, MLK would be a common, rabble-rousing criminal; with the phrase King is what he is, holding the government to a standard higher than itself.
The Pledge is a pledge, a promise, little if any different from an oath. You have to wonder about ‘G_d haters’ like Newdow and Kirkland, whose aim is to swear unqualified allegiance. Absolute, unconditioned, total loyalty and commitment . . . to a nation that —sometimes— is headed by a George Bush or makes some people second-class citizens.
Recitation of the Pledge is repugnant to an huge number of people; the ‘under God’ phrase makes it slightly less loathsome whether you believe in G_d, some higher power, or not.
*
October 2, 2009, 3:15 pmNewdow, an atheist of Jewish origins, sued “on behalf” of his daughter, whose openly Christian mother has custody. In light that the daughter voluntarily offered to lead the Pledge, Newdows’s sincerity is questionable. It’s really a custody dispute.
loki13 says:
Wow, subpatre, that’s wild. A few things:
1. D oyou have any…. evidence… for your assertions? How many is “several” legislators? Is there evidence in the contemporaneous legislative record?
2. Why does this make it any better? Are we pledging to a theocracy now? The rest of your assertions aren’t any better- yes, we pledge allegiance to the flag and the Republic, not to Bush, or Obama, or a current office holder. It doesn’t subordinate us to disagree with the laws (thanks to the 1st Am.). So, uh, yeah.
October 2, 2009, 3:52 pmsubpatre says:
Loki13 stutters, “Are we pledging to a theocracy now?”
Only if you pledge to “. . . one nation, indivisible. . .”; in which the state is god, or at least equal to G_d.
Loki13 claims, “The rest of your assertions aren’t any better- yes, we pledge allegiance to the flag and the Republic, not to Bush, or Obama, or a current office holder. It doesn’t subordinate us to disagree with the laws (thanks to the 1st Am.).
Sloppy thinking; you have no basis for free speech —not to be confused with the right to it— since you already agree with the government.
Loki13 argues, “So, uh, yeah.”
Indeed. Take another toke, down another shot, snort another line; then post some more about how TheMan™ is oppressing you with the ‘G_d’ word.
October 2, 2009, 6:19 pmloki13 says:
subpatre-
I am guessing your snark indicates that you don’t have any contemporaneous evidence for the “several” legislators?
October 2, 2009, 6:30 pmloki13 says:
BTW, underfather, it’s good to see you back! I just don’t feel like myself unless subjected to your scintillating wit. The use of “indeed” PLUS the withering hippy putdown…. you are too kind!
Anyway, I’m looking forward to your google results.
October 2, 2009, 7:26 pm