crazyfingers

The way I see it, there are really two questions.

One is the legal question and I seriously doubt that there is much that we can do to change the odds on how the courts will decide.

The other is public opinion, and public opinion is important to the politicians. Legal arguments don't work with the public and so they don't work with the politicians. With the public, the argument needs to be on the grounds of fairness and freedom, I think.

I try to point out that the government does not have the right to tell children and teach children religious opinions. That is the right of the parents. The government has no right to interfere with the right of the parents to teach their kids on questions of religious belief. Also, the government has no right to interfere with the religious freedom of the children by telling the children to affirm a religious belief that the child may or may not believe.

The pledge essentially states that a god exists and the school is telling the child to affirm thatreligious belief. How would Christians react if the pledge said that no god exists and the school told a Christian child to speak an affirmation that no god exists? I expect that most Christians would explode.

The value of equal religious freedom for all demands that the government refrain from teaching children to believe one religious idea over another or telling children to affirm any religious idea.

I have no really good idea how well this argument works with the general public. I’ve largely used it against specific Christians who, from my experience with them, do not appear to value equal religious freedom for all more than they value their desire to impose their religion onto others.

However, I suspect that should the occasion ever come up, say at work, where, near as I can tell, most of my co-workers do have a sense of fairness, it would probably gain some traction and get them thinking.

I hope to have the opportunity to send a letter to the editor along the lines described above. Things like that, perhaps, could change opinions by.. a fraction of a point?

Philosoft

At least until their precious "under God" is threatened.
Nah, there are legitimate constitutional issues here.

EverLastingGodStopper

My children never heard of "God" until they were taught in public school to say that they were UNDER GOD, every day, every week, every month, all school year. "Under God" in the Pledge violates my right to raise my children with my family's religious beliefs, i.e., none. My children have to either LIE or SHUT UP, every day, every week, every month, all school year. This violates our right to religious freedom, i.e., the freedom to choose any religious beliefs we want (in this case, we chose "none").

Please, say the Pledge out loud, substituting "under Allah" for "under God." How does it make you feel to say "under Allah?" What if you were at a public event, such as a school board meeting, and everyone around you said "one Nation, under Allah"? Would you be so complacent about the Pledge? Would you say "so what?"

I don't want to lie or shut up, and I don't want my family to lie or shut up. We want the pledge restored to its pre-1950s version, "one Nation, indivisible." It's not nearly as big a lie.

Mathew Goldstein

Public opinion is also important to the outcome of high profile, controversial lawsuits like this. Judges are sensitive to public opinion because they have to consider the costs and practicality of enforcing their rulings versus the impact of making rulings that are ignored. We need to speak out to be heard to deal with this public opinion problem. If we lose in the courts it will probably be because enough judges decided that public opinion isn't ready for nonestablishment of monotheism, not because the judges themselves object in principle to non-establishment of monotheism. The rulings against the Pledge so far have been modest in the sense that the judges have restricted their decision to be against the Pledge ritual in public school but not against the Pledge law. And I think one of primary reasons that they refuse to strike down the Pledge law is that they want to try to avoid a direct clash with Congress. So it is mostly one problem: Public opinion is important for court outcomes and that is our Achilles heal here and addressing that it is also how we can increase the odds of favorable legal outcome.

Lunawalk

Ok so what happends if the Supreme court restore the pledge to it pre 1950's version? . what will the christians do ? It will be like prayer in school. oh they taking god away from us. it will find it way back into the law. Look I understand what you are saying. It like Jews being forced to acknowledge Jesus in school. Being forced to go against your beliefs. I think we should point that argument. to christians. and the public.I know it won't be easy.

Happy Wonderer

As a child of the 60's and 70's, I find the idea of a whole bunch of children lined up and reciting a pledge to their country to be somewhat disturbing anyway. I'd have probably had the whole class (or at least those other wiseasses who went along with me) give the Nazi salute while saying it.

Sigh, I guess it was a brief time of freedom when we could think that way.

hw

AdamWho

When I heard Newdow speak I thought that he was lousy. But you have to hand it to him, MD, JD, argued a case before the SCOTUS. Next he will be piloting a mission to mars and running for president.

Agemegos

All it takes is 51:49, provided that the country is fairly uniform geographically.

And actually, if it comes down to that, it only takes a 51:49 majority in 51% of the state electoral districts in the 38 least populous states. Fortunately no gerrymander is ever perfectly efficient, but it sure as hell doesn't need the support of 75% of the population to get 51% of the votes in 75% of the state legislatures.

Agemegos

Well, given that 'lah' is Arabic for 'god', and prefixing 'al' is a bit like capitalising a noun, you could make a case that it is the same thing, just in a different language. Perhaps a beter analogy would be "One nation under Vishnu", or "One nation under Ba'al".

We don't want to suggest to the fundies that we hate them the way they hate muslims. They'd murder us.

Agemegos

Better spin:

"American doesn't make people lie. America doesn't make people shut up. Don't make my little kiddies lie!"

Bollocks, of course. But appealing bollocks.