Autonemesis

You can still say the Pledge with the phrase "under God", or be led in saying it, at any of the following events, even if the 9th decision stands.

• Football game
• Church service
• Family Bar-B-Que
• Class Reunion
• Wedding
• Independence Day picnic
• NASCAR race
• Memorial Day event sponsored by VFW, etc.
• Boy Scout meeting
• Company party or picnic
• Anytime, just for the Hell of it
• Bar Mitzvah
• Baseball game
• Supermarket Grand Opening
• Campaign speech
• ...

I'm sure others can add to this list. What exactly has any individual lost as a result of the illegal 1954 Congressional act being overturned? Nothing. The Establishment Clause restriction applies only to the government. Individuals are free to say whatever version of the Pledge they want to say, in any forum they wish to say it, or to say no pledge at all. Only if they are acting as an agent of the government are they restricted from leading the 1954-modified Pledge.

That's ALL!

Spazmatic

We know. But, for some absurd reason, Fundies demand religious indoctrination in public schools. And we think that's silly. Imagine that.

edoggsmooth

King Bud: I see that you understand the case. I wish other Americans would too. In watching the News in New York (which is mostly entertainment crap anyway) you get the impression that "Duh, the Pledge of Alligience is illegal and saying it will land you in jail."

Apathy and laziness play a big part in the backlash of this case. People are too apathetic to be upset about something they have been saying for years and are too lazy to learn the history of the 1954 ruling and the reasons why it was wrong.

I particularly liked the one dissenting judge saying (paraphrasing here) that "what's next? taking 'in god we trust' off money and 'so help you god' off swearing ins?" well.....yeah, asshole!

-ed

Spazmatic

This is what becomes of a nation whose heroes are sports stars and actors, and who sees its intellectual elite as "braniacs" and "nerds" and "bookworms". They forget they have a brain too.

NOTE: Not that having your heroes as sports stars and actors is inherently bad, it's only bad when combined with the second part.

Grumpy

In my news reports, I have been scrupulous in pointing out that the 9th Circuit ruled only that a part of the pledge was unconstitutional, and that the ruling was mainly aimed at an act of Congress. Specifically, "the court ruled that Congress violated the Constitution when it added the words 'under God' to the pledge in 1954," or words to that effect. (The court ruling also addressed the school district's policy of reciting the pledge, but that was of secondary importance.)

It makes a big difference, but it's all the same to the public.

For example, Jay Leno jokes (yes, it's only a joke) that he was afraid of being arrested for saying the pledge. Uh, no, that's not what the ruling was about. "What's next, outlawing apple pie and baseball?" (a quote from my state legislature). Again, no, this was about an unconstitutional act of Congress.

Mageth

Consider the very small percentage of people who have actually bothered to read the entire ruling handed down by the court. My guess is that those who are crying out loudest against the ruling are not in that group. And I haven't heard one person who is against it who has even the slightest inkling of what the Constitution really means, much less who has an understanding of the ruling.

Autonemesis

What is up with that? I use this same alias all over the online world and it never fails, someone always ends up calling me King Bud instead of Kind Bud.

I'm not jumping on you particular, edoggsmooth - don't get me wrong, I'm not angry or upset at all. It's just an alias, but it has always puzzled me that in a medium where words are typed and the letters are spelled out, this same mistake turns up time and time again.

[edited to fix spelling of edoggsmooth's name ]

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Grumpy

Well, there's Judge Fernandes in his dissenting opinion. But beyond that, I'd lay odds that most of the 99 U.S. Senators who instantly denounced the ruling had not read it. If they had, they would not have said such silly things in the first hours after the ruling came down.

Philosoft

I have to believe that many individuals, namely the erstwhile prez and one senator Byrd, were entirely ignorant of the 1954 Congressional mandate before two days ago. There's no other way that they can make statements to the national media condemning the 9th Circuit ruling as an affront to history and tradition.

Autonemesis

(I posted this on another thread, but that thread wasn't really about this topic and so I am re-posting it here so as to avoid taking some other thread off course. )

I'm fairly non-committal as to whether a teacher should be barred from leading a participation-voluntary recitation of the Pledge with "under God" in it, with the 1954 act off the books. The 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause, to my mind, carries much less force in arguing for barring the 1954 Pledge in that circumstance, than does the 1st Amendment argument in this case barring Congress from passing such a law.

I favor the right of an individual to express religious opinions, even when they happen to be acting in capacity as a government agent. The Establishment clause interpreted in light of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause, and the 1st Amendment right to free speech, are in tension here, and I think that a preference for individual liberty should guide the resolution of conflicts between the two. I just don't want any law on the books sanctioning an official religious opinion that must always be expressed no matter what. I'd look favorably towards allowing local community standards to determine which version of the pledge is to be recited, or if it is to be recited at all.

Anyway, I'd love to make that argument heard more widely (say, on the Rush Limbaugh show ), but I fear that it is too subtle to be understood in the media circus that passes for public debate.