RufusAtticus

You guys have left off ". . . born and unborn."

Psycho Economist

One thing though... The Supreme Court will probably never be in a position to extract "under God" from the pledge, as it doesn't carry the force of law... at the federal level, anyway. The pledge is established in public law 94-334 suggesting proper flag ettiquite (it is binding on the military and made enforcable in various jurisdictions). The fact that it doesn't carry the force of law is why, aside from the inevitable first ammendment challenge otherwise, you can't get in trouble for omitting "under God" when saying the pledge already.

That's what irritates the anti-flag burning crowd in the first place. 94-334 can't prohibit a political demonstration of flag burning, despite the fact that it says people shouldn't do diddily-ooh it.

The problem is, and will continue to be whether state officials directing people to say the pledge, as long as "under God" is in it, constitutes an endorsement of Judiasm & Christianity by the state. If five justices buy into "ceremonial deism" crap, it will not be such, for American legal purposes anyway.

Alonzo Fyfe

As you point out, one can get into trouble when omitting "under God" (or, more accurately, for leading class in the pledge without the word "under God") because many of the laws that require such acts require the teacher to use the so-called recommended pledge.

If person A says to B "I recommend that you have C do this", and B says to C, "Do this, or else", the fact that A's statement to B was a "recommendation" turns out to have little relevance.

Besides, those who say the pledge, in a crowd with others, but leave out the words "under God" are being dishonest, at least to others, because this act is virtually undetectable, and the message one is in fact communicating to others (and, indeed, in many cases, the act one intends to communicate to others) is that the pledge, as recited, is a proper and legitimate statement.

It is something like telling a lie while having one's fingers crossed. The crossed fingers really does not prevent the lie from being a lie.

Psycho Economist

Right... laws mandating the pledge are unconstitutional under the establishment clause as long as the pledge includes "under God". It being in the text of the pledge is probably out of the courts' reach. It is certainly so in Nedow.

I'll agree that leading the pledge is insidious religious indoctrination with the effect of putting down religious minorities. You might enjoy School Prayer and Discrimination: The Civil Rights of Religious Minorities and Dissenters by Frank Ravitch. I'm looking forward to buying it myself; I've only flipped through it. He pulls no punches to show that neutering the establishment clause for the benefit of the exercise clause will make second-class citizens out of non-Christians.

But despite what we'd all love, judicial review can't invalidate a law because it's "bad" in subjective or practical senses, they only decide constitutionallity, and admittedly in a subjective process. Eldred v. Ashcroft is a recent, painfully salient reminder. The majority decision of the court held that the Bono copyright extension act has plenty of negative consequences, but it did not overstep Congress's authority in the copyright clause.

{URL edited by Toto to give credit to II for book purchases}

capsaicin67

I propose legislation that, henceforth, water will no longer be considered "wet".

RufusAtticus

And PI = 3.

RufusAtticus

Does this amendment even have a chance of passing? I mean they've been debating school prayer and flag burning amendments for decades.

capsaicin67

RA:And PI = 3.

I've always thought that should be the case! Good idea. It is a lot less complicated. Faith based math!

admice

By these posts I can see we all need to learn more about how the government works. An amendment would be difficult if not impossible to get thru. The religious right has been trying for many years to get one.

The supreme court can rule the 1954 law unconstitiutional, thus invalidating the whole law. Only congress can repeal the 1954 or pass a new law changing the pledge back to omit 'under god'.

In any case, it sucks royal that they are trying. We need to organize and increase our power to stop this nonsense. The religious right is a minority. I was reading how in the 1860's the new Republican party was a minority and the abolitionists were a minority within them, but they were organized and committed, lead by a young lawyer named Abe Lincoln...you know what they achieved.

Get involved! Get informed.

capsaicin67

In any case, it sucks royal that they are trying. We need to organize and increase our power to stop this nonsense.

Yep, yep.