enfant terrible

Such a requirement is clearly unconstitutional. Unfortunately, it is almost certainly severable, so you could not invalidate the whole statute based on this alone. A court would simply erase that requirement from the law.

StrictSeparationist

Unfortunate how? Take that clause away, and you have an ordinary Pledge law, correct? I mean, obviously loyalty oaths (especially those with fairy-tale references) aren't necessarily such a great thing, but the Colorado law seems no different from other state laws except insofar as its parental notification requirement.

enfant terrible

There are worse violations! When I applied for US citizenship, I had problems because I had not registered for Selective Service. Of course, it was the first time I heard that a non-citizen was supposed to register; I was not told that when I immigrated.

There is probably a good reason they didn't tell me that: I am pretty sure such a requirement violates international law. At the time of my immigration, I could have complained to my then-homeland's diplomatic mission and they could have (at least theoretically) make it into a scandal embarassing for the US. When I was applying for citizenship (clearly indicating I wanted it), I obviously had more to lose by complaining, and my former country's diplomacy had less reason to help me. So the INS lies to immigrants with a clear fraudulent purpose.

Fortunately, the "penalty" was light. I had to write and sign some nonsense about not objecting to bearing arms in defense of the US (which I signed honestly - I am not a pacifist and I do take citizenship seriously - but it is extremely unlikely to have any practical consequences) and, worst of all, wait another 8 months or so for the rescheduled interview. So I got my citizenship and I can rant about it forever, but I could never do anything to challenge the stupid rule as the case is, as far as it concerns me, legally moot.

enfant terrible

Yes, correct. And an "ordinary Pledge law" is bad, correct?

StrictSeparationist

I would not oppose a school Pledge recitation law if the words "under God" were removed and students were free to opt out without any hassle. The state's interest in fostering loyalty to and love for country is a strong one. If it chooses to use the public school system to further that end, so be it.

enfant terrible

I would also not oppose a school Pledge law if the text of the Pledge were "And now for something completely different... It's... Monty Python's Flying Circus!"

However, that is not the text of the Pledge, and neither is the one in your hypothetical.

StrictSeparationist

In the 1940s, two atheists are talking about public school. One says "I'd be OK with them if not for those daily prayers." The other replies "Yeah, and I'd like them a lot better if they handed out free money. But that's not the way it is either."

The pattern- I suggest a minor change that will conceivably become reality in the not-so-distant future, and you reply by suggesting something completely ridiculous and unrelated- is exactly the same. It does not make for a particularly convincing argument.

enfant terrible

Very poor analogy. Daily prayers were never an essential part of public schooling, not even by the wildest stretch of imagination. In contrast, the words "under God" are essential parts of the statutory definition of the Pledge, and it is that Pledge, and not some other, that a state makes kids recite when it enacts a school Pledge law.

As I explained above, not only is it not "exactly the same", it is not even similar.

"Your" and "my" hypothetical Pledges are both counterfactual, and the state of Colorado could not have had either in mind (and equally so) when enacting this law. That one "will" (could?) "conceivably become reality in the not-so-distant future" is an absolutely ridiculous grounds for distinction. We could conceivably be attacked by North Korea in the not-so-distant future, but it does not mean our legislators should act now as if we were currently in war with NK.

dirkduck

I was just going to make a post about this, never got to it though. Anyways, school starts up for me this Wednesday, the 13th. I'm wondering if they'll enforce it very much at my school. I read another article about the law, saying that you have to be either a foreign student or have a written note from a parent to be exempt from reciting it, yet it said that theres 'no punishment' for kids that won't. I'll see what they do when I don't recite it on Wednesday, if anything.

beejay

Is the "no punishment" a reference to no punishment from the State for refusing to speak? I would imagine your school has punishments that don't require specific laws.

Are you planning to stand, but remain silent? Or refuse to stand?

Let us know what happens.