Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scombrid · 05-21-2003, 07:15 AM

Here is the attorney generals take on this issue:

Quote:

Pledge of Allegiance, "In God We Trust"
Upheld by Federal Judge
-Attorney General Successfully Defends Pledge, Posting of National Motto in Schools --

RICHMOND � Attorney General Jerry Kilgore hailed a ruling by a federal judge that the daily recitation of the pledge of allegiance is constitutional, as is the posting of the national motto of "In God We Trust" in public schools. Judge James C. Cacheris, U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District, Alexandria Division, has dismissed a suit brought against Loudoun County Schools challenging two Virginia statutes that require the pledge and the posting of the motto. The ruling comes as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to reconsider its ruling that the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because it contains the words "under God."

"This is a great ruling for the school children of Virginia, who will still be able to proudly recite the pledge of allegiance every morning and see our national motto hanging on the wall," said Attorney General Kilgore, who defended the Virginia statutes in the suit. "While the rest of the country continues to be amazed at the wrong-headed decision of the 9th Circuit, we are pleased by this ruling of a Virginia federal court."

Loudoun County resident Edward Myers brought the suit against the Loudoun County School Board and school superintendent Dr. Edgar B. Hatrick, claiming that the pledge of allegiance constitutes an idolatrous prayer that his two elementary school-aged children should not have to hear. Further, he argued that the posting of "In God We Trust" in public schools, as mandated by the Virginia General Assembly, was unconstitutional as applied in Loudoun County because the posters were provided to the schools by a private religious organization. Judge Cacheris rejected both arguments, finding no constitutional violations, and dismissed the complaint on summary judgement.

"The statute mandating recitation of the pledge is secular because it aims to foster democracy, which is both necessary to the survival of the concept and entirely independent of religion," Judge Cacheris wrote of the pledge of allegiance. "�the statute makes clear that it is not forcing acceptance of the beliefs contained in the pledge on any student."

"�the fact that the poster was designed by a religious group does not make the poster religious in nature," Cacheris wrote. "Indeed, aside from the inclusion of the word �God� as a portion of the national motto, the posters are wholly devoid of any religious reference or symbol."

The Code of Virginia requires the recitation of the pledge of allegiance each day, but does not compel students to participate should they have objections for any reason. Virginia law also requires public schools to conspicuously post the statement "�In God We Trust,� the National Motto, enacted by Congress in 1956." It also allows schools to accept contributions or in-kind donations from anyone to help defray the costs of the posters.

Muffinstuffer · 05-21-2003, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronin
Because school is for critical thinking skills and not disrespecting someone's beliefs or ideology.

Beliefs belong to the private family and their respective house of worship.

That is the best way.

And I don't really disagree with that statement. However, my question still remains if all these people REALLY were FORCED to say the Pledge. It doesn't appear that any one of these people were FORCED to say the Pledge anymore than I was FORCED to stop praying in school, even though I was actually singled out, and I've heard no more than "I couldn't NOT say the Pledge correctly because I 'would' be ridiculed" from a lot of people. Not that I'm saying that NONE were forced...just that I haven't heard from too many of them here.

Ronin · 05-21-2003, 08:21 AM

But, the fact is that children are sensitive and will be singled out for ridicule.

The best overall option is the neutral option, with liberty and justice for all.

You don't seem to have an argument against that and would, I hope, support it as the most inclusive.

BioBeing · 05-21-2003, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Muffinstuffer
And I don't really disagree with that statement. However, my question still remains if all these people REALLY were FORCED to say the Pledge. It doesn't appear that any one of these people were FORCED to say the Pledge anymore than I was FORCED to stop praying in school, even though I was actually singled out, and I've heard no more than "I couldn't NOT say the Pledge correctly because I 'would' be ridiculed" from a lot of people. Not that I'm saying that NONE were forced...just that I haven't heard from too many of them here.

They are being forced by peer pressure, and that is wrong. If even one kid gets ridiculed for not saying it (and we have anecdotal evidence for at least that in this thread), then that kid is being picked on on religious grounds. That the state mandates the Pledge, which contains the word "God", thus means that the State is forcing God onto that child or have them face possible ridiculed by their peers. To me, that = State sponsor ship of the word God.

If the god in question is the Xian God, that is State sponsorship of religion. If God is, in this case, not the Xian God, then who the flip is he??? And why should this Nation be under him? Surely, the notion of "one nation under God" is not implying some nefarious, impotent, hand-waving psuedo-deity. What would be the point of putting a nation under such a being?

Like with "In God we Trust". Do we trust in a specific God, or in the general concept of god? If the latter, why the upper case "G". And why should we trust a vague undefined god concept? If the former - then someone has a specific God in mind... since we are constantly being bombarded with the message "we live in a christian country" and "America was founded on christian principles" (and knowing the history of when these phrases were introduced, and for what reason) how can we not assume the intent is a Christian God?

If it is a specific Christian God, then it should not be there: it is State sponsored religion. If if it just a vague god-concept, it should not be there because it is irrelevant.

Muffinstuffer · 05-21-2003, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronin
But, the fact is that children are sensitive and will be singled out for ridicule.

The best overall option is the neutral option, with liberty and justice for all.

You don't seem to have an argument against that and would, I hope, support it as the most inclusive.

Now that I can understand. From that point of view, yes, I would most definitely support it. I just was not sure if you meant being singled out as coming from the students, or the teachers.

Muffinstuffer · 05-21-2003, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BioBeing
They are being forced by peer pressure, and that is wrong. If even one kid gets ridiculed for not saying it (and we have anecdotal evidence for at least that in this thread), then that kid is being picked on on religious grounds. That the state mandates the Pledge, which contains the word "God", thus means that the State is forcing God onto that child or have them face possible ridiculed by their peers. To me, that = State sponsor ship of the word God.

If the god in question is the Xian God, that is State sponsorship of religion. If God is, in this case, not the Xian God, then who the flip is he??? And why should this Nation be under him? Surely, the notion of "one nation under God" is not implying some nefarious, impotent, hand-waving psuedo-deity. What would be the point of putting a nation under such a being?

Like with "In God we Trust". Do we trust in a specific God, or in the general concept of god? If the latter, why the upper case "G". And why should we trust a vague undefined god concept? If the former - then someone has a specific God in mind... since we are constantly being bombarded with the message "we live in a christian country" and "America was founded on christian principles" (and knowing the history of when these phrases were introduced, and for what reason) how can we not assume the intent is a Christian God?

If it is a specific Christian God, then it should not be there: it is State sponsored religion. If if it just a vague god-concept, it should not be there because it is irrelevant.

And actually I agree, believe it or not. I have no quarrel with that. Even most of the Christian fundamentalists say that this nation is no longer 'one nation under God' (and this, of course, assumes that it once was.) It certainly is not from the standpoint that there is a lot less about religion being taught in schools, and so on. I have no problem with the pledge not being there. As I said before, I wouldn't exactly clap my hands were it to be removed, as a Christian, but it wouldn't rip the fabric of my space-time continuum were it to be removed.

Ronin · 05-21-2003, 02:12 PM

School = critical thinking skills

Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Sweat lodge/private home...etc. = individual family supernatural indoctrination.

Government = neutral regulation of commerce, liberty and personal freedom.

Ta-dah.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-21-2003, 08:21 AM	#63
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	But, the fact is that children are sensitive and will be singled out for ridicule. The best overall option is the neutral option, with liberty and justice for all. You don't seem to have an argument against that and would, I hope, support it as the most inclusive.

05-21-2003, 02:12 PM	#67
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	School = critical thinking skills Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Sweat lodge/private home...etc. = individual family supernatural indoctrination. Government = neutral regulation of commerce, liberty and personal freedom. Ta-dah.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.