Stephen Maturin

Let us know how it goes, Dirk.

Former Broncos running back Reggie Rivers has an interesting take on all this. I'm moving to Colorado in a couple of months and will look into getting that guy elected governor (whether he wants the job or not ).

dirkduck

Hey. I'm not sure exactly what the 'no punishment' deal is, I just read in an article about the law a little piece that said "students that don't recite the pledge will not be punished" or something along those lines, it didn't really go into deal. Anyways, I don't really have a problem with standing for it, although I would be curious to see what would happen if I don't stand at all .

EDIT: Heres one article I read (from the same source as Jewel posted I believe). Pledge law

And the bit about exemption/no punishment:

dirkduck

Well he'd certainly be a nice answer to Bill Owens . I wish more people here would see the obvious as Reggie Rivers does. The bill was passed 19-15 in the senate, but unanimous in the house here, so a pretty 'overwhelming' majority I guess. I havn't found one mention of any student that has objected to it so far (from the kids already in school), but about every article mentions a few kids saying how the pledge '"s important to them, and shows God's love" or simmilar.

Shadowy Man

Then for what possible reason would you need permission from your parents to do something that would result in no disciplinary action?!?

DMB

As a non-American, I do find the whole idea of children in schools across the country starting the day with the PoA very odd. It reminds me a bit of the Two Minute Hate in 1984, something essentially artificial but designed to brainwash.

I always thought England was bad enough, having religious assemblies at the start of the day, but you couldn't be forced to sing hymns or pray and there was always a right to be withdrawn for religious reasons.

dirkduck

Thats exactly what I'm wondering. My guess is that they contact the parents and 'report' that the child has refused to recite the pledge.

StrictSeparationist

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.

Many people would disagree with your statement that "[d]aily prayers were never an essential part of public schooling". I am, of course, not one of them. The simple fact is that in the 1940s, most public schools seemed to feel that daily prayer was an extremely important part of their educational mission, and statutes were enacted that reflected those feelings. Thus, the first atheist from my analogy was expressing a situation in which he would accept public school, even though the atheist's ideal situation was counter to the clear statutory intent behind the school prayer laws in force at the time. I stated that "I would not oppose a school Pledge recitation law if the words 'under God' were removed" (emphasis added). Thus, the first atheist and I said essentially the same thing about different circumstances. Neither one of us alleged that our ideal was, in fact, the current state of affairs.

The second atheist and you correspond similarly well. Both of you offered sarcastic, exaggerated replies to an earnest change that the first person expressed. The first person in both cases hoped and considered it at least reasonably likely that the change they suggested might be implemented in the near future. The second person in both cases offered a situation that was not earnest, and only intended to show the first person up.

Looks like a reasonable analogy to me, and you have not, in fact, demonstrated how it is "very poor". A realistic contingency statement really does not need to be countered with scorn and derision, yet you chose to do so. At this point, I do not hope to understand your motivations, and I'm hardly naive enough to consider it likely that you will offer an apology for your confrontational and ultimately pointless rhetoric. It's clear that we agree, so I cannot understand why you are so hostile.


"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.

Both atheists' imaginary public schools were counterfactual, and the government of their state clearly had neither in mind when it established its education system.

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.

Clearly not, and I did not say that I approved the Colorado Pledge law as is or as it will likely be amended in federal court. I said that I would support a hypothetical law that provided for Pledge recitation at the beginning of the school day, provided it left out references to supernatural entities. I had clearly moved away from the Colorado law in particular, and so your continued emphasis on that statute is illogical in the extreme.

enfant terrible

Again you are missing the point. Public schools were never defined, explicitly or implicitly, as schools in which daily prayers would be conducted. Yes, prayers were common in public schools, but they were equally, or more, common in private schools (as the overwhelming majority of those have always been church-affiliated). Public school systems were not established against a background of federal laws that mandated prayer as essential part of education. This is what my statement about "essential part" means, and it is the difference between our discussion and your analogy - a crucial difference in this context, thus invalidating the analogy.

Not at all. Your first atheist did not have any reason to oppose public schooling. He could simply oppose school prayer. The same authority (state) passed laws governing both. You, on the other hand, cannot resort to just removing the words "under God" from the Pledge, because the state of Colorado has no authority to do that. And they knew that when they made this law. From the state's point of view, the text of the Pledge is given and unchangeable.

I have emphasized your personalizations of this argument in the above quote to remind you to take it easy. There is no reason to make this personal. Reductio ad absurdum is not a personal attack, it is a perfectly valid logical tool and generally a very effective way of demonstrating inconsistencies in an argument. Furthermore, some of your allegations are simply not true (e.g. the truth is that I would earnestly and honestly vote in favor of the Monty Python recitation, but against the Pledge recitation in any form).

Perhaps I had not demonstrated it clearly enough, but you provided few counter-arguments. Anyway, I hope I addressed all of those in this post.

At the risk of being boring, I'll repeat: there was nothing to compel any state, when it established its public school system, to include daily prayer in it.

I'll remind you of the history of this argument:

1. I said the parental notification clause was unconstitutional (meaning, under established SC precedent) but "unfortunately" severable.

2. You asked why unfortunately.

3. I said the Pledge law was bad even without it and asked if you agreed.

4. You said you wouldn't oppose it if... (a counterfactual) - not an answer to my question

5. I pointed out, using the Monty Python stuff, that you did not answer my question. (You later challenged this as hostile, scornful and derisive.)

6. You introduced your analogy.

7. I challenged the analogy as poor: too distant to be relevant.

8. You wrote the post that included the above quote, criticizing me for, requote: "your continued emphasis on that statute is illogical in the extreme"

So, what is really illogical? 4 and 6 (your continued evasion of the question initially raised) or 5 and 7 (insisting on the original question and challenging your errors)?

I'll just get back to the main issue in the next message (after I eat some lunch). You don't have to reply to this one if you just want to continue discussing the issue.

StrictSeparationist

4. You said you wouldn't oppose it if... (a counterfactual) - not an answer to my question

I thought my answer was clearly implied in the post. If I support a hypothetical Pledge that cannot be reconciled with the current version of the Pledge, I would think it would be simple enough to deduce that I do not support recitation of the current Pledge. I do not.

I find your distinction between state and federal law with reference to my analogy unconvincing. Although it is true that the text of the Pledge of Alliegance is defined by federal statute, there's certainly nothing stopping Colorado or any other state from requiring that a different version of the Pledge (in my hypothetical, a version that does not include the words "under God") be recited at the beginning of each day of public school. In the absence of a federal statute mandating that each public school recite the federally sanctioned form of the Pledge, the states are free to use whatever modified version they like in drafting their education codes. And yes, I realize that's not what Colorado has done here, and that thus this is all counterfactual. I do, however, believe that starting each school day by reciting a Pledge that does not incorporate theistic values but is otherwise identical to our current Pledge of Alliegance would be an acceptable way of fostering patriotism in schoolchildren, an interest which I believe the state should be free to advance so long as its patriotic exercises are in no way mandatory.

enfant terrible

OK, now for the opinion on Pledge laws. There are several layers of this issue.

The simplest is the issue of parental notice - looks like we all agree it is unacceptable. There is hardly any doubt that it is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court precedent.

Next is what happens if this requirement is erased. Then, as we agreed, we have a 'plain vanilla' Pledge law. It is bad at least because it is still coercive and involves state endorsement of religion. I don't want to repeat the arguments from the threads about Newdow and Sherman cases. As I recall, StrictSeparationist and I agree on the constitutional issues involved, or at least on most of them.

As for the constitutionality of such vanilla Pledge laws, while most of us here (including me) would consider them unconstitutional, they are currently considered constitutional everywhere outside the 9th Circuit (CO is in the 10th), and I don't know anyone who thinks it likely that the SC will grant certiorary to Newdow and affirm the 9th Circuit's decision (let alone go further and reverse it on the issue raised in Newdow's cross-petition, invalidating the federal law that added the words 'under God' to the Pledge). So the hope for defeating the Colorado law in court is slim at best.

Obviously, this makes the hypothetical situation in which the words 'under God' are removed from the Pledge extremely unlikely; any discussion that assumes such a change of circumstances is purely academic. Nevertheless, we can have opinions about hypothetical situations. I think it is clear and settled that the school Pledge law would then be constitutional, as long as a student is free to refuse participation. It would not be appropriate to consider social consequences of such protest (such as ostracism) because patriotism and religion have different treatment under the Constitution.

But this is not a thread about a court case and there is no reason to limit it to constitutional issues. We are discussing policy matters as well. So the issue remains, is daily recitation of the Pledge good policy? Do we agree with it? Would we vote in its favor?

I think it is a lousy policy and would vote against it.

I understand, and support in general, the state's interest in fostering the ideals of good citizenship and civic duty. Our society could not function if the majority of us weren't committed to its basic ideals well beyond our short-term individual interests. But there are myriads of better ways to advance this interest than pledging loyalty to anything, and particularly in such a mindless fashion as it is done in schools.

When I was a pupil in communist Yugoslavia, for some time we ended each school day with a similar, but shorther and less solemn, pledge of loyalty to Tito and homeland. Then the routine was dropped; I guess it was just too stupid and ridiculous to catch on. Well, I don't want my children to be exposed to more brainwashing in the 'free' world than I was in a 'totalitarian' state.

I'll always vote against every brainwashing ritual, even if it facially supports values I fully subscribe to.