So Fla Newspaper Ed: "What's the problem?" with the pledge

[Synnical]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/editorial/sfl-edittdpledgesep19,0,1787215.story?coll=sfla-news-editorial

Allegiance

South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board
Posted September 19 2005

ISSUE: Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is ruled unconstitutional.

It looks like the U.S. Supreme Court will have to settle the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance once and for all, or petty and self-indulgent plaintiffs will continue to challenge a half-century-old tradition on grounds that can only be described as ridiculous.

Once again a federal court in San Francisco has ruled the recitation of the pledge in public schools unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton said the pledge's reference to God was a violation of the right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God," the Associated Press reported.

Karlton said he was bound by a 2002 ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. But that decision held that the reference to God was unconstitutional even if noncompulsory.

That's just one of the senseless and inconsistent aspects of these rulings. There is no legal penalty for simply omitting the words "under God" when reciting the pledge. So where's the coercion? And if there's no coercion, then what's the problem?

There is also a case to be made for harmless tradition. The late U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist once wrote a majority opinion upholding the court's 1966 Miranda decision, which requires police to advise suspects of their rights, even though he personally disagreed with that decision. But in defending it, he wrote that "Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture."

So it is with the Pledge of Allegiance and its reference to God. The Supreme Court should agree to hear the case and then uphold the pledge's constitutionality -- after beginning its session, as it always does, with the words "God save the United States and this honorable court."

BOTTOM LINE: The Supreme Court should take the case and uphold the pledge's constitutionality.

This is actually a rather odd and flippant response from this Board. I'll spit out a letter to them tonite. At least they've acknowledged that it's only a fifty year tradition.

If you're so inclined:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-letterseditor,0,4645389.customform?coll=sfla-opinion-utility

[Synnical]

1. And thus I spit

Re: “Allegiance” Editorial

What’s wrong with “under god” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Editorial Board asks flippantly. May as well ask what’s wrong with US Citizens who hold no belief in any deities. Although I agree with the summation that the US Supreme Court should hear the case, my reasoning and hoped for ruling are entirely different.

Did the Editorial Board read either the 2002 or the 2005 rulings from the 9th Circuit Court? If not, allow me to enlighten them:

• Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote in the 2002 decision:

"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for
Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation
'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a
nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be
neutral with respect to religion."

The 2002 case reached the Supreme Court in June 2004, which then “punted” and ruled that Michael Nedow (the plaintiff) did not have “standing” to bring the case.

• Judge Karlton ruled this past week that Nedow still lacked standing, but the other parents had legitimate cause. He also wrote that:

The District Court and the Ninth Circuit used the "coercion test"
from the historic LEE v. WISMAN case, "and concluded that the
district's pledge policy 'impermissibly coerces a religious act.'


Why doesn’t the Editorial Board understand that the Constitution is secular and protects the rights of both the majority and the minority?

That meaning, the Court’s ruling is not “petty” nor “self indulgent” nor “ridiculous”. And the “harmless tradition” is only fifty years old – and fit time to be annulled.

[trotsky]

3. Nice response.

Good job. :thumbsup:

[beam me up scottie]

4. Excellent LTTE!

PRetty pathetic when you have to show them how to do their job.

[NMMNG]

2. There may be no legal penalty for omitting the words "under god"

when reciting the pledge. However there can be plenty of social penalty, subtle or otherwise, for doing so. If a child dares to go silent during those words and his/her peers notice s/he can automatically become the focus of proselytising, if not outright derision and hatred for having the audacity to not bow down to god. Even if the peers do not engage in maltreatment of the child, adults in the community may.

That is where the coercion is.

[Synnical]

5. Obviously, and that is what Nedow is "pleading" n/t

[NMMNG]

6. The sad thing is the theists don't "get it"

They think if nobody is twisting someone's arm and literally forcing them to say "under God" (or a prayer, etc.) there is no coercion. They are wrong.