Comments on: Circuit Court Refuses to Hear Allegiance Case

Circuit Court Refuses to Hear Allegiance Case

mrbula — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:30:07 -0800

Michael Newdow is probably smiling today. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to reconsider last June's ruling finding the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional.

By: mrbula

mrbula — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:33:23 -0800

I suppose this will probably take the nation's focus off the impending war for a day or so.

By: salmacis

salmacis — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:39:45 -0800

Forget the "under God" bit. Why the hell are schoolkids expected to recite a Pledge of Allegiance in the first place? It reeks of the kind of blind nationalism you see in totalitarian states like North Korea or the former Communist bloc. It just comes across as ... odd.

By: filchyboy

filchyboy — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:43:45 -0800

Thank God! Now if I can just get my daughter's school to comply.

By: PinkStainlessTail

PinkStainlessTail — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:47:29 -0800

I suppose this will probably take the nation's focus off the impending war for a day or so. Wow, a sideshow for a sideshow. Is there even a word for that?

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:14:53 -0800

Is there even a word for that? Sideblog? *grins, runs, has lunch*

By: daveadams

daveadams — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:29:23 -0800

Why the hell are schoolkids expected to recite a Pledge of Allegiance in the first place? It reeks of the kind of blind nationalism you see in totalitarian states like North Korea or the former Communist bloc I absolutely agree. There was an article in the local paper about a nearby school that required the kids to say the pledge every day (since then, the state has passed a law requiring the same throughout the state). When asked what happened when a kid chose not to participate, the principal explained how he would personally talk to the child and discuss "what a privilege it is to be able to say the pledge". A privilege? Really? To recite a government-mandated statement of loyalty?

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:38:56 -0800

"...with liberty and justice for all." Except, of course, the liberty to not recite it. High government officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution. this is right, and just, and fair, as the Constitution is the codification of the principles by which America will be governed. But to oblige ordinary citizens, and minor ones at that, to make obeisance to a symbol which doesn't itself even date to the founding of the republic, and only incidentally to the republic it represents, seems jingoistic at best.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:55:32 -0800

Wow. Does that mean the resolution is binding in the 9th circut and schools may not say the pledge?

By: mrbula

mrbula — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:03:39 -0800

I believe so. My understanding is the only way the decision wouldn't be binding is if the Supreme Court decided to hear an appeal.

By: zekinskia

zekinskia — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:11:48 -0800

The political pressure here is pretty amazing, so it would be surprising to me if the US Supreme Court doesn't hear the case. It would also be surprising if they don't overturn it. What I'm looking forward to is the general argument of their decision. There's just no way around it, unless you start saying that "God" doesn't mean Christianity's God, but could also mean Buddha, Allah, etc. In which case, if I have any kids they're going to be saying "one nation, under My Dad, with liberty and justice for all."

By: michaelonfs

michaelonfs — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:40:19 -0800

The original Pledge was recited while giving a stiff, uplifted right hand salute, criticized and discontinued during WWII! The phrase, "Under God," was added by Congress and President Eisenhower in 1954 at the urging of the Knights of Columbus. The Strange Origin of the Pledge of Allegiance

By: boltman

boltman — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:43:50 -0800

Just in case anyone doesn't realize this, under Supreme Court precedent, public schools cannot require anybody, including a schoolchild, to say the pledge (or even stand up during it according to a number of curcuits) if they have an objection to it. I just find it hard to swallow the notion that "under God" has any significant religious meaning in the context of the pledge. "Ceremonial deism" is the word that Justice Brennen used for it, I think. Ironically, a huge national debate over this decision is likely to actually restore some degree of true religious meaning to it in the minds of many. Since it's almost certain to get reviewed and reversed by the Supreme Court, the result will probably be worse for the plaintiffs than if they had never brought the suit in the first place.