As a loud & proud American and a flaming monotheist, I think the pledge should be stricken from all schools. It's a friggin' recital and nothing more to those children. The pledge should be treated more as a rite of passage instead of the memorized bleat it is today.

For example, as soon as a person turns 18, he should be required to state the pledge in order to obtain full rights as an American citizen. The phrase 'Under {insert diety here}' should be optional as well as allowing personalization for whatever religion the person practices. Don't want to pledge? Fine, you shouldn't receive the benefits that American's enjoy (i.e. sorry to hear the cops busted into your house again. They can't do that to us citizens).

Or is that too much to ask for?

I'm enchanted by your use of the term "flaming monotheist."

I think the pledge still has a place in pulic schools (the patriotism works its way into the subconscious), but I think that many atheistic families can have a very legitimate beef with the coerced pledge to a deity.

I agree with your points Bill, I don't think this is a big deal either way.

But I will tell you this, when the Muslim Call to Prayer vs. the Church Bells/Christian Call to Prayer gets to the Supremes, this will come up again.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Not "a" religion, not Judeo/Christian religions, not Islam, not Wiccan, not Rastafarians, but RELIGION (capital R), period.

Tell me how "under god" isn't a religious statement.

1. That the phrase "under God" was added for an ostensibly religious purpose (encouraging the religious and semi-religious among us to oppose the communist USSR being the real, non-religious purpose underlying it) is irrelevant to the question of whether its continued use today is properly described as ceremonial deism.

2. Your claim that the original Pledge was "already 61 years old" is technically true, but highly misleading, and once again, completely irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the existence of one tradition today has zero/zip/nada to do with the (alleged) existence of some other tradition that existed before. Highly misleading because by 1954, the 61 year old version of the Pledge had already been obsolete for 30 years. The version that was amended in 1954 - the one Newdow & Co. disingenuously portray as the original - was penned in 1924, and not enjoy any official status until 1942.

3. The idea that some children (though not the one alleged in this case) may feel uncomfortable is a silly argument. For every atheist kid who takes issue with God, plenty more take issue with the basic patriotic message of any version of the Pledge. Some, such as JWs, even believe that their version of God prohibits them from pledging allegiance to anyone or anything. None of them are forced to say the Pledge, and that's how it should be. Giving any of these groups a heckler's veto over what anyone else can say is not. No one has a general "right" not to be made uncomfortable by other people's speech.

4. "Under Jesus" would be a much tougher one, if not impossible, to square with ceremonial deism. No one wants a Pledge that says that, anyway, so your argument is a strawman.

Glad to enchant.

I wouldn't mind a little ceremonial pomp & circumstance for the kiddies to remind them that they live in the best place in the world and that they should be thankful that they have the rights that they do, but I feel the pledge is like baptism. Just getting dunked 'cuz your at bible camp isn't it. You have to do it and mean it.

But honestly, why can't Under God be optional? I'd say it, I'd hope my daughter will say it, but if Suzy Q. doesn't want to say it, just skip it. Who'll know? And as for "indoctrination", gimme a break. I hear about Liberals every day and it doesn't make me want to go out, purchase birkenstocks, smell bad, and protest Baskin Robin's for using whole milk...

Xrlq -

1. Considering that the pledge still has a purpose as an active affirmation of patriotism, and that under God was added in an attempt to further define this purpose, "under God" in the pledge differs starkly from the use of "God" on currency, for example. I think that the specific purpose and context of the additional phrase invalidates the ceremonial deism argument. In addition, if it IS IN FACT ceremonial deism, then whey do religious organizations (Christian Legal Defense Fund) have such a problem with the removal of the phrase? After all, if the phrase is stripped of meaning by virtue of ceremonial deism, who cares?

2. I apologize if you find my characterization misleading, but you do my work for me when you say this:

"because the existence of one tradition today has zero/zip/nada to do with the (alleged) existence of some other tradition that existed before"

Considering the fact that the weight of tradition is used to supplement the argument of ceremonial deism in the continuation of the modern pledge, you devalue the merits of tradition in the case for the current pledge, especially when:

a. perceived injury outweighs devalued tradition

b. the inclusion of the phrase "under God" violates jefferson's interpretation of the separation of church and state - "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises." -- TJ

c. It violates the concept of the separation of church and state as decreed by the Supreme Court (Everson v. Board of Education): "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

3. Re: "The idea that some children (though not the one alleged in this case) may feel uncomfortable is a silly argument." In YOUR world. Once again, whatever your religion is I beg of you to envision your child being pressured to declare fealty to another religion's interpretation of God in an educational environment. There are many unique factors that make the pledge a relevant case; one of the most compelling is that we are dealing with children that are compelled to say the pledge in a state-run educational institution.

As for this: "For every atheist kid who takes issue with God, plenty more take issue with the basic patriotic message of any version of the Pledge." I think that's innacurate, but even if I'm wrong, the issue is centered around religion. Nowhere does the Constitution make any fundamental positions against compelled patriotism, except where it interferes with religion, and only then, in select cases. (oaths of fealty, conscientous objection)

4. "No one wants a Pledge that says that, anyway, so your argument is a strawman." I don't think that all hypothetical arguments are strawmen, especially when they specifically confront an argument used in the debate (the will of the majority), and the phrase that "no one wants that anyway" is:

a. ad hominem

b. Once again affirms your belief in the inherent superiority of some form of religion over no form of religion.

There is a damn good reason why Jefferson believed in an assiduous separation of church and state, and there are good reasons to maintain this standard, especially if and when demographic trends cause a shift in the majority's will.

It's for all of us. there is no reason that your religion needs to be projected in a government run setting of compulsive education. I reject that belief.

Marble -

"You have to do it and mean it."

Exactly why the divisive phrase that clearly violates Jefferson's intent for the separation of church and state should technically be removed.

Godless heathen or not, Bill, we all still love ya. Even when you're wrong.

Two points:

1. Congress sanctioned the pledge with the words "under God." If it's so objectionable, why not use the legislature as intended and have the sanction removed?

2. The Supreme Court has ruled (in the case of currency) that 'God' is nonspecific and ceremonial enough to pass Constitutional muster. Why is this any different?

Newdow and the ACLU are just using this for publicity and little else, only it costs taxpayer money to tie courts up on trivial BS like this. I'm getting rather tired of these attempts to render our public functions atheist, in the generic sense.

1. This argument for legislative supremacy is very popular in conservative circles these days ... but it completely ignores the fact that the judicial branch has played a significant role in protecting the rights of minorities in situations where the will of the majority was clearly unconstitutional. By this logic, there is little guarantee that the US would have outlawed segregation by now, if soley left to the power of legislators that followed public will. It's a 2-d argument.

2. It is different, and I have no real problem with the inclusion of God on currency. Why? Because the pledge is a daily, compelled, active affirmation of belief in God by children in a state-run facility. In contrast, the reference to God on currency is passive. To be honest, I don't really have a huge problem with court oaths that reference God, because as an adult, I have the facilities and capability to refuse to employ the religious references. In contrast, I think that's it's inappropriate for a state-run apparatus to pressure a child to swear an oath that may directly conflict with the child's religion or non-religion.

Also note that the founding fathers were very specific about this separation from the state being unique to religion. If you don't want to swear loyalty to the US, move. If you don't want to swear loyalty to God, that's your right.

(And I think forcing a child to publicly deny God is an unrealistic burden)

Marble: As far as I'm concerned, making the God reference optional for each kid is a great idea. In fact, it's the law now. No kid gets in trouble for reciting teh entire Pledge except "under God," nor can they be required to recite the Pledge at all. This whole thing is only an issue because of certain busybodies who think they have a constitutional right not to hear it.

Bill: I'm not sure why you think identifying a strawman argument as a "strawman" is equivalent to an ad hominem, but regardless, bringing up Thomas Jefferson in this context is highly disingenuous. The First Amendment, which forms the entire basis of Newdow's argument, was never even intended to apply to the schools, or to any other branch of state government. That extension came about purely by judicial fiat in the early 20th Century. Even the amendment the courts relied on to justify that extension - the 14th - didn't come around until almost a century after the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights had been enacted. Argue all you want about how the Pledge violates the First Amendment as interpreted by you (which it obviously does) or as interpreted by the courts (which it almost does, though not quite), but please. Leave Jefferson out of it.

Also worthy of being left out are any subsequent reference to "my" religion. I am agnostic, so if "my" God were at issue, it would be "one nation under HUH?" Of the three versions of the Pledge, I happen to like the 1942 version the best. Unlike my "defenders" in the ACLU, I just don't want a court making this decision for me.

xrlq,

I don't want state legislature interpreting the constitution in order to change/alter the fundamental ideals contained within the constitution. It's my understanding that's why we have the Judicial branch in the first place. Freedom from the tyranny of the majority and all that. I am concerned that if we continue to erode the principles of the constitution, we will leave ourselves open to interpretations that are similar but from another non-Judeo/Christian outlet.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Church bells vs. Muslim call to Prayer. Same thing in essence, one the government condones, the other, the government doesn't. Yet.

They shouldn't allow either to violate noise ordinances.

- people do have a constitutional right not to "hear" a certain brand of religion in a public school

- you didn't follow my separate points - a strawman is not the ad hominem, rather, making a sweeping statement like "nobody wants" is an ad hominem. I'd be curious to see the numbers on that.

- I will not "leave Jefferson out of it," because you should consider the fact that I specifically did not quote from the First Amendment, rather a letter from Jefferson that clarified his position on the amendment.

- As an agnostic, your aggressive non-belief may fuel the fact that you feel nothing, I don't know. I'd probably classify myself as agnostic (leaning towards atheism), but I personally resented having to equate my love of country with belief in God. It made me feel left out of the equation, and caused me to doubt my patriotic inclination. In this manner, the inclusion of religion actually undermines the unifying purpose pledge ("one nation").

God has NOTHING to do with the pledge of allegiance. And it is clear that god has no place in compulsory public education, specifically an active oath taken by children. It seems rather intuitive.

all of your arguments are against removing it rather than why it is an important addition to our oath of fealty to the flag of the United states. Does your love of the phrase "under God" stem from your disinterest in religion, your love of post 1954 tradition, your dislike of "busybodies" or what?

And before you preemptively cite the legistaltive will of the people, please refer to to my earlier comments about how the will of the people would have institutionalized segregation and anti-miscegenation laws ... likely up to this day, if not for the will of the courts.

Also, your failure to recognize that an avowed atheist might be legitimatley marginalized by this oath is sort of silly, IMO. I know that you don't like "strawmen," but the only other example that I can think of is that of folks with different religions; perhaps polytheistic. the notion that the beliefs of those people have less value under the law is simply ludicrous.

Remember, it's PUBLIC COMPULSORY EDUCATION.

"Let's be realistic; a child from kindergarten to high school would rather gouge their eyeballs out with a plastic compass rather than expose themselves to such negative public scrutiny. This concept puts undue burden on any atheistic child."

I agree with that 100%! You have a lot of other good arguments as well.

I have some analysis at my blog which focuses more on the legal issues and less on whether "under God" belongs in the pledge.

OK, fine, leave Jefferson in, but in that case, make it clear you're talking about Jefferson's own pet preferences, and not what he (or anyone else) actually expected the First Amendment to accomplish.

"Nobody wants X" may be a sweeping statement, which may be factually correct or incorrect, but it has nothing to do with an ad hominem. If you actually identified a real, living person who really does want X, my response would be to concede that I was mistaken, not to turn around and call the guy a "nobody." Whatever the numbers are, I'm sure they're nowhere near high enough to have a chance of making it through Congress.

In case I didn't make it clear enough before, I have no great love for the phrase "under God" in the Pledge. In an open, democratic setting, my vote might well be to remove it, and would almost certainly have been to leave it out in the first place. However, I have even less affinity for judges who appoint themselves as philospher-kings and "constitutionalize" their every political preference. When they do it for a really, really good reason - such as ending school segregation - I can live with that. Petty stuff like the Pledge (or worse, the L.A. County seal) don't come close.

That said, it's worth pointing out that even racial segregation is not a very good example of an all-benevolent court saving a minority from the evil oppression of the majority. Quite the opposite; the 14th Amendment, which formed the constitutional basis for Brown, was on the books since 1868. Had the court done nothing but implement "the will of the people," as expressed in that law, segregation would have ended then and there. Instead, courts preserved it for almost a century by gutting the 14th Amendment with their now-infamous "separate but equal" rule.

The court was slow in reaction, yes, but you can't deny that the court has also advanced the rights of minorities in the face of majority opposition. Here's one thing that I don't get - the common conservative argument against "activist judges" and "philosipher kings." To some extent, don't you think that that is part of the court's job? To protect the rights of the minority from the all out will of the majority? To serve as a check on the legislative branch?

People appear to miss the point of the constitutional separation of church and state as interpretated by the courts. It has invariably been interpreted as intending to keep the state out of the practice of religion but not to keep the practice of religion out of the "state."
We have a national Christmas tree. "In God We Trust" is a national slogan. The courts even went so far as to declare Santa Clause a secular symbol.

"He sees you when you are sleeping. He knows when you're awake. He knows if you've been bad or good..." Sounds like an omnipotent deity to me.

Further, the Founding Fathers were not secularists or atheists. They wanted the Crowns of Europe out of their Churches, but they indeed honored those Churches. I do not practice religion, but to attempt to irradicate it from every State run institution based on the Constitution is as foriegn to the ideals that founded this country as is attempting to read a handgun ban into that document. I am not advocating state religion, but a dose of reality is required for those who want to change things.

There is a difference between a daily pledge of affirmation and ceremonial symbols. Also, the Santa argument is kind of silly, considering that that figure is widely regarded as imaginary; God is presented as something perhaps as fantastical, yet very real, with very strong emotions behind it. The pledge is a unique case by virtue of it's active nature, by virtue of the fact that it is compelled to children daily and by virtue of the fact that it is presented in an educational setting. these are relevant variables that distinguish it from the concept of removing all vestiges of theism from government.

As an atheist, I suppose this topic should matter to me. But in all reality, I don't care if the phrase remains, simply for the fact that I don't believe god exists. And as such, it doesn't matter to me if someone wishes to invoke his name or not.

Now if the Congress were to pass a bill forcing me to say "Under God" as part of the pledge, I would happily give them all the biggest Bronx cheer I could muster and I wouldn't be too suprised if there weren't a few Christians/Jews/Muslims that would join me on that little act of civil disobedience.

I believe both sides of the discussion have merits; however, as an individual I just leave the "Under God" phrase out of the pledge.

Great post, very interesting debate.

I'm of a mind with Bill, but it's interesting to see the different points raised here.

Common sense...

Well its certainly not common, but it's my sense that if parents do their job, a whole lot of issues become moot, including the pledge bit. Of course I am of that archaic belief that the primary purpose of school it to provide our young with all tools necessary to think for themselves.

Instead we seem to have competing camps concerned more with which form of indoctrination is proper.

Bill, I always thought this was a non-starter. It wasn't there when the tune was written. Okay, now it's there, but who really pays it any mind?

I put this one in the ask-a-stupid-question-get-a-stupid-answer pile. I'm a Christian, and I could care less whether or not Under God was in our pledge - and although I believe that cosmically humanity is as a whole "under God," our cultural actions certainly don't acknowledge that.

The reason I think that this is a stupid issue to bring to a court is because there are no rights being violated here. Sensibilities being offended and rights being violated are two different things. The fellow suing does not have *his* speech limited - he's trying to limit it for the majority because his own sensibilities happen to be offended. Well, you know, football offends me, and sports bars offend me deeply - I'm not going to go and sue about it. I may try to put together a grass roots effort to change minds, but suing, lately just seems to be the lazy man's way of getting around the legislative process.

The problem with your argument, Bill in INDC, is that you are ignoring exactly what the intention is behind the separation of church and state.

The point is that the government shall not tell people what to believe. Atheism is a belief system as much as religion. You are attempting to elevate your belief system above all others so as to make it the "default", i.e., unless there is a compelling reason to retain "under God" in the pledge, it must be struck out on a Constitutional basis.
Well, I, for one, feel you have absolutely failed to make any compelling argument as to why it must be this way. I would have absolutely no problem with you using democratic means to allow your notion of the existence or non-existence of God to compete in the marketplace of ideas, but you are absolutely unwilling to allow your belief system to compete on a level playing field; rather, you would prefer to use the Judicial branch to bludgeon the term "under God" out of existence against the will of the majority of the people.
I suspect you'll disagree that atheism is a belief system just like theism...and that's a part of the problem: you automatically assume your view is correct, and are willing to use judicial force to impose your view on everyone else.
I know I'm rambling somewhat without trying to edit this into a logical form, but let me try to clarify through repetition with minor variation:
You are arguing that not forcing children to say a pledge that contains "under God" is still "coercive" and is so insidious that it rises to the level of religious indoctrination. You have no problem with every other aspect of public education denying the existence of God and being based on athestic values...why? Because you believe atheism to be more rational, and more appropriate as the default belief system.
That is exactly what the anti-establishment clause is designed to prevent: a minority of the population assuming they have all the answers and imposing that view on everyone else.

There is very little else in this nation that has as much inherent force as the elimination by law of religious expression.
Because, after all, isn't it a better expression of atheism to not participate in a religious expression than to remove the chance to express religion in the first place?
You may say, "It's just the pledge", but it's not. It's campaigns to remove a cross from the LA seal, despite its historical appropriateness; it's the elimination of prayer in schools; it's the deliberate replacement of "Christmas" with "holiday"; it's the banning of nativity scenes from Post Office and Town Hall grounds.
In my opinion, we should be encouraging more expression of religion rather than less. It's one of the things that made this nation great.

Yes, I remember saying the pledge in grade school. It took weeks of intense de-programming in my teen years and years of therapy to overcome my forced conversion to complete Jesus-freakism caused by it. I'm certain many share my experience.
Just kidding, of course. It had no more significance than lining up after recess or horrible school lunches. The psychological effect couldn't compare to the forced communal nakedness of my middle school P.E. locker room.
I do remember JW kids having to leave whenever we had a valentines day or christmas party; it wasn't ostracism but pity most felt. Who would worship a God that would get pissed about eating a cupcake and drinking some juice in class the day before vacation?.
As a die-hard agnostic, I see this as frivolous, time wasting nonsense. Demonstrate some sort of damage or effect and I would change my mind.

Nathan,

I agree with you, but I also would add - without "God," or "Providence," you remove the 3rd party guarantor of our individual liberties cited by the Framers.

That absence leaves a vacuum in which the finite (the changing) is substituted for the infinite (the unchanging). Christian or no, it's imperative for people to know that their rights are not granted by a ruling body or government committee - but that they are inherent and outside of the realm of changing human impulse.

It even goes past a debate on God and into a debate as to whether cosmic absolutes exist. I see many of the attacks on Christianity today as not merely attacks on expression of religion, but deeper philosophical attacks on the idea of moral absolutes.

Of course, to get all pedantic, the old trick is that if someone denies absolutes exist, well - that's an absolute. :-)

So many points, I'll take just Nathan's:

"You have no problem with every other aspect of public education denying the existence of God and being based on athestic values...why?"

Where did I say that? Removing oaths to religion is not atheistic indoctrination. It's neutral.

"The point is that the government shall not tell people what to believe."

Exactly. When you tell a child to say "under God" you are strongly encouraging/assuming religious belief.

"Atheism is a belief system as much as religion. You are attempting to elevate your belief system above all others so as to make it the "default", i.e., unless there is a compelling reason to retain "under God" in the pledge, it must be struck out on a Constitutional basis."

You somehow seem to equate removing "under God" with a default endorsement of atheism - sorry, but this is a strange argument. Removing "under God" removes religion from consideration, NOT denigrates religion.

Frankly, I'm befuddled why you view this as an assault on religion. It's interesting: apparently, it's ridiculous for me to want to remove the reference to God, because it's harmless and not a form of compelled indocrination at all, but at the same time, removal of the phrase somehow indoctrinates children towards atheism.

You can't have it both ways. Nathan. Face it, you are defending the value of the belief system of theism over atheism.

Rick W - damage or effect?

There is a minefield of damage that can take place. I'm not sure at what age you became a die-hard agnostic, but in my experience, up to this very day as an adult, it is hazardous to reveal non-belief in the company of strangers. I've been condemned to Hell, looked at with digust, fear and bewilderment. Where I live now (coincidentally(?) moonbat country), it's not a big deal, but in many settings, including K-12 public education, any setting that calls into question religious belief and demands adherence is a potential problem.

You didn't care, your agnosticism wasn't a big deal. But just like there are casual atheists and agnostics, there are those that have very strong beliefs against religion, that think that religion is harmful and complete and utter nonsense. Their children should not be exposed to a diametrically opposite view during a mandatory pledge.

The thing is, I'm not some hardcore atheist, but it's very easy for me to put myself in someone else's shoes and understand how this could cause a conflict.

And what it boils down to is that public education is not supposed to insert itself intro these matters. Such doctrine protects all of us; it protects our society. It even protects individual religions.

As I mention, I'll let the Supreme non-decision be, because in the end, it's not that big of a deal, but this crowing about "common sense" from largely conservative commentators is nothing more than an arrogant affirmation of their fundamantal belief system, not a rational interpretation of the legality and precedent involved in this case.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, Bill.

Of course you didn't say you have no problem with other denials of God throughout public education, because you assume your view should be the default view, so you don't see and even encourage the coercive indoctrination into the atheistic worldview. It's a viewpoint disparity, I think.

Here, try it this way:
Let's say you get your way, and the Supreme Court forcibly erases the words "Under God" from the pledge. What happens if everyone continues to say those words? What is your gut reaction if 75%+ of the parents tell their kids to go ahead and say the words "under God" in -gasp!- a public school?
They broke the law, no? Do you arrest them? Do you suspend the kids? Do you call in the parents and speak to them sharply about religious indoctrination that might affect their fellow atheist children who were supposed to be protected from such vile, unConstitutional speech? What if a teacher accidentally (or even purposefully) continues to say "under God" as an expression of his belief? Does he get suspended? Or fired?

Maybe you wouldn't react that way, but take a look around at what is happening in our schools when kids are expelled for bringing 2-inch GI Joe toy rifles to school, or "authorities" are considering bringing charges against a man who took his child off Ritalin against the school's and the doctor's wishes.

These sort of decisions belong to the people, not some judge. "separation of church and state" is not in the Bill of Rights, but "Freedom of Religious Expression" is. I know I think the Bill of Rights is more basic and more important to our freedom than a SCOTUS ruling in the 50s.

If you really think the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge is coercive, take the subject on in your state legislature, or try to get Congress to change it. But using the Supreme Court to establish your own personal view is like killing a fly with a nuclear weapon: it gets the job done, but the house is vaporized and the fallout is deadly.

If you still don't agree, well, I guess we are at an impasse.

Nathan, i'm sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense to me.

1. Once again, what are these denials of God that represent the default view? You are assuming quite a bit on my behalf. I don't have much idea what you are talking about. Can you be specific? the idea that Adam and Eve didn't create the entire human race? The idea that the earth is round and circles around the sun? What?

2. "What happens if everyone continues to say those words?... They broke the law, no? Do you arrest them?"

Um, uh, um ... it's not a law against saying the words, it's an interpreation of the law that decrees it unconstitutional for the school to provide the words as coercive daily curriculum. If you don't understand the difference, you are beyond reason on this.

No offense, but you are interpreting this in a rather interesting way. Once again, it's not an attack on the ability of private citizens to practice religion, it's a removal of religion from the apparatus of the state. This in no way diminishes the expression of religion by private citizens.

It make sme shake my head that you don't grasp the difference and instead view this as some sort of infringement on the right to practice religion. A child can say "jesus is great" 1 million times a day if he wants - a teacher may not.

" ...PUBLIC COMPULSORY EDUCATION."

This is the key point - and the key problem. The govt requiring kids to recite / hear the pledge may be a problem, but the underlying problem is that the kids are required by law to be there in the first place. The only exception is for parents that can shoulder the expense of private schools, or the effort of homeschooling. (we chose the later). Eliminate the compulsary attendence laws and this becomes a moot point. Don't want to hear the pledge, don't go to the government school, or show up 5 minutes late everyday.

I'd say that that dampens the problem to near-irrelevance, but doesn't totally wipe the issue clean.

Yet another reason to get government out of the education business altogether. No matter what, a school is going to have an ideological slant. Blatant Christianity, a vague reference to judeo-christian ideals, or deliberate removal of any reference to any cosmic entity higher than mankind - they are all ideologies which eventually affect behaviors and world views. The only people who are unbiased generally lack a pulse, as well. To be totally neutral on everything is to be in philosophical inertia.

I say get the government out of the education business. Let parents pay for the schools they want their kids to go to, for whatever reasons they want to send them there. Not sure if I'm the only libertarian in here... :-)

Here's one thing that I don't get - the common conservative argument against "activist judges" and "philosipher kings." To some extent, don't you think that that is part of the court's job? To protect the rights of the minority from the all out will of the majority? To serve as a check on the legislative branch?

To some extent, sure. But only to the extent the written constitution calls on them to act as such a check, not every time a sore loser comes up with some half-baked argument that his constitutional rights have been violated simply because he didn't get his way. The Constitution is supposed to be an enduring document, which can be amended if necessary, but not easily. That's what the 2/3 adn 3/4 supermajorities are there for; to make it hard to amend. Unfortunately, FDR discovered a much easier way to amend the Constitution: load up the court with your cronies, and they'll amend the constitution for you, by a simple majority, by conveniently "discovering" that it has actually said what you wanted all along.

"not every time a sore loser comes up with some half-baked argument that his constitutional rights have been violated simply because he didn't get his way."

We are at an impasse. Your predispositions are evident in your descriptive terms. Nothing fundamentally wrong with that (we all do it), but impasse nonetheless ...

I'll say it one more time, and then I'm done:

Of course my arguments don't make any sense to you, because of your worldview.
Your arguments make absolutely no sense to me, either. It doesn't make either of us right, or either of us wrong.

I suspect the lack of mutual comprehension is because I am drawing connections between things you probably feel are totally unrelated (specifically, recent attacks on various public religious expressions), and I'm also projecting a slippery slope that would probably be pushed by someone as fanatic as Newdow but not you....

Um, nathan - my lack of comprehension is because you are not elucidating your points or providing any specific examples.

Also, Newdow has made his demand that is somewhat unique to the pledge very clear.

The idea that it's easy for a child to stand in front of a group of teachers and peers and declare that he or she is not religious is the most disingenuous and unrealistic argument that I've heard out of this entire Newdow kerfuffle. Let's be realistic; a child from kindergarten to high school would rather gouge their eyeballs out with a plastic compass rather than expose themselves to such negative public scrutiny. This concept puts undue burden on any atheistic child.

First, Bill, "disingenuous" and "unrealistic" are subjective assessments, not logical arguments. Second, what makes you think anyone at all would notice if some poor kid (say, your daughter) said the pledge without under God in it? This is all appeal to emotion.

Given America's deep Christian tradition, "under Jesus" more accurately fulfills the will of the overwhelming majority, don't you think?

No, I don't. "God" and "Jesus" aren't interchangeable. I can't quite recall what sort of fallacy this is. Appeal to ridicule, perhaps? Well, fair's fair.

First, Bill, "disingenuous" and "unrealistic" are subjective assessments, not logical arguments.

Um, some amount of opinion is necessary. This isn't physics, it's interpretation of law, religion and public policy. Most would not notice if someone didn't mouth the words. amny would notice if the child had strong enough beliefs to deny the entire pledge, assuming that the pledge is supposed to actually mean anything.

No, I don't. "God" and "Jesus" aren't interchangeable

Yup, there's the crux of your argument. The 96% of religious people are happy with their interpretation of the word God, so screw the 4% that aren't. Well my point stands - the tyranny of the majority does not outweigh the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

It is simply unconstitutional to have a daily religious recitation in a public, COMPULSORY educational setting. This amounts to state endorsement of religion over non-religion. The Esatablishment clause doesn't say the government can't establish a "type" of religion, just "religion." Sorry, that's the bottom line. Most arguments to the contrary are the equivalent of you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I don't want to! Cuz it doesn't FEEL right!"

There are many ludicrous and pointless examples of people trying to strip all reference to religion from public life that are ridiculous vanity projects. In this pledge case, however, the argument has merit.

Shrug.

This isn't physics, it's interpretation of law, religion and public policy.

Which makes logic all that much more important, IMO.

Yup, there's the crux of your argument.

I'm confused; this was your argument, not mine.

...does not outweigh the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

At the risk of repeating what so many others have asked, what is it that you maintain is being established?

"Yup, there's the crux of your argument."

try and follow me here. You said God and Jesus aren't interchangeable, so you dismissed my hypothetical out of hand. I'm saying that you accept the phrase under God because it's inclusive enough for you; it still is explicitly exclusive of certain faiths that you might dismiss as ridiculous, and of no faith at all. It is not the government's place to pick and choose types of religious faith. You may think wiccans are ridiculous - I happen to think that this whole Jesus business is ridiculous. Get it? this is logically and legally inconsistent.

"what is it that you maintain is being established?"

The state is at the very least endorsing religion in a pledge asserted to minors in a compulsory educational setting. I view this as the establishment of religion. the supreme court has much precedent that suggests that the mere endorsement of religion is unconstitutional.

Look, you are not being fair. You won't let me use any opinion (which is necessary for any type of non-scientific judgment), and I can't use hypotheticals to make my point. I don't know what your specific motivation for keeping the phrase is, but if you think that the phrase under God is meaningless, that it has no coercive or influential effect or purpose, then why would you care so much about keeping it?

It's such ridiculous circular logic. Christians and many conservatives don't want to lose it because they have the agenda of keeping religion in the public discourse, yet they argue that the phrase is simply ceremonial deism that has no power or influence. Can't have it both ways.

the agnostic crowd says "why bother," "it's nitpicking," because they fail to see why the concerns of a minority over religion are important enough to cause such a problem. Well, one of the fundamental successes of our form of government is the protection of the minority, ABOVE ALL WITH RESPECT TO RELIGIOUS BELIEF. It's a cornerstone of our Democracy.

It's what has kept this country stable and successful with such an abundance of diverse people living here.

I'm not violently anti-religious, but just this topic, and the cultural and narrow arrogance of conservatives on this matter, who so closely guard and highly value their beliefs, has me completely annoyed. It may be ridiculous to you, it may be ridiculous to someone that takes the existence of God as a given or does not care, but it's not ridiculous to someone that feels that their child should not be exposed to education that is compulsory and directly contradicts their religious belief structure.

This can't be adhered to 100%, of course (there are so many things in a school curriculum that something is bound to run counter to a particular belief structure), but we are talking RELIGION here. it has a special place and protection in our sociey.

Religion such a hot damn topic, it merits specific mention in the First Amendment. There's a reason for this. there's a reason for a millenium of violence that continues today. And there's a reason why the US has avoided many of the worst of these problems - because we largely keep it out of government.

KEEP IT OUT OF COMPULSORY EDUCATION. period. No one has made a good argument as to WHY IT BELONGS THERE. unless you are in favor of explicit government endorsement of religion, which is unconstitutional, there really isn't one.

Well, I came back to take my lumps, but I've got nothing substantive to add.
Just remember, though, enough people have disagreed that the words are coercive that your argument is hardly a slam-dunk. In fact, if anyone failed to make an argument compelling to you why the words must remain (and most of us are just saying the words shouldn't be removed by judicial fiat, but would be fine with it if it were Congress), then you have failed to make a compelling argument as to why they must be removed at all, much less by judicial fiat.

No one person gets to be judge of what is compelling and what isn't, thank Goodness, we have to argue it out and see what happens when the dust settles. Otherwise this would be the United States of Bill, or the United States of Nathan. Mine would outlaw domestic lagers like Coors and Budweiser, incidentally.

That has a nice ring to it.

(The United States of Bill)

The state is at the very least endorsing religion

But not actually establishing. Still, the point is that a Wiccan, for example, could say "under Goddess" (dunno if that's even appropriate, but what the hell) or even omit "under God". That's freedom, isn't it?

unless you are in favor of explicit government endorsement of religion, which is unconstitutional

No, government establishment of a religion is unconstitutional. But I'm thinking this one has gone around so many times that we're just not going to agree. How about we just agree that you're wrong and leave it there.

That was kidding, in case you missed it.

"could say" but not is "taught to say in school"

I'm done.

Me, too. No hard feelings, I hope. Sometimes I get a little...impolite, on subjects like this; my apologies if I stepped out of bounds.

No, I believe that I was the one that became animated. Such is the nature of "spirited" debate. Besides, you can't help it if you are a dumbass ...

:-)

>>

The original intent was to keep *federal* government out of religion. States were allowed to establish specific religions to the extent that state governments funded the salaries and maintained the churches and schools of various sectarian religions for much of our early Constitutional history. In point of fact, the "establishment of religion" clause largely came about because states that had an established or favored church were concerned that the federal government would interfere in that patronage. The Establishment Clause was about states' rights; the Free Exercise clause balanced that with individual rights.

I agree with the poster who said that the problem here is compulsory education and a financial inabilty for many to have an educational choice other than the public schools. The schools teach - if only by deliberate omission of any alternate view - secular humanism, which no less an authority than the Supreme Court defined as a religion. How is it that Secular Humanism is permissible in the public schools but Judaism or Christianity or Deism is not?

Is it perhaps because Secular Humanism appeals to no higher authority than mankind itself? Perhaps there is a sense that an appeal to mankind is less coercive, on the face of it, in some respect, than an acknowledgement of a Divine authority? I don't know.

I do know that there are many examples of Christian children being told to *not* use their religion in classrooms as part of argument or schoolwork. So I would agree - to a certain extent, I'd call it a discomfort rather than an unrealistic burden - with your next statement that

>>(And I think forcing a child to publicly deny God is an unrealistic burden)

But that cuts both ways don't you think? And denying God when you don't believe in God is one thing; denying God, if only by silence, when you do believe,is quite another. Countless children are being subtly and not-so-subtly told every day in schools across the nation that God has no place in public life or public institutions. I know my nephew has been told in his public school classroom to "keep his beliefs out of the classroom" when all he has done is appeal to historical fact regarding the role religious faith played in the formation of our nation. I tell him to keep his arguments respectful, calm and factual and to keep saying what he knows to be true.

As for "unrealistic burden" - I'm not sure we do our children any favor by ensuring that they are not subjected to any discomfort. That we teach them that they have a positive right to not hear what will discommode them rather than that everyone has a right to say, or not, what they believe. Instead of asking the Supreme Court to favor one belief system over another - which a ruling would do regardless of which side *won* - have the teacher, you know, teach the history of the pledge. It's fascinating. Do you know where, when and why the pledge came into being? Teach the children that "under God" was one of a list of attributes that set America apart from other countries in the world - specifically in the case of "Under God" from the Communist states. That the pledge does not ask the child to pledge *to* God but to acknowledge the role that religious faith played in the formation of the country. Have the teacher acknowledge at the beginning of the school year that some people do not believe in Deism and if that is the case then those who feel that way could and perhaps should remain silent during those two words. It would be an opportunity to teach about rights and accomodations and democracy and the common courtesy which is so uncommon these days.

If you do believe - as you apparently do - that children should not be discommoded by so much as two words that contradict their beliefs, then are you for vouchers? Shouldn't every family have the same ability to send their children to a school that supports their belief system that those who can afford a private education do?

Susan

1. Yes, I am for vouchers. Inherent in the voucher system is an increase in personal choice.

2. I am not a strict constructionist.

3. Secular Humanism (as you describe the curriculum) is highly compatible with religious belief, unless you'd like to argue about the earth moving around the sun.

4. Prohibition against your child discussing faith in school is political correctness run amok - children should not prohibited from religious expression - teachers, on the other hand, have no place pushing religion in public school.

5. re: "But that cuts both ways don't you think? And denying God when you don't believe in God is one thing; denying God, if only by silence, when you do believe,is quite another."

This example completely misses the point. Silence does not deny anything; it merely removes the issue from the equation and untwists it inherently from allegiance to and belief in country. (You wonder why many (most) atheists always seem to be unpatriotic moonbats taht rail maniacally against the system? Could it partialy be because they are told that their lack of religious belief distances them from love of country?)

This is what drives me nuts - removing "under God" from the pledge is not an all-out assult on God - it's removing the discussion of the issue from an inappropriate setting. For all of the animated reaction about the attack on God in public life, there remain untold numbers of religious outlets for you to expose your children to religious faith, most notably, church and your home.

Public school is not an appropriate setting for children to witness endorsement of religion. I'm sorry, it's not, and it shouldn't be viewed with such stark fear by those who have the absolute freedom to raise their children with religion via the church and home. I may be for vouchers, but I don't think that you are somehow guaranteed the right to have religion taught to your children 24 hours a day, when you are perfectly able to accomplish their religious instruction via other traditional outlets.

The concept that mainstream public educations teaches curriculum that is anti-religion is inaccurate hyperbole.

>>1. Yes, I am for vouchers. Inherent in the voucher system is an increase in personal choice.

Indeed. Why do you think there is so much rancor against the concept?

>>>3. Secular Humanism (as you describe the curriculum) is highly compatible with religious belief, unless you'd like to argue about the earth moving around the sun.

Well, actually it is not compatible at all. By definition, deistic faith teaches that there is an authority above man and that mankind's and man's actions will be judged by such authority in accordance with unchanging, absolute moral verities. Secular humanism teaches that mankind is the ultimate authority and, as such, moral verities are subject to revision as mankind requires. This has nothing to do with arguing about whether or not the earth revolves around the sun but rather on what basis a man orders his life.

>>>4. Prohibition against your child discussing faith in school is political correctness run amok - children should not prohibited from religious expression - teachers, on the other hand, have no place pushing religion in public school.

Well, exactly. But *why* do teachers feel that they cannot allow religious expression in their classrooms even by students? Because it contradicts the underlying governing philosophy of the schools? Because they are uncertain what can be allowed? Perhaps the second because of the first?

>>>This example completely misses the point. Silence does not deny anything; it merely removes the issue from the equation and untwists it inherently from allegiance to and belief in country. (You wonder why many (most) atheists always seem to be unpatriotic moonbats taht rail maniacally against the system? Could it partialy be because they are told that their lack of religious belief distances them from love of country?)

Are they told that? It seems to me that what they are told is that their insistence on requiring the majority of their countrymen to publically silence themselves about their beliefs is an attack on the rights - and even common sense - of the majority of their countrymen. It is not so much that those who do not believe in God are seen as unpatriotic as that they manage to convey that those who do believe in God are somehow sullying public life if they allow for any expression of that belief in their words or actions.

Schools do not require children to say the pledge. Unrealistic burden, you say. Accomodation, I say. By positively stating that children are not required to say the pledge on the basis of a religious exemption, the government affirmatively stresses
that belief in God is not a necessary condition of citizenship.

Although many of the Founding Fathers believed that without faith, democracy would founder.

>>>Public school is not an appropriate setting for children to witness endorsement of religion.

You have acknowledged that your opponents have argued that saying the pledge is a civic exercise and not a religious exercise. It is why you do not see why they are so adamant about leaving 'under God' in. What if the schools affirmatively state that the pledge is an expression of allegiance to a country that has a certain historical experience of religious impulse and that a belief in God is not required to be a citizen, would that change your perception? If you would still perceive that to be an endorsement of religion then are you not putting your perception above that of an affirmative statement to the contrary?

>>I'm sorry, it's not, and it shouldn't be viewed with such stark fear by those who have the absolute freedom to raise their children with religion via the church and home.

Or in other words, somewhere other than the shared public square of political life. You comment that altheists are made to feel as if their patriotism is questioned if they do not accept the pledge in its current form. Well, people of faith are made to feel that they are not welcome in the public square unless they leave all religious feeling behind. Just one example that comes to mind: Anti-abortion arguments that are in any way shaped by the perspective that there are absolute moral requirements laid down upon man by a higher authority are simply not germane in many peoples' eyes to the political discussion.

>>> I may be for vouchers, but I don't think that you are somehow guaranteed the right to have religion taught to your children 24 hours a day, when you are perfectly able to accomplish their religious instruction via other traditional outlets.

But do we have the right to not have our children taught in a system that is based upon the systematic rejection of the most basic tenet of religious life? And here we are back again to the public school system and the ability to choose the education that best meets a family's need. Although there is quite a lot of opposition to the idea of facilitating the removal of children from the public schools. Just read the proceedings of NEA meetings and statements by their officials.

Why do you think that one of the most common arguments made against vouchers is that it would damage the public school system and that school system is vital for educating "citizens?" Public school is considered by many to be more than just a place to learn the three 'Rs' - it is considered to be the place where children learn to be Americans. If learning to be Americans requires that learning take place under the guidance of a secular humanistic philosophy, what does that teach children about the government's position on monotheistic, deistic, poyltheistic or atheistic faith? Are not our children being 'taught' that religious faith is somehow not patriotic? Is the government not endorsing a particular religious worldview? If Secular Humanism has no churches perhaps it is because the schools serve that purpose. Is that an over-the-top statement? Probably. But no more so than the idea that allowing the saying of the pledge of allegiance with 'under God' in it somehow 'establishes' religion by government.

Susan

I was clumsily trying to make many of the points Susan is making, and would have if I were smarter and/or more articulate.
But I'm not. I do like dark beer, though.

1. "Why do you think there is so much rancor against the concept?"

Partly religion, but mostly becuase it diverts public funding from liberals socialist dream of perfect public education.

2. re: "Secular humanism teaches that mankind is the ultimate authority and, as such, moral verities are subject to revision as mankind requires."

I reject the idea that current public curriculum is secular humanism as you define it. Not teaching the supremacy of God is not the same as teaching the supremacy of man.

4. re: "But *why* do teachers feel that they cannot allow religious expression in their classrooms even by students?"

I already covered this: political correctness run amok. notice that I believe in the danger of such a concept, yet still advocate the removal of "under God" from the pledge.

>> re: "Are they told that? ..."

we are both speaking in nonsensical absolute ends of a spectrum (I started it, I suppose). Most atheists are not the maniacal moonbats that you or I mention.

>> re: "By positively stating that children are not required to say the pledge on the basis of a religious exemption, the government affirmatively stresses that belief in God is not a necessary condition of citizenship."

Well golly gee, thanks for letting me be a citizen. I have no doubt that the legal responsibility goes beyond this; that the pledge amounts to an endorsement of religion, which is a violation of the establishment clause (as verified by nearly 60 years of judicial precedent). it's not a mere standard of "allowing" citizenship.

Beyond mere legal reasons, the pledge is exclusive of at least 4% of the population by virtue of cementing allegiance to the United States with faith in God - therefore, the intent of the pledge is diminished for a significant portion of the population. it's not only a legal transgression - from a common sense perspective, it undermines the intent of the pledge. Contrary to your opinion, I believe that the line about religious faith in no way diminishes the purpose of the pledge - it only makes it stronger and more inclusive. Thus, the only motivation for retaining the phrase is the advocacy of a religious agenda, which wouldn't be so annoying, if advocates would come out and say it during the course of the argument (instead we get bullshit about ceremonial deism from the Christian Legal defense Fund).

>> re: "What if the schools affirmatively state that the pledge is an expression of allegiance to a country that has a certain historical experience of religious impulse and that a belief in God is not required to be a citizen"

I reject this as semantic manipulation; the purpose of the pledge, and the specific inclusion of the phrase in 1954 had an explicitly religious purpose. I also reject that fact that the vehemence behind the defense is motivated by such a strong belief in a "civic exercise." common sense - what is the pledge (an oath) and what does "one nation, "under God" mean, in plain language, not Clintonisms.

>> re: "Or in other words, somewhere other than the shared public square of political life"

WRONG WRONG WRONG. NOT in "other words." NOT the shared public square of political life - once again, my opponent is broadening the scope of my argument. IN SCHOOL. I have much weaker feelings about a statue of the 10 commandments in a courthouse (though there is an argument against it) tahn i do about children affirming faith in God during the course of an active, daily oath.

>> re: "But do we have the right to not have our children taught in a system that is based upon the systematic rejection of the most basic tenet of religious life?"

Once again, I reject the fact that public school education is anti-religious. In most cases, the standard gels rather well with religious faith. Just because religion is not an essential part of the curriculum, that is in no way a government endorsement of a belief system that is contrary to religious belief. I think that this argument is hyperbolic, and slightly dishonest. If taken at face value, it indicates that you are in favor of including religion in public education as the only way to accomplish the feat of public education that is not anti-religion. No offense, but I think that this is a ludicrous argument that is unwinnable in your eyes. it's completely rhetorical, since by that standard, all education would violate the establishment clause; we are speaking in realities here. Essentially, there is a neutral standard that schools should strive towards. the pledge clearly violates this effort in the direction of theism.

And before you cite examples or instances where teachers or administrative individuals have been hostile to religious expression, please note that I don't condone that either. I think that the system should strive to be as neutral as possible - by this standard, a daily systemic pledge that mentions religion violates this goal.

I believe that your argument is flawed because you advocate no ground of neutrality between a secular humanist philosophy and a blatantly theistic philosophy; I'm not sure where you went to school, but I didn't learn that man was somehow superior to God. I didn't learn about God at all - except during the pledge. During my education, students were free to apply their belief system to the public education mold, and they did.

From the most hardcore atheist to the most devout Southern Baptist, there was no inherent contradiction between belief in the holy Ghost and trigonometry, physics or playing dodgeball.

Besides, you can't help it if you are a dumbass ...

That's what I keep telling people, but nobody's buying it. You can't imagine the shame, being both a dumbass, and to blame for being a dumbass.

>>>Once again, I reject the fact that public school education is anti-religious. In most cases, the standard gels rather well with religious faith. Just because religion is not an essential part of the curriculum, that is in no way a government endorsement of a belief system that is contrary to religious belief. I think that this argument is hyperbolic, and slightly dishonest.

Why dishonest? I'm not sure where you are coming from here. Are you perhaps accusing me of pointing to the acknowledged philosophical basis of the modern public school education and contending that there is a systematic one-period- a-day discourse on secular humanism that all public school children must listen to? I'm not. It is more that silence on a topic is not the same thing as neutral. I remember reading my young cousin's grade school history book some years ago and it managed to cover the Pilgrims' arrival in America without once acknowledging the religious impetus of their journey. That is something more than being merely neutral on the subject of religion.

And I am not arguing that religion needs to be an essential part of the curriculum. Simply that God not be considered off-limits in the public square nor that anyone - would it be 96% of the people who have some form of Deistic belief by your reckoning? - be forbidden to acknowledge their beliefs. Or their children be silenced even in their classrooms.

>>>If taken at face value, it indicates that you are in favor of including religion in public education as the only way to accomplish the feat of public education that is not anti-religion.

But you won't take it at face value because you realize that I do not want to see catechism classes taking place in public schools. Although, back when I was a fair bit younger the local public high school did offer an elective in Wicca.

>>>No offense, but I think that this is a ludicrous argument that is unwinnable in your eyes. it's completely rhetorical, since by that standard, all education would violate the establishment clause; we are speaking in realities here.

We are also speaking of perceptions which have their own realities. Your perception is that children reciting the pledge in school - even with an opt out provision - constitutes government endorsement of religion. I contend that some percentage of that majority religiously leaning folk perceive that the public schools are actively hostile to religion -in part because of attempts to change the pledge. Perhaps this is an unwinnable argument for both of us. Perhaps the solution is vouchers. Although there again we run into the problem of the perception that public schools do more than educate, they also inculcate the values of citizenship. Competition that would harm the system is not to be encouraged.

I will say that you are right that I do think that all education really can violate the establishment clause. Why? Because any education worthy of its name has to have a philosophical basis, a framework by which to see and understand man and man's relation to the world, whether that be secular humanism or Wicca or Christianity. I suppose you could limit education simply to math, science (oops, trouble there too, I suppose) and avoid such issues but I doubt it. The humanities require a framework. Which is why individual parents should control the content of their childrens' education and not the state.

Let me ask you this. Public schools have been tasked with teaching children acceptance for those of other ordered sexual natures. What is the authority the schools cite when they teach this? It is not simply taught that everyone has the same rights - there are positive efforts made to convince children that their religious beliefs are wrong and the school is right to say that it is as acceptable for two men to marry as for a man and woman. Maybe it is. But acceptable on what basis? (Me, I'd rather they just taught manners myself rather than trying to change a child's beliefs. I used to tell my department people that I didn't care who they hated as long as neither I, the target of that hate, nor any one else could not tell. I wasn't their mother or their minister to be in charge of their souls. Their beliefs were their business, their actions mine.) Telling a child, or allowing a classmate or "guest speaker" to tell that child, that he is a homophobic bigot because he believes that God created man and woman for a reason and a specific relationship is certainly something other than religiously neutral. And yet that happens all the time in public schools.

>>>Essentially, there is a neutral standard that schools should strive towards.

Would be nice.

>>>the pledge clearly violates this effort in the direction of theism.

But teaching that - oh, let's use one common example used above - sexuality is a natural human condition unbounded by any religious tenets as to its meaning, reason and use is *not* clearly violative in the direction of a humanistic understanding of man?

>>> believe that your argument is flawed because you advocate no ground of neutrality between a secular humanist philosophy and a blatantly theistic philosophy;

I do advocate exactly that stance for public schools - I merely find it hard to believe that such a stance can happen in practice.

>>>I'm not sure where you went to school, but I didn't learn that man was somehow superior to God. I didn't learn about God at all - except during the pledge.

Just a note. I wouldn't expect you to learn that man was superior to God. Humanism does not say that man is superior to God but that God does not exist or is irrelevant.

From the most hardcore atheist to the most devout Southern Baptist, there was no inherent contradiction between belief in the holy Ghost and trigonometry, physics or playing dodgeball.

And today, when a Christian or Muslim child is called a homophobic bigot because their faiths tell them that sex is reserved to man and woman by God, there is no inherent contradiction between what the schools teach and their belief in such a God? Part of the problem is that the schools are being asked to teach values these days in an explicit fashion. Not just that Heather has two Mommies but that it is *good* that Heather has two Mommies. Whose values do the schools teach and under what authority? How confusing is it to a child when her parents and pastor say that "God" established that it is necessary for man to live one way and the schools say the opposite?

And no, I am not homophobic. I am using this issue as an illustration of how incredibly difficult it is to achieve that stance of neutrality we both agree would be best. Values will be taught, cannot help but be taught. Perhaps trigonometry, physics and dodgeball can meet the test. Can health classes, history or American culture say the same?

Vouchers. Or would vouchers be considered an establishment of religion as well? That is what has been argued, successfully, in the past. Now that Free Exercise is getting more attention we'll see what happens.

It is interesting that the discussion has moved far beyond the pledge itself to the nature of public schools and education. That is because the pledge cannot be seen as a separate issue when dealing with perceptions. Those who might otherwise agree with you that schools should just not say "Under God" are less likely to do so if they perceive it as one more example of an attack on faith by a publically supported institution. That's human nature.

Susan

I like this.
Found on Drumwasters site.

The American Creed

The American's Creed was a result of a nationwide contest for writing a National Creed, which would be a brief summary of the American political faith founded upon things fundamental in American history and tradition. The contest was the idea of Henry Sterling Chapin, Commissioner of Education of New York State.

Over three thousand entries were received, and William Tyler Page was declared to be the winner. James H. Preston, the mayor of Baltimore, presented an award to Page in the House of Representatives Office Building on April 3, 1918. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the commissioner of education of the state of New York accepted the Creed for the United States, and the proceedings relating to the award were printed in the Congressional Record of April 13, 1918. It was a time when patriotic sentiments were very much in vogue. The United States had been a participant in World War I only a little over a year at the time the Creed was adopted.

The American Creed
"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principls of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies."