US Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional

[spinningfetus]

Originally posted by sycamore
SF, it depends on the state. For example, "California, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, and Alaska all have laws that require schools officials to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance on a regular basis."

From here

So, what I don't get is how is that constitutional? Cause you can quit and starve? what a country....

[jennofay]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
One doesn't <b>have</b> to say the pledge of allegiance. Like I said, I got away all through high school without saying it once.

i never even stood. at first, because i *was* religious, and the idea of practically worshiping a piece of cloth, despite what it stood for, went against what i believed in (having no other gods [not worshiping anything else] besides the christian god) as my religious views changed, i refrained from it because of the "under god" statement. i felt standing would be showing my support of the pledge, which i dont believe in (mainly because of that statement). my senior year of high school, i was an announcer at my school for the morning announcements, and i was given a LOT of shit from one particular vice principal because i always chose to skip my turn reciting the pledge for the school. for a country that is supposed to have freedom of religion, this particular phrase is unacceptable. if the country did not want to have a national religion, they should have completely stood clear of the issue. some have argued (in their effort to persuade me to recite the pledge) that the "under god" statement means "under a god," however one wants to look at that. be it the christian god, buddah, ganesh, a particular goddess, whatever. as dham said, freedom of speech also protects ones freedom to remain silent. likewise, freedom of religion protects ones freedom to not have a religion. to not believe in a god at all. so while this (granted very far-fetched) translation of "under god" may apply to many, how do you translate it to apply to those of us who do not believe in a god? you cant, really, and so i think it should be trashed.

im tired and havent read some of this thread, so excuse me if im repeating someone elses thoughts.

[jennofay]

Originally posted by spinningfetus
I have heard conflicting information on whether teachers were required to say the pledge and I was wondering if someone could point me in the direction of a difinitive answer. The reason I ask is when I subbed a couple of years ago they made it seem like I had to, and being that my parents taught in the same district I didn't want to press the point but now I want to know for sure.

my mother is a teacher in a middle school in northern maryland, and (although im sure they want her to) she is not FORCED to say the pledge, as it is a violation of her religion, and therefore it would be unconstitutional for the school to require her to say it. in the statement that sycamore made about particular states having laws saying that school officials are required they lead students in the pledge, if it goes against a school officials religion, id be willing to bet that they do not have to say it. this actually has come up in court cases many times in the past (i am most familiar with cases involving jehovah's witnesses, my mom's religion) with both students and teachers. and it was always (to the best of my knowledge) deemed unconstitutional to force a person to recite the pledge if it is against their religion. with jehovah's witnesses, as i stated in my previous post, it is because the pledge is seen as flag worship, and their god has said that they should worship nothing but himself. i dont have any links to any stories or anything to back this up, but i can locate some if there is interest.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jennofay
and it was always (to the best of my knowledge) deemed unconstitutional to force a person to recite the pledge if it is against their religion. with jehovah's witnesses, as i stated in my previous post, it is because the pledge is seen as flag worship, and their god has said that they should worship nothing but himself. i dont have any links to any stories or anything to back this up, but i can locate some if there is interest.

If I understand the religion, Islam would forbid the pledge too, as it forbids pledging yourself to anyone but Allah.

I'm sure there is a way around the "requirement" for religious reasons, but I bet they make you jump through a bunch of hoops.

[jaguar]

vsp - scary, scary stuff. All these scary freaky overtones of the 'war on terror/islam' become the next crusades....

You know, it's not a "War on Islam"... I wish people would just shut the fuck up about that.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
You know, it's not a "War on Islam"... I wish people would just shut the fuck up about that.

Keep wishing...

YOU know it's not about that. I know it's not about that. Unfortunately, it has that appearance to some. To others, they would love nothing more.

[Nic Name]

Lou Dobbs has coined it a war against radical islamists but he's pretty much alone on that one that even though he's had a whole month of thrice daily CNN broadcasts to focus the war on terror against radical islamists, whom he sees as the defined enemy.

Google "war against radical islamists"

Google "war on terror"

Judging by the hit counts on Google, virtually nobody is engaging in Dobbs' brand of rhetoric on this subject.

[elSicomoro]

I think Dobbs is well-intentioned, but do we really need another word to describe what is going on?

Using Gail Shister...I am impressed Nic.

[spinningfetus]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
You know, it's not a "War on Islam"... I wish people would just shut the fuck up about that.

Go out into the street in traditional Muslim clothing, then say that...


(And here we go again...)

Good point. I'll probably be arrested and thrown in jail for being a Muslim!

Er, wait... no, that won't happen. 'Cause it's not a war on Islam, like I said.

Furthermore, <b>most</b> places in the US, you'll be fine. I see people in traditional muslim clothing <b>every day</b> and they're having a fine time.

There are a <b>few</b> people in the US that are ignorant enough of the Islamic religion to attack all Muslims that they see. Fortunately, those people are few and far between.

I'm not sure exactly what you hoped to prove by your point, but the fact of the matter is that it is <b>not</b> a war on Islam.The main targets may be Muslims, but that does not mean that all Muslims are the main target.

[jaguar]

a: alf the administration are fundies
b: racial profiling?
Its not a general fucking 'war on terror' don't even try and spout that shit, its a war on ISLAMIC terrorism, i don't see Delta Force tracking down Basque terrorists or 'real IRA' members, do you?

[Undertoad]

If you see Delta Force, it's not Delta Force.

Originally posted by jaguar
a: alf the administration are fundies
b: racial profiling?
Its not a general fucking 'war on terror' don't even try and spout that shit, its a war on ISLAMIC terrorism, i don't see Delta Force tracking down Basque terrorists or 'real IRA' members, do you?

Hey smartguy, look at the last sentence in my post.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
a: alf the administration are fundies
b: racial profiling?
Its not a general fucking 'war on terror' don't even try and spout that shit, its a war on ISLAMIC terrorism, i don't see Delta Force tracking down Basque terrorists or 'real IRA' members, do you?

This IS supposed to be a war on all terror, but the US apparently believes that al-Qaeda is the most important group to go after right now. I tend to agree with them on that one. The US could give two shits less about the Basque or the IRA...at least right now. It took the US a while to get involved in Kosovo, but they finally did. Unfortunately, we won't know how comprehensive the war on terror will be until we reach that bridge, i.e. wipe out al-Qaeda.

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Furthermore, most places in the US, you'll be fine. I see people in traditional muslim clothing every day and they're having a fine time.

I wish I could agree with you on this one Dave, as that is how it should be. But as a whole, there has always been some suspicion towards Muslims in the States for ages, and that suspicion has probably increased since September 11th. Although, I would say it has probably been "easier" for Muslims in cities where they are in higher numbers (DC, Philadelphia, NYC, Chicago, Detroit).