Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 11:55 AM Oct 2012

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court To Hear Case Against Pledge Of Allegiance

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/massachusetts-supreme-court-case-against-pledge-of-allegiance_n_2047799.html

Religion News Service | By Kimberly Winston
Posted: 10/31/2012 1:52 am EDT Updated: 10/31/2012 1:52 am EDT




(RNS) Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear the appeal of a non-religious family that's challenging the mandatory daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in their children's classrooms.

The family, who are secular humanists, claim that the phrase "under God" in the pledge is a violation of the state's constitutional ban on religious discrimination.

In June, a lower court ruled against the family, saying the required recitation of the pledge was not discriminatory because it did not uphold one religion over another. The family appealed, and will now gain a hearing from the state's highest court.

The battle to remove "under God" from the pledge has been a long and, so far, unsuccessful one within atheist circles. California atheist Michael Newdow unsuccessfully argued for its removal before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004.

more at link
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
2. It clearly and unambiguously connects religion to state.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 12:36 PM
Oct 2012

The lower court says, "the pledge was not discriminatory because it did not uphold one religion over another." Now that is what I call fishing for an out.

One nation under God, clearly defines a deity and puts the US under said deity. I am not under any deity and the US in my opinion is not under a deity.

The wording of the pledge is not really a problem for me personally; I not sweating it much because my children and I don't have to say it. But let's call it what it is first, not make up a bunch of unreasonable excuses for it.

When it comes to the problem of connecting any theistic idea with the state, there is danger. It's the danger we have right now... this election with zealots having found one more foothold to help them climb to their theocracy. "See, the US is under God!" Why would we want to let fanatics who have amassed large amounts of money convince the less educated masses that the US is under a deity, a Christian deity at that (by association, not by reasonable interpretation)? It creates decent, hate and discrimination while they are fighting to decide who's God is right. In my case it creates hatred and prejudice towards those who do not believe in a deity.

Look at it this way, A Baptist can say the pledge without lying, a practicing Jew can say it, a Mormon can say it, a Scientologist can say it, a Jehovah's Witness can say it (although they refuse), a Pentecostal can say it, a Hindu can say it, a Muslim can say it. All these people can say it... but an atheist cannot say the pledge of allegiance without lying.

Do what you will with the pledge, but until those recently added words are removed, my family cannot make that pledge. And let's stop lying about it's reason for inclusion. It is what it is. It is a statement by the state advocating that there is a god, and that is contrary to the equality of all Americans.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
7. Agree with you. While it does not uphold one religion, it upholds religion in
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 05:01 PM
Nov 2012

general and, therefore, discriminates against those who do not have a religion.

I thought there had been a higher court ruling that at least stated that children could not be mandated to participate.

pinto

(106,886 posts)
3. The phrase was only inserted in 1954. Previous to that it read as various versions of this -
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 01:04 PM
Oct 2012

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_.22under_God.22

The Red Scare period...

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
4. It was squarely directed at schoolteachers too who would have to enforce it daily.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 02:28 PM
Oct 2012

In NYC at least, there were many teachers who supported or were members of the CPUSA.

http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15268-6/reds-at-the-blackboard/excerpt

This was pure redbaiting.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
5. "did not uphold one religion over another"
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 02:28 PM
Oct 2012

The Lemon test also says that a governmental action shouldn't promote religion in general over non-religion. What an ignorant court.

dimbear

(6,271 posts)
6. The idea that ours is a nation under god is a falsehood. Repeating
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 07:35 PM
Oct 2012

a falsehood daily for years builds character somehow?


Oh, right, I'm the unreasonable one.




Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Massachusetts Supreme Jud...