Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Inane debate over pledge of allegiance rocks Vermont school

posted at 1:20 pm on November 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Via Weasel Zippers, I had to read the story twice to figure out what the objection is. Students being forced to say the pledge? No, that’s been unconstitutional for 65 years. Atheists objecting to the “under God” bit being said in a public classroom? Nope, not that either. It’s still an open question legally, but there’s no hint from anyone quoted in the article that it’s an issue here.

The objection appears to be that kids who don’t want to say it might feel peer pressure being surrounded by those who do. The school’s very logical solution? Do everything it can, including physical segregation, to call attention to those students. Nuance:

No one’s for sure when daily recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance fell by the wayside at Woodbury Elementary School.

But efforts to restore them have erupted into a bitter dispute in this tiny town, with school officials blocking the exercise from classrooms amid concerns that it holds nonparticipating children up to scorn…

Instead, starting last week, a sixth-grade student was assigned to go around to the four classrooms before classes started, gathering up anyone who wanted to say it and then walking them up creaky wooden steps to a second-floor gymnasium, where he led them in the Pledge…

Friday, the routine changed again.

Just before 8 a.m., [Principal Michaela] Martin herded all the school’s students — and several adults — into a cramped foyer that adjoins the first-floor classrooms and told sixth-grader Nathan Gilbert, 12, to lead them in the Pledge…

In an interview, Martin said the point of having the whole school gather for the Pledge was to protect children who don’t participate in it.

“If you’re in a classroom with 15 students and you choose not to say the Pledge, it’s much more obvious than a group setting. When they’re saying it in a group of 55, it may not be so obvious. We don’t want to isolate children,” she said.

There is a religious element to this case, I think, albeit subtextually. One of the legacies of banning prayer in schools is paranoia at any hint of religious indoctrination; an atheist who can’t resist joining the choir when people around him pray was never much of an atheist to begin with, but a total ban on prayer is at least legally defensible given the special worry about state religion in the First Amendment. The school apparently wanted to adapt that zero-tolerance anti-indoctrination principle to a situation where there, er, isn’t zero tolerance (since they did, after all, retain the pledge). Hence the idiocy of the initial outcome: An honest to goodness quarantine of the non-pledging students in the morning to isolate them from the sort of scorn they’d surely be subjected to later. And the idiocy of the eventual compromise solution, which is decidedly not zero tolerance: What better way to make dissenters feel comfortable than to turn the daily pledge into a mass gathering/panopticon aimed squarely at their own anxiety?

Apropos of nothing, here’s Megyn Kelly and Michael Newdow completely misunderstanding what the case is about yesterday on Fox. Exit question: Has there been some sort of wave of schoolyard beatings for not saying the pledge that I haven’t heard about? The “just stand there and don’t say it if you don’t want to” rule seems to have worked okay for the last six and a half decades.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

but a total ban on prayer is at least legally defensible given the special worry about state religion in the First Amendment

AP, I was with you until this. Have you read the First Amendment? Seriously.

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

1. The public school system is NOT Congress. This should be an easy concept to grasp. School children do not create bills for the President to sign into law. Do not ignore words just because they are inconvenient to your convictions.
2. This only applied to the Federal Government, not the State Governments. You can try to argue that Federal trumps state… but not in this case. At the time when this was ratified, most states DID have a professed religious denomination. Even Jefferson referred to this in his letters. The Danbury Baptists were worried about a Federal establishment overruling their state’s endorsement of the Baptist denomination… which Jefferson stated that it wouldn’t by means of the often cited “wall” that prevented the Federal Government from intruding into religion.
3. Even if you equated public schools with Congress… it says that they cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. This Amendment was ratified in a time when not only were there school prayers, but that colleges were Christian founded and incorporated articles of belief, and that school children were taught directly out of the Bible.

So NO… a ban on prayer is not only illegal, but truly unconstitutional!

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM

When I was in elementary school, every week we would go to the auditorium as a school and not only recite the pledge, but sing songs like God Bless America, Proud to be an American, and others like that.

jimmy the notable on November 18, 2008 at 1:26 PM

and here you are, posting on a conservative website…that’s why doing what you do is bad…or as the liberal sheep say, you’re baaaaaaaaadd.

right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM

I think we’re in bigger trouble when significant numbers of people think that reciting a pledge or singing a song somehow makes them ‘more American’.

The Founders needed no pledges or anthems to be American.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM

The entire public school system is unconstitutional. Privatize the whole rancid lot of it, and this issue goes away.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM

I can understand a ban on “state sponsored” prayers or prayers where everyone has to participate.

However, there can not be a “total” ban on prayers for that would be in violation of the First Amendment.

You can’t tell a person that they can’t pray for/by themselves.

Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Silent Night is my second favorite Christmas song.
Right after Choir of the Bells.
(Is that odd coming from someone who is atheist?)

Count to 10 on November 18, 2008 at 2:55 PM

No really, “A Mighty Fortress is Our God” was my favorite music for years long before I because a Christian.

I won’t offend your sensibilities by suggesting anything other than that perhaps the music resonates where it will.

kybowexar on November 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM

When I went through my “agnostic period” in high school, my close friends and I would simply stay quiet during the “under God” part. Then we would snark to each other about the school “defying the Constitution” by having everyone say the pledge.

But that’s as far as it got, or needed to go. Just a bunch of smart-ass know-it-all teenagers. No big deal. No need for the ACLU. No need for lawyers. If we wanted to take it to another level, we could participate in pugilistics at the flagpole. Which never turned out very well for smart-ass know-it-all types like me.

connertown on November 18, 2008 at 3:00 PM

The Founders needed no pledges or anthems to be American.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM

I seem to recall a lot of use of songs at the time and a heavy reliance on writing patriotic articles in the newspapers or printing patriotic pamphlets (”This is the winter of our discontent…”)

Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 3:01 PM

The entire public school system is unconstitutional. Privatize the whole rancid lot of it, and this issue goes away.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM

ABSOLUTELY! Not only would things improve immensely through competition, but indoctrination debates (both conservative and liberal) would go bye-bye.

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM

So NO… a ban on prayer is not only illegal, but truly unconstitutional!

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM

AP and other of his lack of faith, always strike me as the ultimate hypocrites…
They drink their whole lives from the faithfuls well, and then they turn their back on what was so freely given to them.
Education, medical, care for the elderly, care for the least among us, care for victims of tragedy. His family for hundreds of years depended on the faith based groups to care for them when they most needed care.
He doesn’t realize that when he or his family goes to a hospital, chances are that it is faith based…higher education was entirely born of faith based, Red Cross, and in inclimate weather, the least have a place to stay and keep warm, and abused women have a place that cares for them…never have seen an atheist organization take care of anyone, but themselves.
How many hospitals have atheists built?

right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Sure….I’m hardly suggesting otherwise. They didn’t mechanize their patriotism with regimented patriotic rituals. They began meetings with prayer….which is perfectly constitutional.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM

I remember well the fuss over the addition of the phrase “under God” to the Pledge. My memory is that it consisted mostly of an objection to the destruction of the elegant meter of the original: “One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Whatever the greater implications, the perfect poetry (which made the meaning explicit, in my view) has been destroyed by the current “One nation (pause) under God (pause) indivisible (pause) withlibertyandjusticeforall” recitation.

In re the (in, of course, my opinion) Atheist idiots who use Nietzsche and Darwin as proof texts, it’s worth noting that Nietzsche intended the “God is dead” remark as a (perhaps rueful) comment on the current state of society in Germany. And finally, it is apocryphally told that when Darwin, late in life, was asked by a student about the origin of the materials for evolution, he replied “Why God, of course.”

warbaby on November 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM

I always wonder with these wacko parents, is it the parents, or the child who has a problem with saying the pledge? If their child wants to languish in art school for seven years and never make a dime, or if their child is a homosexual, liberal parents are completely OK with that. But God forbid their child wants to be something religious, that’s completely unacceptable.

Sir Corky on November 18, 2008 at 3:05 PM

The Founders needed no pledges or anthems to be American.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM

But they did, song and prayer, and pledges (Mason’s) was at all of their meetings…

right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 3:06 PM

How many hospitals have atheists built?

right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Not knowing the identities of the millions of construction workers that built them, I couldn’t possibly say.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Sure….I’m hardly suggesting otherwise. They didn’t mechanize their patriotism with regimented patriotic rituals. They began meetings with prayer….which is perfectly constitutional.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Look, I don’t mean to pick, but their use of songs seems to indicate that they did “mechanize their patriotism” a bit.

The Pledge does seem a bit “coercive”, but since it’s voluntary I don’t have a problem with it.

I’m also hard pressed to imagine the founding fathers, if they HAD the pledge, not SAYING the pledge.

Religious_Zealot on November 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM

And I say that when about 90% of my relatives are or have been public school teachers… my mom and dad, both younger sisters, grandparents on school board and as aides, lots of aunts and uncles…

Lets just say that when my wife and I decided to homeschool, it was “interesting” telling the rest of my family… :)

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Actually, in the risk of sounding either philosophical or full or crap (You decide!) , we are not going to stop repeating mistakes and stupid – it’s a fallen world.

We don’t get better and create a Utopia on the planet. The ending is already written.

Not to say we shouldn’t try to keep the deck chairs tidy on the ship, but don’t look now – we are taking on water.

kybowexar on November 18, 2008 at 2:44 PM

I found religion! Well, you made me sit up at my desk and say, “oh my God!” The weirdness of Christianity takes my breath away sometimes. “Love your neighbor.” Sounds good. Hey, let’s also set up a government that feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, and takes care of the mentally ill. “Hm. Sounds like Utopia. Don’t bother.” See Hitchens’s take on Mother Theresa for a great example of the cognitive dissonance between Christian charity and Christian fatalism.

RightOFLeft on November 18, 2008 at 3:10 PM

But they did, song and prayer, and pledges (Mason’s) was at all of their meetings…

right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 3:06 PM

*Sigh* I don’t care how people choose to express themselves….they could recite poetry and dance if it is enjoyable. They did not connect the ritualistic practice of singing a certain song or reciting a certain pledge to be the hallmark of Americanism.
It is this rather absurd attitude among many of today’s so-called “Americans” that I believe cheapens what it truly means to be an American.

Oh yes….and it has nothing to do with waving that cheap-ass fucking flag on a particular day of the year, either.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:11 PM

I think we’re in bigger trouble when significant numbers of people think that reciting a pledge or singing a song somehow makes them ‘more American’.

The Founders needed no pledges or anthems to be American.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM

The money was printed, “One Nation Under God” and schools used the Bible as a textbook. Rituals and songs do bind people together which is why most every movement has them or creates them. The military, Boy Scouts, Bloods and Crips, etc.

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 3:11 PM

Ummm…the atheist children are offended at “under God”?

So, if atheists are intelligent, enlightened people, why should this bother them? Is their faith in no god so weak that they can’t handle “under god” then maybe they should go seek out counselling?

Bottom line: the atheist kids should just pause at “under god” and press on.

Weak. Absolutely pathetic.

Black Adam on November 18, 2008 at 3:13 PM

right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM

What I worry about is… as the governments (city, state and Federal) continue to increase taxes, and take more and more, there is less and less to give to true charities. True (usually Christian) charities run MUCH more efficiently than government organizations. So while atheists may feel better about the government taking over the responsibility through social programs, fewer and fewer people are actually helped. What a sad spiral we’re in…

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Dear Geek,

If you’re truly a Limey, go home for Christ’s sake. Your “Empire” is a swamp and an international embarassment, and isn’t worth the life my father gave in its defense.

warbaby on November 18, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Oh yes….and it has nothing to do with waving that cheap-ass fucking flag on a particular day of the year, either.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:11 PM

I’m not sure if you posted in sarcasm or not…

But most of us in this forum realize that our flag was purchased at an extremely high cost. And while you may not care, it does bother many of us there there are so many ignorant people who do not understand what freedom truly costs.

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM

How many hospitals have atheists built?

right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Not knowing the identities of the millions of construction workers that built them, I couldn’t possibly say.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Right – I’m on your side, but LG got the riposte on that one!

Touche`

kybowexar on November 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM

warbaby on November 18, 2008 at 3:16 PM

I am already home. I am an American. I just wasn’t born here.

PS. Here’s a big steaming mug of FUCK YOU from all the limeys that died right alongside their yank brothers in arms.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:21 PM

I’m not sure if you posted in sarcasm or not…

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM

Yes. Sarcasm directed at those that purchase a $1 6″ flag on a stick for July 4th and make like they’re a patriot.

I fly Old Glory with pride….in between (and slightly higher than) the Confederate and Scottish flags.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:24 PM

The United States was established as a non-denominational state not as a non-Christian nation. Reading the founding fathers makes that very clear as does the terminology of the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 2:44 PM

What do you mean by non-denominational? Non-denominational like “giant dome filled with red-felt stadium seating and a band on Wednesdays” non-denominational, or non-denominational like “congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion” non-denominational? Because one of them implies a non-Christian state.

The Declaration of Independence is only legally binding if you’re King George. Even then, the framers scrupulously avoided saying God. We’re endowed by our creator – not God, not Jesus, just whatever entity or non-entity created a universe with humans in it.

RightOFLeft on November 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Glad to hear that! I wasn’t sure how to take your original post…

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 3:27 PM

I think LimeyGeek’s post was referring to people who consider themselves patriotic for buying a plastic flag about the size of a postcard and then wave it around one day a year, who then turn their back on the country for the other 364 days out of the year.

Kind of like the people who go to Church only on Christmas and consider themselves devout Christians. That was his point.

Sir Corky on November 18, 2008 at 3:27 PM

(Is that odd coming from someone who is atheist?)

Count to 10

There’s no such thing as an atheist.

John the Libertarian on November 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM

RightOFLeft on November 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM

How does the absence of a state religion mean the nation is non-religious, or was ever intended to be?

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Sir Corky on November 18, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Nailed it, sir ;)

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Even I would argue that America has always been a christian nation….however, it was designed to have a decidedly secular government.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM

RightOFLeft on November 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM

History does not support your statement.

Michael Medved (who, BTW, is Jewish) wrote in The Founders Intended A Christian, Not Secular, Society

John Marshall, the father of American Jurisprudence and for 34 epochal years (1801-35) the Chief Justice of the United States, wrote: “The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.” His colleague on the court (1796-1811), Justice Samuel Chase, delivered an opinion (Runkel v. Winemill) in 1799 declaring: “Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion, and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.” These judicial opinions make clear that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment never constrained early judges from classifying the United States as an enthusiastically Christian society.

Medved goes on to note:

In fact, at the time of the first Continental Congress, nine of the thirteen original colonies had “established churches” – meaning that they each supported an official denomination, even to the point of using public money for church construction and maintenance. These religious establishments – clearly in contradiction to the idea of a “secular government” – continued in three states long after the adoption of the First Amendment. Connecticut disestablished its favored Congregational Church only in 1818, New Hampshire in 1819, and Massachusetts in 1833.

Amazingly enough, these established churches flourished for nearly fifty years under the constitution despite the First Amendment’s famous insistence that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Their existence reflected the fact that the founders never wanted to secularize all of government, but intended rather to allow the states to handle religious issues in their own way while avoiding the imposition of any single federal denomination on the diverse, often quarreling regions of the young nation.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 3:40 PM

How does the absence of a state religion mean the nation is non-religious, or was ever intended to be?

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Is the absence of religion non-religion? Does a dog have Buddha nature? I’m a strict constructionist. The only mention of religion in the constitution is to prohibit the government from passing a law respecting any. It doesn’t say, “you can respect the establishment of a religion a little, just make sure it’s vague enough that everybody can pretend you’re not talking about Christianity.”

RightOFLeft on November 18, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Even I would argue that America has always been a christian nation….however, it was designed to have a decidedly secular government.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Do you have the slightest proof of that? The absence of a state religion is seen by me to be proof of the founders intention to not have a state religion.

Where do you get this secular government concept?

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Interestingly and ironically enough, Medved also relates that less than 24 hours after the passage of the First Amendment, Congress passed a resolution stating:

“Resolved, that a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceable to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.” It never occurred to this first Congress in 1789 that their call for a government sponsored day of “thanksgiving and prayer” would conflict with the prohibition they had just adopted prohibiting “an establishment of religion.”

INC on November 18, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Here’s something from Front Page Magazine:

# Every president of the United States has taken his oath of office on the Christian Bible. To emphasize the connection between our government and that book, our first president kissed the Bible after swearing to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

# The first Congress appropriated sums of money for Christian missionaries to American Indian tribes. After passing the First Amendment, it voted a salary for a Congressional chaplain. It wasn’t until the Civil War that a non-Christian gave an invocation at an opening a session of Congress.

# And, it wasn’t until the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education that the U.S. Supreme Court got the barmy notion that the First Amendment erected a “a wall of separation between Church and state” – words not used in the Amendment, which speaks of an “establishment of religion.”

# Prior to that, Americans understood the First Amendment the way the Founders intended. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary (published less than 40 years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights) defines an “Establishment of Religion” as “an ecclesiastical authority, as in the Anglican Church in England.”

# Up to the era of creative jurisprudence, the First Amendment was never taken to exclude non-denominational school prayer, Bible reading in the classroom, “one nation under God,” “in God we trust,” public displays of the 10 Commandments, and creches in parks at Christmas, among other mild manifestations of our heritage.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 3:46 PM

INC on November 18, 2008 at 3:40 PM

So the founders intended 9 of the 13 original colonies to be Christian? But I’m in one of the newer states, so it’s all good. In all seriousness, it was a contentious issue. The framers had complex views. They argued with each other and probably struggled with their own conscience. In the end, all we have to go by is the constitution.

If you’re going to argue that the constitution doesn’t apply to the states, you’re going to have to disentangle the federal government from the state governments first. Public schools have enough federal influence that they’re no longer state (as in “the colonies”) institutions as they were in the founder’s times. They’re effectively part of the federal government, and therefore subject to the constitution limitations of the first amendment.

RightOFLeft on November 18, 2008 at 3:50 PM

INC on November 18, 2008 at 3:46 PM

That just means we’ve gotten better at following the constitution. It’s a more perfect union now.

RightOFLeft on November 18, 2008 at 3:53 PM

So the founders intended 9 of the 13 original colonies to be Christian?

No, that’s not what Medved said and that’s not what I’m saying either. He said 9 states already had an established church. He brought it up to point out that the First Amendment was talking about not establishing a federally sponsored church.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 3:54 PM

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Firstly, ’state religions’ that evolved under the Articles of Confederation continued for some time after the adoption of the Constitution…a murky area, for sure, but the people of that time were profoundly religious. Prayer was commonplace in all households and public meetings. Divine guidance was sought in practically every aspect of life in the New World.
Secondly, let’s be very specific about what we mean by ’secular government’. We are a government of law, not man, and the exclusive power over creation of law is reserved to congress…the same congress that is prohibited from creating law that respects any establishment (entity, not verb) of religion. Therefore, our governmental system of law was designed to be free from any religious constraints – secular.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM

No, that’s not what Medved said. He brought up that point to note that Congress did not want to establish a federally sponsored church.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM

INC on November 18, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Congress was not creating a law, hence their action was perfectly constitutional.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:57 PM

RightOFLeft on November 18, 2008 at 3:53 PM

No, it just means that some have been trying to make it up as they go along.

“The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution.”

—Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

INC on November 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM

—Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

INC on November 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM

Like many other ‘clarifications’ of their day, this also leaves the door wide open.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Therefore, our governmental system of law was designed to be free from any religious constraints – secular.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Again the jump in logic from preventing Congress from establishing or restricting religion to suddenly read a secular state into that.

Religious Freedom does not mean a secular state.

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 4:04 PM

You can argue and reach to try to make your points, but you can’t change history.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 4:04 PM

INC on November 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM

He was wrong. It happens. If I quote from the Roe v. Wade opinion are you suddenly going to become pro-choice? And that was only 40 (?) years ago! We didn’t even have slavery, Jim Crow, or treat women like property.

I don’t get why you’re so eager to give politicians any influence over religion, anyway. They have a well-documented tendency to screw things up.

RightOFLeft on November 18, 2008 at 4:08 PM

…Public schools have enough federal influence that they’re no longer state (as in “the colonies”) institutions as they were in the founder’s times. They’re effectively part of the federal government, and therefore subject to the constitution limitations of the first amendment.

RightOFLeft on November 18, 2008 at 3:50 PM

However, if you read the First Amendment, it specifically mentions Congress not being allowed to make laws establishing or restricting religion. School systems are NOT Congress, and they cannot make laws. Whatever happened to reading the plain English words in the Constitution????

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 4:09 PM

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 4:04 PM

Do you find my use of the english language challenging or something?
I never endorsed the concept of a secular state….only a secular government.
Our system of law may not be used to further the cause of religions. Other than that, religion is free to stand or fall on its own.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:09 PM

You can argue and reach to try to make your points, but you can’t change history.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 4:04 PM

Yes, let’s go back to the golden days of the freaking 1800’s. Please. I wouldn’t dream of changing history, but I’ll do what I can to keep from repeating it.

RightOFLeft on November 18, 2008 at 4:09 PM

Whatever happened to common-courtesy, common-sense, and a general level of respect? Idiots….the entire friggin state. How many dumb subjects have been debated on Hot Air that originated from Vermont?

wcrego on November 18, 2008 at 4:10 PM

School systems are NOT Congress

They are a public entity created through law by congress. Congress cannot grant any authority to act unconstitutionally to such an entity.
Of course, none of this was an issue in schools until the creation of the gubmint monkey-shaving institutions. Prior to that, all schools were ‘private’ and could pray as they wished.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:13 PM

Yes, let’s go back to the golden days of the freaking 1800’s

Actually, witch-burning might be awesome. And ducking stools. And gossips bridles. Hell yeah.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM

If you disagree with the Constitution, there’s a process for it to be amended. You cannot, however, state that the Founders’ words meant one thing, when in fact that was not their intent.

They were not perfect men, but their intellect and integrity and desire to hammer out a “more perfect union” are in stark contrast to the thinking of many today.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Our system of law may not be used to further the cause of religions. Other than that, religion is free to stand or fall on its own.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:09 PM

It doesn’t say that, nor did the founders act in any such fashion as they did use law to further the cause of religion. As was pointed out above they voted public funds for missions to the Indians. They put a reference to God on the money, etc.

They wrote the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers. I think they would have a pretty good idea as to what they intended and their conduct does not support your contention.

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 4:17 PM

However, if you read the First Amendment, it specifically mentions Congress not being allowed to make laws establishing or restricting religion. School systems are NOT Congress, and they cannot make laws. Whatever happened to reading the plain English words in the Constitution????

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 4:09 PM

No Child Left Behind. Congressional act or not?

RightOFLeft on November 18, 2008 at 4:17 PM

You cannot, however, state that the Founders’ words meant one thing, when in fact that was not their intent.

Back atcha.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:18 PM

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:13 PM

Prayer went on in public and private schools until the 1970’s. Schools used to be primarily locally run with state supervision. There was no national education department until Carter was elected in 1976 and it was payback to the NEA for their help in electing him.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 4:19 PM

They wrote the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers. I think they would have a pretty good idea as to what they intended and their conduct does not support your contention.

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 4:17 PM

That’s what I meant.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 4:20 PM

There are some seriously history, philosophy and english-language retarded people in here.

If you can’t even parse a simple english sentence within the context of the language of the day, you’re a shining testament to the wonders of gubmint edumbacation.

Pointing to certain actions and saying “see, they did it too so it must be OK!” is fallacious and infantile. Guess what? The founding generations fucked things up too.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Here’s something Gene Weingarten wrote about the Pledge back in 2002.

Like you, I applaud the recent federal appeals court decision declaring the Pledge of Allegiance a vomitaceous monstrosity on the grounds that it compels a child to robotically parrot an incomprehensible promise he is both cognitively and legally incompetent to make, and is therefore a Maoist-style indoctrination insulting to the very concept of a free society.

Ha-ha. Wouldn’t that have been great? A real issue, ringing with uncomfortable truth.

Alas, in ruling the pledge unconstitutional, the court focused only on “under God,” ensuring that the ensuing public dialogue would have all the dignity and intellectual depth of a goose stampede. (The only thing politicians like to trumpet more loudly than their patriotism is their piety…)

Keep reading to find out why the Declaration of Independence, and ultimately the Constitution itself, are unconstitutional.

factoid on November 18, 2008 at 4:31 PM

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Well thankfully we have you to tell us, and the founding fathers what we got wrong and how we should reform our lives!

For my part I want to thank you for that as your guidance is a light in an otherwise very dark world!

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 4:33 PM

If you disagree with the Constitution, there’s a process for it to be amended. You cannot, however, state that the Founders’ words meant one thing, when in fact that was not their intent.

They were not perfect men, but their intellect and integrity and desire to hammer out a “more perfect union” are in stark contrast to the thinking of many today.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 4:17 PM

They didn’t have any collective intent. The reason you can find so many quotes about how great it would be to officially recognize Christianity is because they were having the argument about the proper role of religion in government in the first place. To the extent they agreed to an interpretation, all we have is what they put on paper in the constitution.

RightOFLeft on November 18, 2008 at 4:34 PM

factoid on November 18, 2008 at 4:31 PM

Funny stuff :)

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:36 PM

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 4:33 PM

Oh my gosh! Did I dare to challenge the ineffable wisdom of the divine founding fathers? My paltry opinions on their fallibility quiver next to your gifted insight! Shame on me!

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:39 PM

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:39 PM

It isn’t my gifted insight but theirs. Unlike you I don’t claim to have all the answers, nor would I presume to conduct a rewrite of the Constitution. It has served well for longer than most such documents and may actually have something to offer the modern world. That’s a conservative position rather than a radical one, but I like it.

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 4:47 PM

The Founders needed no pledges or anthems to be American.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM

No, they were simply willing to die for the chance.

Troika37 on November 18, 2008 at 4:47 PM

No, they were simply willing to die for the chance.

Troika37 on November 18, 2008 at 4:47 PM

Indeed….and yet many around them were not.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Glad to hear that! I wasn’t sure how to take your original post…

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Limey, you scared me. I thought I was gonna have to get medievel on your ass. You are a patriot and a man among men.

HornetSting on November 18, 2008 at 5:24 PM

This atheist tool should go after islam.

christene on November 18, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Megyn Kelly almost makes it OK that we are going to hell in a hand basket watching her dissect and otherwise eviscerate her hapless opponents.

*swoon*

turfmann on November 18, 2008 at 6:52 PM

Plus: The daily combative Megyn Kelly interview.

Is she ever not combative? Yeah, she’s a pretty enough lady, but really, would you want to go home to that after an already long, hard day?

Tzetzes on November 18, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” has a meaning.
It is the one part that of the First amendment that is continually ignored.
That is the constitution!

That is the argument! The government has no right to tell people they can not pray! Our nation has recognized that right for 250 years! But, when they stop recognizing that right, if and when,, it will still be the right of all men to pray! When the government steps in and says,’You cannot pray!” They are in fact positioning themselves in front of God! They stand in front of God and say “You cannot talk to this God! You cannot speak to Him!”
They in fact, then, are placing themselves above God.
But as for this atheist,, that is the argument to make to him. it’s none of the governments business what the people do about their religion.
and this atheist,, he hates God. It’s so obvious.
Does he demand that the school eliminate stories about little fairies?? Does he demand that children not be offended by the word Unicorn? or leprechauns? If he truly does not believe in a God at all, would God to him be nothing more than a harmless fantasy than the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow? But instead, he acts as though God is his enemy and must be defeated!

JellyToast on November 18, 2008 at 7:43 PM

I have had many students in my classes through the year who do not say the pledge. They stand and no one notices. This is just crazy.

sandgal on November 18, 2008 at 8:07 PM

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

that said, I understand the Medved note about the established “sponsored” churches. Churches were the vertex of education, social life, and above all welfare. Churches are still the only hope.
My church has a food pantry that is usually supplied by the government funded Food Bank. However, the food bank is short of food and now church members are supplying the need of our food pantry. Demand has doubled in recent weeks.
Where the government fails, establishments of religion fill the gap. Bush was right to push faith-based cooperation on the Department of Health and Human Services.
And, the laws that categorize churches as non-profit organizations are unconstitutional. No laws can touch churches, per the constitution.
Not even censorship! Michael Newdow is fighting against history. Let him eat bread and wine!

anti-boomer on November 18, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Maybe you should read my post as a whole, barry. Kids that say the allegiance are not going to understand the whole “under God” thing. They will believe you don’t love your country. The only one’s that care about the “under God” are the children that are told that it is wrong by their heathen parents.

HornetSting on November 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM

By this logic you could say that children don’t really understand religion, but that they are indoctrinated/forced into it by their parents.

Nonfactor on November 18, 2008 at 11:00 PM

Therefore, our governmental system of law was designed to be free from any religious constraints – secular.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Look, I don’t want to get in an argument with you cerebral types, but I’d just like to add a perspective that I think gets lost in this debate.

IMHO, your statement above, though not without historical substance, is colored with the modern interpretation of revolutionary America. Any serious attempt to get a feel for the cultural forces of the times must take into account the 180 years or so leading up to the revolution.

In those days, the Fed was “designed” for the protection of the states from enemies more than anything else. The states were looking for commonality of purpose to legitimize its existence, but their different religions were paramount to their lives. They were very protective of their freedoms, and were steadfastly suspicious of any regime to rule over the individual colonies/states.

I think it would be more appropriate to access the times in this fashion:

…our governmental system of law was designed to free religion from any secular(state interest) restraints .

We can agree or disagree whether this is good or bad, but I think it’s extremely important to point this out, because it helps to illustrate the mindset of the times.

Saltysam on November 19, 2008 at 12:48 AM

Heh. Their school has 55 children in it. C’mon, that’s pretty funny. It makes my tiny town look huge!

Kevin M on November 19, 2008 at 12:57 AM

I have read all the back and forth about the Constitution, yada, yada, yada… Some of the posters here PROVE to me the reason we have morons who just elected a empty suit, a man who might not even be legitimate to be POTUS due to birth issues, the Messiah… Per Zogby, we have a Nation of morons, with no clues as to the BS that the MSM force feeds us daily. What in God’s name happened to morals, faith, Country, Patriotisiam and above all COMMON SENSE?

In the days when Ameircans, REAL Americans, where fighting Germany and Japan, we had no issues PLEDGING to OUR flag, we had no issue loving America, praying, being PROUD and not giving a rat’s butt what the rest of the World thought.

Until we get that PRIDE, that faith, thoses convictions back, we are doomed as a great Nation. Pledge alliegence dang it! Be proud of America, what it is, what it stands for, thoses that fought and died for your “rights”…

We are now a Nation of wimps, and that goes for MANY of you posting here… STAND UP, grow a set, be proud, PLEDGE, sing America songs!!! Crush groups like the NEA, the ACLU and the other America haters…

Bring back American pride! America, love it or LEAVE it!

To bad we have so many “girly-men” in America these days!

Mark Garnett on November 19, 2008 at 8:02 AM

Saltysam on November 19, 2008 at 12:48 AM

I see what you’re getting at, and I agree, although I think that it’s actually a two-way street, and the wording should reflect that:

…our governmental system of law was designed to be independent of religious influence

My reasoning being, that religion is not free from a secular restraint against murder.

LimeyGeek on November 19, 2008 at 1:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.