Pledge of Allegiance vs. Constitution?

[conus00]

Okay gents,
I have been studying for my US citizenship test and me and my g/f had an interesting conversation. This horse has been probably beaten do death many times already but I would like to know your opinion on this question:

Is the Pledge of Allegiance in direct contradiction with U.S. Constitution?

Can somebody explain this to me:

The Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the Flag,
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
One Nation, under God
Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.

and accordig to the Bill of Rights (The First ammendment):

You can practice any religion, or not practice a religion at all.


I understand that there were 4 changes to The Pledge of Allegiance (the last one made President Eisenhower in 1954 adding the words "under God").
Doesn't this make The Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?

Are the atheists/agnostics, still, bound by it?

I do not want this thread to turn into another "religious" war on subsim, but this just does not make any sense to me.
Your opinions?

[Dowly]

Funny, I just watched these two videos on youtube last night:

This one's about the pledge of allegiance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzVxHF8T0Hk

And this about the inauguration thingamaling (I think), anywho, the same atheist is in it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg8EWbuJOvQ

Quite entertaining to watch tbh. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

Is the Pledge considered official government doctrine?

Personally I consider the pledge to be unconstitutional even in its original form, on the grounds that any loyalty oath goes against the personal liberty America is supposed to stand for.

[frau kaleun]

Is the Pledge considered official government doctrine?

Personally I consider the pledge to be unconstitutional even in its original form, on the grounds that any loyalty oath goes against the personal liberty America is supposed to stand for.

:sign_yeah:

[UnderseaLcpl]

For all practical purposes, the Pledge of Allegiance is not in contradiction with the United States Constitution for two main reasons.

1) It is not a criminal act to refuse to recite the pledge, nor is the pledge mandated anywhere outside some very specific state laws.

2) It requires only that one pledge allegiance to the ensign of the US and the Republic it represents. The remaining terms are descriptors, none of which indicates that by pledging allegiance to the US you are pledging allegiance to God; only that you are pledging allegiance to a nation that is under God. A nation governed by a constitution which allows no abridgement of your rightful freedom to start or choose or not choose a religion. Those are very different things.

Most of the opposition to the pledge comes from people who don't want any mention of God made anywhere, or who are of the (quite justified) assumption that the term refers to a Judeo-Christian God. In these cases, people aren't so much against the pledge itself as they are against supporting what they see as a meme to propagate beliefs they oppose. I suppose I can understand that. I've never been a big fan of the pledge myself, albeit for different reasons.

In any case, the pledge is not unconstitutional.

edit- "uh-oh, Frau's here"
Um... I'm on a horse!

[SteamWake]

The origins of the pledge.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur10.htm

[conus00]

I can see where you are coming from in case of The Pledge of Allegiance. From your standpoint and in layman's terms: you are not forced to take it and you or not punished if you do or do not.

But why are the words "under God" included?

Can it be amended so these words are "optional". Like in the Oath of Allegiance (I will have to take to become U.S. citizen)?
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

According to wikipedia:
8 C.F.R. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations) 337.1 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?YEAR=current&TITLE=8&PART=337&SECTION=1&SUBPART=&TYPE=TEXT) provides that the phrase "so help me God" is optional and that the words ‘on oath’ can be substituted with ‘and solemnly affirm’.

Why can't the Pledge of Alliance be modified in same fashion?

@SteamWake interesting article. I didn't know all that.

[frau kaleun]

edit- "uh-oh, Frau's here"
Um... I'm on a horse!

Actually I kind of agree with you that, unless someone is being required to recite the pledge as "proof of loyalty" for some reason, it's prolly not unconstitutional for it to exist. Technically. I still dislike the idea of loyalty pledges in general, and the added "under God" doesn't help since it at least implies that there is some deity who is "over" the nation or its founding or it guiding principles.

Honestly they were still having us stand up to recite the pledge every morning in high school and I never recited it, simply because I did not like being told or expected to do so on demand. Nobody seemed to notice. Granted I still stood up, because I will do that much out of respect for certain things. I've always wondered though how much of a stink it might've caused had I just sat there and quietly gone about my business.

Furthermore, I think that Carthage should be destroyed.

[The Third Man]

Interesting question. That it is asked by a current non-citizen, studying to become one, makes it all the more relevant.

It is this look from the outside which allows us to constantly have a re-look at ourselves. The best reason for immigration I can think of.

I don't know the answer because I'm too close to myself as a citizen.

Thank you for asking the question.

[conus00]

Actually I kind of agree with you that, unless someone is being required to recite the pledge as "proof of loyalty" for some reason, it's prolly not unconstitutional for it to exist. Technically. I still dislike the idea of loyalty pledges in general, and the added "under God" doesn't help since it at least implies that there is some deity who is "over" the nation or its founding or it guiding principles.

Honestly they were still having us stand up to recite the pledge every morning in high school and I never recited it, simply because I did not like being told or expected to do so on demand. Nobody seemed to notice. Granted I still stood up, because I will do that much out of respect for certain things. I've always wondered though how much of a stink it might've caused had I just sat there and quietly gone about my business.

Furthermore, I think that Carthage should be destroyed.

My g/f was just curious what (rougly) year it was because she stopped saying pledge of allegiance while being still in elementary school and was not required to recite in high school? She went to high school in mid 80s.

[frau kaleun]

I was in high school from 1978-1982. I can remember them still doing it there but whether it was every year, I don't know. My senior year I was off-campus most of the day and I'm not sure I even went to "homeroom" which was when they did all the announcements and pledge over the PA system.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Actually I kind of agree with you that, unless someone is being required to recite the pledge as "proof of loyalty" for some reason, it's prolly not unconstitutional for it to exist. Technically. I still dislike the idea of loyalty pledges in general, and the added "under God" doesn't help since it at least implies that there is some deity who is "over" the nation or its founding or it guiding principles.

We're agreed upon that. I only got on my horse to impress you:O:

I was never a fan of the pledge in school, either. I used to make up funny words for it, or grumble my way through it, much the same way you did, and for the same reasons. Ironically, I had a completely opposite political ideology at the time from what I do now.

These days, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I've proudly stated the pledge many times in uniform, but the only oath that really stuck with me was to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Strange how those different sentiments could come from the same person.


Furthermore, I think that Carthage should be destroyed.
By men on horses, preferably.:DL

[Dowly]

Most of the opposition to the pledge comes from people who don't want any mention of God made anywhere, or who are of the (quite justified) assumption that the term refers to a Judeo-Christian God.

First of all, I didn't read the two points you made, so if what I say next contradicts what you have stated in them, just everyone ignore my post. (I'm a "tad" drunk, so my attention span is pretty much zero)

But the quoted text was a flashing, big neon sign to me. What are you trying to say? Atheists aren't against the Judeo-Christian god, but against an higher power or deity. Which includes ALL gods.

You americans like to use the word "freedom", does it not apply also to the religion? The line in the PoA clearly contradicts (yeh, I've learned a new word, me>awesomeness) the freedom of believing whatever deity, object, slump of piss you want.

And I don't even get why it has to be there, I mean, let's get real, America isn't exactly the model student in the school of God. Yes, there are those who believe and then there's those who "believe" and change the rules that gets one to heaven when there's need to, wtf is that about? Is that not God's law? One can't just change it when it contradicts (Woot, that's a strike!) to something he/she want's to do but God says NO.

Of course, this happens all over the world, not just america, so don't take this as a attack on america or something like that (or I call you an douchenozzle [giggity giggity for those who remember that :haha:]).

Right... I think that's all.. I go back to what I was doing.

PS. Damn, I think that's my all time longest post. :o

PPS. this has been bothering me, is it PPS or PSS. My brother uses PSS, but is it not PPS, as in post-post-scriptum or someting? :hmmm:

PPPS. If someone knows the girl in my sig, PM me, she is HOT! :rock:

[conus00]

Interesting question. That it is asked by a current non-citizen, studying to become one, makes it all the more relevant.

It is this look from the outside which allows us to constantly have a re-look at ourselves. The best reason for immigration I can think of.

I don't know the answer because I'm too close to myself as a citizen.

Thank you for asking the question.

You are welcome. One of the ways how we improve ourselves is being questioned by others. On different (but related subject) you should take a look at this: http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm

It is the list of questions required for U.S. citizenship test. It might be little bit outdated but it will give you an idea. I believe that majority of U.S. citizens would flunk the test. My g/f (smart and born and raised American) didn't know the answers to approx 1/3 of the questions.

[UnderseaLcpl]

First of all, I didn't read the two points you made, so if what I say next contradicts what you have stated in them, just everyone ignore my post. (I'm a "tad" drunk, so my attention span is pretty much zero)
:rock::yeah: Now I'm reading it for sure.

But the quoted text was a flashing, big neon sign to me. What are you trying to say? Atheists aren't against the Judeo-Christian god, but against an higher power or deity. Which includes ALL gods.
Yep, you missed a bit. NP, though.

You americans like to use the word "freedom", does it not apply also to the religion? The line in the PoA clearly contradicts (yeh, I've learned a new word, me>awesomeness) the freedom of believing whatever deity, object, slump of piss you want.
I have to disagree with one point. Americans don't like the word freedom, they love it. Much of our cultural identity is based upon it.
Other than that, I completely agree that you>awesomeness.:yeah:

As far as the rest of your post goes, many of us agree to some extent.

Of course, this happens all over the world, not just america, so don't take this as a attack on america or something like that (or I call you an douchenozzle [giggity giggity for those who remember that :haha:]).
America invented giggity-giggity. :DL


PPS. this has been bothering me, is it PPS or PSS. My brother uses PSS, but is it not PPS, as in post-post-scriptum or someting? :hmmm:

It depends on the context. PS is Post-scriptum and PSS is post sub-scriptum. I'll explain it later. :salute:

[Penguin]

While reading about the POA I was astonished that it was state law to recite it - at least in Florida :o. I always thought it would be voluntarily with most students saying it out of tradition, conviction and/or peer pressure.

While I want to leave the constitutional discussion to the Americans, reading the oath of allegiance raises a new question:
Why does it explicitly mention a prince? Wouldn't he already be covered by potentate or sovereignty? Or did the US had some beef with a prince at the time the oath was introduced?

[frau kaleun]

PPS. this has been bothering me, is it PPS or PSS. My brother uses PSS, but is it not PPS, as in post-post-scriptum or someting? :hmmm:

It's PPS, not PSS, and for the very reason you stated. The 'post' is Latin for 'after' so something written after the postscript would be a post-postscript.

Your brother, on the other hand, is speaking Parseltongue and is probably a Death Eater.

[The Third Man]

Why does it explicitly mention a prince?


Was there a prince named flag, and the republic it stands for?

Ultimately it is an oath to a republic.

[Takeda Shingen]

http://images1.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Calvin-Pledge-of-Allegiance-debate-1160931_600_191.gif

[Penguin]

Was there a prince named flag, and the republic it stands for?

Ultimately it is an oath to a republic.

I was asking about the oath of allegiance which the OP cited in post #7

[frau kaleun]

While I want to leave the constitutional discussion to the Americans, reading the oath of allegiance raises a new question:
Why does it explicitly mention a prince? Wouldn't he already be covered by potentate or sovereignty? Or did the US had some beef with a prince at the time the oath was introduced?

The "oath of allegiance" quoted above and the "pledge of allegiance" to the flag are two different things.

The former is taken by someone who is not a citizen of the US, but is about to become one. In order to be sworn in as a US citizen, he/she must renounce all prior claims of citizenship or subjecthood to any foreign government, power, or ruler. Some foreign nationals are subjects of a monarch who is considered the head of state in their country of origin.

[The Third Man]

I was asking about the oath of allegiance which the OP cited in post #7

Oh, now I see what you're getting at. Fortunately that is not the US pledge.
Ours proclaims the supremecy of the republic, not one individual.

[Penguin]

yep, but "prince" is basically covered by the terms "sovereign" or "potentate", that's why I was wondering why particularily "prince" - if you want to specificaly adress monarchy, the term "monarch" would be more fitting

[UnderseaLcpl]

http://images1.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Calvin-Pledge-of-Allegiance-debate-1160931_600_191.gif

Please excuse me while I take a short detour down nostaligia lane. <sigh>

[frau kaleun]

yep, but "prince" is basically covered by the terms "sovereign" or "potentate", that's why I was wondering why particularily "prince" - if you want to specificaly adress monarchy, the term "monarch" would be more fitting

Maybe because some states are technically "principalities" and ruled by princes? I'm thinking of Monaco, for example.

I don't know the protocol for slapping labels on dynastic heads of state, maybe there's some kind of technical difference between a prince and a potentate and they didn't want to leave any loopholes. :06:

[Sailor Steve]

A King is the ultimate Prince. I don't know about today, but in older times it was characteristic for the King of England to refer to himself as a "Prince", and there are speeches recorded in which Queen Elizabeth (the original) actually called herself a "Prince".

[frau kaleun]

A King is the ultimate Prince. I don't know about today, but in older times it was characteristic for the King of England to refer to himself as a "Prince", and there are speeches recorded in which Queen Elizabeth (the original) actually called herself a "Prince".

Yeah, and then she went with that weird squiggly thing for a while and everybody just called her "the monarch formerly known as a 'Prince.'" It never did catch on.

[Dowly]

Your brother, on the other hand, is speaking Parseltongue and is probably a Death Eater.

Hmm.. well... he is the the one who I have to thank for introducing me to heavy/death/black metal, so yeah... he just might be the Death Eater... quite awesome. Does that make me the lil' death eater? :hmmm:

[Skybird]

Okay gents,
I have been studying for my US citizenship test and me and my g/f had an interesting conversation. This horse has been probably beaten do death many times already but I would like to know your opinion on this question:

Is the Pledge of Allegiance in direct contradiction with U.S. Constitution?

Can somebody explain this to me:

The Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the Flag,
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
One Nation, under God
Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.

and accordig to the Bill of Rights (The First ammendment):

You can practice any religion, or not practice a religion at all.


I understand that there were 4 changes to The Pledge of Allegiance (the last one made President Eisenhower in 1954 adding the words "under God").
Doesn't this make The Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?

Are the atheists/agnostics, still, bound by it?

I do not want this thread to turn into another "religious" war on subsim, but this just does not make any sense to me.
Your opinions?

Since you explicitly marked the words "under god", and due to your general question, you may find this site with some historic background of the matter useful, make sure you check all pages:

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/index.html

[TLAM Strike]

It depends on the context. PS is Post-scriptum and PSS is post sub-scriptum. I'll explain it later. :salute:

I thought PPS stood for Pistolet pulemjot Sudaeva? :O:

Back OT: In high school we never had to say the pledge, we just had to stand and take off our hats. Even if we did we did not have to say the "Under God" part if we did not want to. ;)

You are welcome. One of the ways how we improve ourselves is being questioned by others. On different (but related subject) you should take a look at this: http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm

It is the list of questions required for U.S. citizenship test. It might be little bit outdated but it will give you an idea. I believe that majority of U.S. citizens would flunk the test. My g/f (smart and born and raised American) didn't know the answers to approx 1/3 of the questions. Intresting. I got about 90 of them right.

46. Which countries were our enemies during World War II?
Germany, Italy, and JapanI would mark this as an Incomplete answer... ;)

78. What kind of government does the United States have?
Democracy I thought we were a republic? :hmmm:

87. What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens?
The right to vote Isn't that more of a question of a opinion? Wouldn't someone from a country where they religion is suppressed perhaps think our freedom of region is more important?

[conus00]

46. Which countries were our enemies during World War II?
Germany, Italy, and Japan
I would mark this as an Incomplete answer... ;)

It is incomplete, but I think they meant Axis powers in general


78. What kind of government does the United States have?
Democracy
I thought we were a republic? :hmmm:

So did I...

[Skybird]

I did the test without preparing for it, and except answers on present, contemporary names (I do not know all senators of states by name) that I could not know from here - why should I - I got it right. But:

that test is hilarious. It is even more stupid than the German integration test for foreign migrants that was introduced some time ago over here. And like then german test it fails its purpose because beside answers for questions on colours and numbers of stars it is all too easy to guess what answer they want to hear. and I would not even agree on all answers being correct. It has no educational and also no identificational value, therefore.

Or maybe the test is not to be called dumb, but incredibly naive.

[Sailor Steve]

I missed four of them. But the test itself gets some wrong. Yes, it's poorly written as well as being stupid.

[AngusJS]

Pledge of Allegiance vs. Constitution?Constitution in a 12 round decision. :)

The Pledge: extracting loyalty oaths from six year-olds since 1892. I had to recite it every damn school day for 12 years.

1) It is not a criminal act to refuse to recite the pledge...

By that reasoning, school-led prayer should be constitutional, because there's no legal requirement to partake in it. But it is unconstitutional, because it boils down to the government promoting religion, regardless of the presence or lack of any requirements to partake in the prayer. Likewise, the Pledge is unconstitutional.

nor is the pledge mandated anywhere outside some very specific state laws.What happened to the Equal Protection Clause?

you are pledging allegiance to a nation that is under God.So it's ok to force kids to state that there is a god, and that their own country exists under it? Wouldn't you (rightly) have a problem with the phrase "...one nation, unfettered by all imaginary gods..."?

In these cases, people aren't so much against the pledge itself as they are against supporting what they see as a meme to propagate beliefs they oppose.Or they'd just like to see the states obey the law of the land for once. I don't think that's a lot to ask.

When the balance of the Supreme Court swings back, maybe laws requiring the current Pledge will finally be struck down.

[Takeda Shingen]

Constitution in a 12 round decision. :)

Hehehe. I was thinking something like that every time I read the title, but decided not to use it. My line was 'Pledge of Allegiance by 3.'

[mookiemookie]

78. What kind of government does the United States have?
Democracy
I thought we were a republic? :hmmm:

So did I...

I always thought it was a constitutional republic with a bicameral legislature and indirect democracy.

[CaptainHaplo]

The pledge is not unconstitutional. God as used is not a specified deity, and thus does not violate the establishment of any religion. To some, the "God" in the pledge may be a judeao-xtian one, to others it may be the spagetti monster. To an athiest, "God" may be a non existent entity - so in that case they are saying "under a being that doesn't exist" - which conforms to their belief - so why should they have a problem with that?

There is a difference between the recognition of a myriad of beliefs and a note to that in the pledge, vs the establishment of a set governmental religion.

[Sailor Steve]

So it's ok to force kids to state that there is a god, and that their own country exists under it? Wouldn't you (rightly) have a problem with the phrase "...one nation, unfettered by all imaginary gods..."?
Very well said! :rock:

There is a difference between the recognition of a myriad of beliefs and a note to that in the pledge, vs the establishment of a set governmental religion.
President Eisenhower disagrees. When he signed it into law he said "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Pledge_of_Allegiance

The "under God" part was added at the exact time that "Godless Communist" was the favored epithet of those most concerned with the Cold War. If that isn't obvious, the fact that "God" is capitalized in the official version should be.

[Platapus]

78. What kind of government does the United States have?
Democracy
I thought we were a republic? :hmmm:

So did I...

I always thought it was a constitutional republic with a bicameral legislature and indirect democracy.


WOMAN: I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed! Can't go wrong with the classics :yeah:

[mookiemookie]

Can't go wrong with the classics :yeah:

:rotfl2: I love that bit.

[Platapus]

The pledge is not unconstitutional. God as used is not a specified deity, and thus does not violate the establishment of any religion. To some, the "God" in the pledge may be a judeao-xtian one, to others it may be the spagetti monster. To an athiest, "God" may be a non existent entity - so in that case they are saying "under a being that doesn't exist" - which conforms to their belief - so why should they have a problem with that?



I am having a hard time believing that

Louis Bowman
The Daughters of the American Revolution
The Sons of the American Revolution
The Knights of Columbus
Holger Christian Langmack
Dr. George MacPherson Docherty of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church

All intended the word god to represent all religions and not just the christian religion. :nope:

[Skybird]

God as used is not a specified deity, and thus does not violate the establishment of any religion. To some, the "God" in the pledge may be a judeao-xtian one, to others it may be the spagetti monster.
that simply is wrong. If god is written with a small "g", then it is liike you say, refering to the class of deities, gods and djinnis altogether. If it is written with capital "G", then it explicitly is refering to the christian context of that assumed entity. Think of it as a convention (that is not disputed at all), if you want.

That'S why I use small and capital Gs carefully when using that word. ;)

(Not that it matters at all. One god is not less worse than any other :O: ).