Get up-to-date information on current events related to public policy,law, and news analysis. It is designed to inform and sometimes entertain the average Joe.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
AP: Federal judge rules reciting Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional
I've gotta go with the judge on this one. In 1954, the Knights of Columbus lobbied Congress to add the words, 'under God,'making the Pledge a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Clearly unconstitutional.
I have to disagree with you. The Supreme Court has ruled that the recognition of God does not violate the constitution. I believe that this case will be reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court. The school is not requiring a child to believe a certain religion. There is a thing called secular purpose. This means that just because something has a religious connotation does not mean the government has to be hostile to it. In fact there was a case in which the Supreme Court upheld that the Nebraska state legislature was not in violation of the constitution by having a prayer before each daily session. In fact the MN House and Senate have prayers by pastors, priests, rabbis, etc. when they are in session. It would be unconstitutional if there was a reference to a certain sect such as Jesus, Allah, etc.
I think you are saying that the ruling is that becuase it is "God" in a generic sense then it is alright. That seems a little sketchy to me since the insertion "under God" was lobbied for by a Catholic organization and was accepted as a cold-war answer to the atheist communists that it certainly is religious. Not that I don't see your point, I just don't buy it.
I studied this issue when I was studying political science. There is this term called Secular purpose. The establishment clause of the constitution was intended so the government did not tell people how to worship. I think we can both agree on that. I dont believe that to insert the words "under God" violates that principle. This does not tell people how to practice their religion.
4 comments:
I've gotta go with the judge on this one. In 1954, the Knights of Columbus lobbied Congress to add the words, 'under God,'making the Pledge a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Clearly unconstitutional.
I have to disagree with you. The Supreme Court has ruled that the recognition of God does not violate the constitution. I believe that this case will be reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court. The school is not requiring a child to believe a certain religion. There is a thing called secular purpose. This means that just because something has a religious connotation does not mean the government has to be hostile to it. In fact there was a case in which the Supreme Court upheld that the Nebraska state legislature was not in violation of the constitution by having a prayer before each daily session. In fact the MN House and Senate have prayers by pastors, priests, rabbis, etc. when they are in session. It would be unconstitutional if there was a reference to a certain sect such as Jesus, Allah, etc.
I think you are saying that the ruling is that becuase it is "God" in a generic sense then it is alright. That seems a little sketchy to me since the insertion "under God" was lobbied for by a Catholic organization and was accepted as a cold-war answer to the atheist communists that it certainly is religious. Not that I don't see your point, I just don't buy it.
I studied this issue when I was studying political science. There is this term called Secular purpose. The establishment clause of the constitution was intended so the government did not tell people how to worship. I think we can both agree on that. I dont believe that to insert the words "under God" violates that principle. This does not tell people how to practice their religion.
Post a Comment