Jesus comes down with a cost — it must have been one of those “mysterious ways” things.
A federal judge has awarded the American Civil Liberties Union more than $42,000 to cover attorneys fees and court costs associated with the organization’s fight to remove a portrait of Jesus from Slidell City Court.U.S. District Court Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle ruled ruled in April that Slidell officials broke the law by hanging the Jesus portrait on the wall at the courthouse. The decision provided the ACLU with $1 in damages and allowed the organization to request reimbursement for the debt the ACLU incurred when it sued the court, Judge Jim Lamz, the city of Slidell and St. Tammany Parish in July 2007.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a First Amendment challenge to a Florida law that says students must get a parent’s permission to get out of a daily classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. But the court ruled that a part of the law requiring all “civilians” to stand during the pledge in schools is unconstitutional. Christine Frazier had brought suit on behalf of her son, Cameron, in 2005, when her son was in the 11th grade. A federal district judge agreed that the rule “robs the student of the right to make an independent decision whether to say the pledge.” On appeal, 11th Circuit Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, Senior Judge James C. Hill and visiting 9th Circuit Senior Judge Arthur L. Alarc?n noted that the U.S. Supreme Court held over a half a century ago that local government authorities can’t compel a salute to the flag. But the panel said the Florida law protects parents’ constitutional rights to bring up their children as they see fit. “The State, in restricting the student’s freedom of speech, advances the protection of the constitutional rights of parents: an interest which the State may lawfully protect,” the panel said Wednesday. The panel warned that it considered only Frazier’s challenge to the law on its face and not whether it might be applied constitutionally to any particular student. On the question of standing during the pledge, the state acknowledged that students have a right to remain seated but had urged the court to read the requirement as applicable only to those students who don’t get a parent’s permission to not say the pledge. The 11th Circuit panel said that interpretation was too “improbable.”
I don’t quite get the latter, I guess it means the kids have to pledge allegiance unless they get parents permission to stop, but they can sit down in protest while they do it. I guess parents have rights over what a child says, but not his posture while he says it.
I recommend that 2 pledges be said.
First by those that are unpatriotic and don’t understand the constitution and want the modified version.
Then by those that are patriotic and do understand the constitution and want the unmodified version.
There is a third alternative. Say the pledge but at the “one nation, indivisable” point, say it very loud to drown out the “under god” and make your point.
Deep, That’s what I do, except without the comma after “nation”. I say “one nation indivisible”, which places my “indivisible” right at the point of the comma that everyone else is using. Everyone is pausing, but I am speaking. They all hear me say “indivisible”. Then I continue from there. Gets the point across.
I refuse to participate in a test of my loyalty, and I hope my children will resent the implications of the pledge just as strongly.
The pledge solves no problem, fills no deficiency, promotes no well being. It is meant to do one thing and one thing only – to intimidate.
I wondered what I would do about the pledge when I went back to teaching (6th grade) this January.
It just sort of worked out that the class was very busy in the mornings and I would forget to turn on the tv to listen to the announcements and pledge. Once I realized that I had been forgetting to turn on the tv I just conveniently “forgot” every morning from then on. Not having the distraction kept my mornings quieter and kept the students on task.
Pixel
Sounds like a good plan. If you can remember it.
Nationalism (and its synonym patriotism) are nothing more than state-worship.
As the founders of our country did, we should fear the power of the state, not worship it.
The ritualistic display of reverence towards symbols of our bureaucracy can only be intended to promote nationalism over other ideologies. State-worship also reverses the proper relationship between citizens and government. Government is supposed to be the servant of the citizens, not the other way around! Government is supposed to do things like run the fire department, keep the electricity on, enforce the law, and other services for our benefit. Government was never established to be an extension of god.
yeah…..what Chris B said
Simple question. How do you show your patriotism? Or better yet, do you believe in patriotism?
Must it be shown? Change that to “how do you show your love, or better yet, do you believe in love?”
If patriotism is love of country, shouldn’t it be subject to the same parameters? That’s the thing about the pledge and the like. If you were married to someone who every day asked you to pledge yourself formally and show your patriotism toward them, you’d dump their ass, right? Who likes to be questioned like that?
Who? “Patriots” do.
Patriotism is simply a word used by the shameless during political maneuvering in an attempt to stifle the exercise of another’s constitutional rights.
Does anyone remember who said,”Patriotism is the last refuge of tyranny (or the tyrant)”?…I completely forgot.
The concept of Patriotism is nothing but a tool of manipulation. I will serve this country as long as it serves me, and implying anything about my “patriotism” isn’t going to make me act differently.
Bear, is this what you are talking about?:
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
-Samuel Johnson
Good points
I suppose saluting the flag is a bad form of patriotism also.
No one should be forced to show their pride for their country.
I will continue to salute the flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance because I want to, not required to.
All very good points, I just wish to add that the worship of the silly little table cloth has gotten way out of hand, I am very surprised people have not started to claim it has healed them of evil ailments.
Added to that…yeah…..what Chris B said
According to the United States Supreme Court mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional on its face.
The decision was reached in 1943 (in the midst of World War II) and the case was West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette.
Writing for the majority Justice Robert Jackson declared, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
The issue is not whether one should say the Pledge, but whether or not anyone should be forced to do so.
I am not thrilled with the whole idea of the pledge, in general, even excepting the “under God” phrase.
Why do we pledge allegiance to “the flag?” What does it mean to pledge allegiance to a flag?? Are we promising to be loyal to a flag?
I understand pledging allegiance “to the republic.” But I’m with George, the issue is whether anyone should be forced to say the pledge.
And what happens to the children who don’t have parental permission to opt out of the pledge, then refuse to say the pledge? Will they get detention? Supsension . . . expulsion? SO glad to know my Florida lawmakers are spending time on a non-issue.
My son says that almost everyone in his high school ignores the pledge (along with ignoring all the announcements!)
Pixel
Because xians are obsessed with manipulating the behavior of others.
pixel wrote: “And what happens to the children who don’t have parental permission to opt out of the pledge, then refuse to say the pledge? Will they get detention? Supsension . . . expulsion? SO glad to know my Florida lawmakers are spending time on a non-issue.”
I agree with you about the pledge. It smacks too much of a loyalty oath to me.
Our benighted Florida legislators probably would try to enact one of those as well if they thought they could get away with it.
I love this thread. If there is anything we can all get together on, it is the reversal of the words “under God” into our pledge. If there is to be a pledge, which is another topic altogether, it should not include a prayer. The words were added in a time of fear, driven by a Xtain group (the Knights of Columbus) and it was actually an unconstitutional decision to add them.
And I wear the AA “One Nation Indivisible” gel bracelet proudly.
Pixel – I also teach 6th grade Social Studies. In Homeroom, I do not say the words “under God”, and I discuss it with students who ask. I have gotten bolder over the years, and play Red Skelton’s Pledge speech, which was B4 the addition of these two words, and this always leads to great class discussions. I ask the kids, should we change it back, change it to “under Allah”, or “under Zeus” (or even Artemis)
Our Pledge, as is, is not a pledge of patriotism as much as a public prayer, manipulating our citizens, with children as the main target.
So far as saying the pledge at all — forced or not — I’d say that, in a compulsory setting like grade school, the pledge, like prayer, is an effective indicator to peers, teachers, and administrator as to who thinks or believes what. Which is kind of bad, right? It can set students up for problems.
I expect that threat of problems is rare, but in the right climate it could be bad. I was well out of school when 9/11 happened, but judging by the reaction of people at work alone, I bet it was a bad time to stand on principle in schools, if you know what I mean.
Here’s a pledge that the founders of this country might have agreed to, but that I doubt many people today would like:
———
I pledge allegiance,
to the values of freedom,
justice, and equality;
and to the concept
that government is our servant,
and never our master.
We will stand and we will fight,
against any tyrant who
would separate the people
from the rights that are theirs.
———–
This pledge involves no state-worship, no symbols as proxies for values, and no undeserved reverence for bureaucracies like the FBI or the IRS. It leaves open the possibility that our government might someday be unworthy of support, and declares that our true allegiance is to our values. Some people might object to the revolutionary tone and implicit threat to the government, but that was what the writings of Thomas Paine were all about.
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands,”
“For which it stands” – Chris, this sums up what you said.
allegiance – loyalty or devotion to some cause.
So who here does not want to show some loyalty to our cause, the cause being what the US of A is suppose to stand for. What Chris suggests.
Most here seem to have a problem with symbolism. It is not the flag you are supporting but what it stands for.
Except that no one agrees on what it stands for, really. And it’s still a loyalty oath, to be taken every day, in front of our peers, in front of our authority figures — just in case that status changed and we’ve become godless commies overnight.
Yes, I have a problem with symbolism. Once you start thinking in symbols, the reality of what they are supposed to symbolize gets lost. To me, the “republic for which it stands” doesn’t include daily tests of my loyalty. For you, it does. Right away you can see that symbols are useless.
what: The Constitution. You should know that. Are you aware of what the 3 colors stripes and stars represent?
cynic: Who says I take a daily test of loyality.
Those that are proud of their country are not ashamed to show it.
And no, it should not be required.
See, but you’re implying that by refusing to say the pledge of allegience that we’re ashamed of our country. (And well, anyone who isn’t ashamed of the US on one subject or another just isn’t paying attention, but as a whole…)
Because I have a philosophical difference with the entire concept of the pledge, I wouldn’t see it as showing pride in my country if I were to do it.
You don’t need to justify your own partaking in the pledge to me — I understand and don’t think any less of you or anything. It’s just that having the view of it I do, I can’t see it the same way. From my perspective, it wouldn’t be showing loyalty. It would be showing a lack of integrity on my part by affirming an aspect of “patriotism” I disagree with on a fundamental level.
DD
The flag represents the constitution? Really? Why doesn’t the constitution represent the constitution? Why the layer of obfuscation?