the power of an oath comes not from the ojbect being sworn to, rather the seriousness of the person offering it. It is just as easy to lie to all humanity as a god you dont believe in :)

Well, all I can say is 'right on' and to G-D: don't let the screen door hit you on the ass on the way out of the country.

But the real problem with the Pledge is that it's a loyalty oath. Such things are inconsistent with Democracies.

nope, the real problem with the pledge of allegiance is "under god". it's the foot in the door. it's a license to push monotheism, specifically christianity, far up the back-sides of children. i have a hundred and one memories of religious (or in my case, non-religious) intolerence in rural missouri grade and middle schools (e.g. being singled out for not saying "amen" at the end of a prayer in the classroom).

I'm with Bb here, and bumr too: muddling religion and politics together, as in the standard form the Pledge of Allegiance, is intrusive and potentially _very_ dangerous to the entire society.

For cross-reference, the Australian citizenship pledge (said precisely once in a lifetime, for new citizens), runs as follows: "From this time forward, _under God_, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey." Below, on the card, it says, in very small print, "A person may choose to make the pledge with or without the words 'under God'".

I'm pleased with the direction of this decision, and our current Supreme Court might even uphold this (the majority appears to be opposed to school prayer, this seems a logical extension both to me and to the 9th Circuit). Note that the words "under God" were added in '54 for explicitly religious reasons.

The jingoistic nationalism of the pledge is a whole 'nother issue...

If freedom of religion does not include freedom not to be religious at all... where's the freedom?

Bullshit.

Nobody is forced to recite the _Pledge_ of Allegiance. (Please do not call it an Oath. That is an inaccuracy.) As for whether not reciting it in school makes you feel like an outsider.... well people, grow up. All facets of life do that.

The worst thing about this post is the obvious contradiction that many so-called freedom defenders make on this issue:

"Our society was based on a secular government, a nation whereby church and state are separated. This does not preclude the practice of religion, but does put religious practice where it belongs: celebrated by individuals in their own space, their own time, protected by law."

That is blatantly contradictory! Let me rephrase that first sentance so that it doesn't contradict the rest:

"Our society was based on a separation of church and stae, where the state does not oficially condone NOR EXCLUDE how religion is practiced."

Quite a bit of difference there. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independance, The COnstitution nor The Bill of Rights does ANYTHING imply that the state is secular. Nowhere at all.

Again, bullshit!

Oh, one last thing.... anyone who calls this decision 'courageous' (I heard one talking head saying that yesterday) is sadly mistaken. Let's remember one last FACT: the 9th Court of Appeals is the most overturned court in this country. In light of this, I'd say the decision was 'too activist'.

Secular: Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body

Dave, if people want to say the Pledge - with God - at home, fine. Feel free. However, this ruling came about because the saying of the pledge was mandatory for teachers in several school systems. And when I was in school, saying of the Pledge _was_ mandatory or you would be expelled.

Saying "too bad that you feel left out kiddies, because we'uns in this country are good Christian folks" is the whole reason we need this type of ruling. I hope and believe that the Supreme Court will also rule the same.

As for separation of church and state, see American's United Myths Brochure.

At the end, its still just semantics.

Okay, my definition of 'semantic' varies from yours and possibly Noah Webster. Still, when used in your context here....

Bullshit!

Exactly where has any of the words used in the Declaration of Independance, Constitution or Bill of Rights... when used _in context_ like yours... imply that the state is not to allude to the existance of a diety? Or that the teaching of how religious influence on history is not to be done?

And while I'm at it, there is one omission in YOUR 'oath of allegience' that is glaring. In mine, I'm not pledging to any one person or God, but I sure am pledging allegience to 'The United States of America'. Was this omission in yours an oversight or deliberate? And if deliberate, could you explain what is so wrong with pledging allegience to this country and it's ideals?

Dave, because when it comes to liberty and justice, it is for "all" - not just the US.

Uh, okay. Typical liberal stance. So let's see.... you'd rather pledge allegience to "all"... from Hitler to Saddam to Osuna... not restrict things at all. Yet you wish to live here and enjoy ALL the things WE stand for.

Again, why not pledge allegience to the USA? Why not admit that - even with all our faults, which we most certainly readily admit (unlike other countries) - why not admit that this society IS the best society that mankind has come up with? What is soooooooooooooo wrong with giving this country THAT much credit?

Dave, because the very nature of the freedoms on which our country is based are such that I don't have to "pledge allegience".

Yet.

Dave, seen from the outside, and from any kind of historical context, the US is _very_ far from a perfect society: it's certainly _very_ doubtful that it's "the best society that mankind has come up with". In some ways - certainly in terms of long-term sustainability - it may actually be one of the worst.

And hey, just think about this for a moment, rather than reflexively throwing out your "Bullshit!" epithet, yes? Likewise _please_ drop the jingoism, the simplistic "if you're not for us you're against us", and really start _thinking_, deeply, about what what Bb and others are saying here. Then between you you might be able to make changes that would make the US a country to truly be proud to live in - and that the rest of the world would be proud to live with, which it sure ain't right now.

Sorry, still sounds like bullshit to me. Twisted words. Adds up to the same thing. Can't commit to any organized society. Can't allow the fact that with freedom comes responsibility.

Very very quick to criticize. But allow that something - even the fact that the same state that allows you to be so publically critical - might actually be good about laws and government, you can't give it credit.

Again, what is soooooooooooo wrong about saying that this society is the one that - warts and all - is the best mankind has to offer? No place else allows such freedom. No place else has the open borders. Don't avoid the question..... why can't you pledge allegience to this country and what it stands for? Not just it's ideals, but how well it attempts to implement them? Why only pledge allegience to freedom? Hitler promised the dame freedoms we have.... to not directly even mention this country is to equate the USA with pre-WW2 Germany. He promised to raise their level of life style. We actually have accomplished that! Sure, we have much more to do yet, but to NOT give this state credit - like your pledge doesn't - is apalling.

I really don't care very much either way on this issue. I have to say, the decision seems consistent with separation of church and state, and I have no heartburn with it.

On the other hand, I grew up saying the pledge every morning in school, and it hasn't seemed to have adversely affected me. I don't go to church, although I believe in God. I figure everyone's entitled to their own conception of what or who God is, or isn't.

Frankly, the pledge is mostly recited by rote. It's not like it's oppressive mind-control or anything. In fact, what prompted me to post here was the rather absurd comment from Mr. Graves, " I'm with Bb here, and bumr too: muddling religion and politics together, as in the standard form the Pledge of Allegiance, is intrusive and potentially _very_ dangerous to the entire society. "

"Potentially _very_ dangerous to the entire society?" It's been that way for 40-some years. There's far too much hyperbole on both sides of this issue.

Okay, my final comments on this subject. And in deference to Tom, I'll try to sound more thoughtful... which is not to say I haven't given this much thought for quite a long time. I'll just try to be more thoughtful - or is a better term wordy, since bullshit succinctly says what I thoughtfully feel?

Dave Rogers... very good point. Exactly one that I tried to make. Exactly what is soooooooo meaningful when a 6 year old or aq 16 year old rotely recites the words 'under God' while really thinking about that cute girl next to him and that distracting tee shirt or that major exam about to take place in first period? Can anybody give me any cold hard stats on how many impressionable children - you know, those same kids that by time they get into 6th grade their peers and MTV have more influence than their teachers or parents - have been scarred or even the slightest bit altered because they uttered those 2 words?

Um, the argument that those 2 words constitute any kind of state-decreed religion is.... bullshit!

The second grade daughter or the _49 year old male_ who brought this lawsuit was asked if she felt any stress over reciting the Pledge. She said no. In fact, it was her father who earlier had sued the Federal goverment because GW Bush used those words in his oath of office. And he lost. It was her father who was quoted as saying he is doing this because he wants the words "In God We Trust" taken off the money we mint.

And it was the most overturned court in this country who made a 2-1 decision this week.

It is an extremely small minority who convinced an equally out of the mainstream court to make a decision that will be very easily overturned before a single child attends school next September in any of those 9 states. Adding up to... bullshit!

I'm not a love it or leave it person. Nor have I ever said here that the USA is a 'perfect' society. But there is a very small minority element who hides behind the concept of freedom in this society. And when someone suggests that they might be in the minority, they try to blind you with this argument and suggest that the political center needs to move in their direction. For instance:

(1) Gay rights. Look, I say to each their own. Most people in the center feel that way. But while gays have a right to their lifestyle, it still is nowhere near a majority element in this society. They want to be treated equally. They should. They want to practice their lifestyle in privacy. They can.

But they also demand public rights too. Health benefits. Marriage. Even to merely express their passions in public without said public reacting like anything is wrong.

But there IS something wrong. Say what you will, but I have yet to see two humans of the same gender conceive. Now, this doesn't make it 'wrong' really, but it most certainly makes it a minority element. And in life, a minority element IS just that.... 'left out' of the majority.

(2) The Moral Majority. Look, you have a right to practice religion any way you please. Evangelise, chant, sing, beg, snake charm, whatever.

But your right to practice doesn't bleed into my right not to. Yet if this group has it way, we'll all learn creationism, memorize the 10 commandments and pray every day in school.

The political center in this country most certainly does not want that. Therefore, this group is most definitely in the minority. And just as equally 'left out' of the majority.

Both of these groups will try to blind you with their arguments of 'freedom' and 'rights'. And those arguments add up to.... bullshit.

I tried to choose two very extreme (read: one liberal and one conservative) groups to illustrate it goes both ways. Any minority element has the 'freedom' and 'right' to speak their thoughts, to practice what they wish. But when those minorities exercise undue influence they have overstepped and WILL never succeed at that point. Remember, they can become majorities by simply making an argument that will win converts. But until then, in any democratic society, the majority WILL rule.

Our country HAS exhibited this better than most any country in history. Not just the democracy part, but also the ways that people and issues advance. And this most certainly IS something to be proud of.

If you believe that last paragraph, then what is soooooooo wrong with pedging allegience to it? To a country where such things ARE possible?

And if you don't believe that paragraph, then it really isn't a matter of love it or leave it.... it's a matter of what are you doing here? If you don't believe it, then you certainly know you can't change things here. You also have convinced me that you don't wish to stay here either. I mean, I'd certainly think that if you did wish to stay, you'd have a reason.... either you like living here or you think you can change things. Damn.... there's that catch-22 again.... if you wish to stay here because you like living here then what's soooooooo wrong ith pledging allegience to this place?

Again, final comments. Hope to sound more thoughtful, but I have been very thoughtful on this for a long time. I apologize for the wordiness, but the only way to express this any more succinct... about how a 49 year old can use his 6 year old to front his agena and after losing one lawsuit get the most overturned court to barely vote for his cause... about how the original post not only thinks this decision was a good one (even though it will be overturned very shortly) and the 'revised' pledge (or is it oath?) contains not only no refernce to 'under God' but also no refernece to this country... well, succinctly, bullshit.

Actually, Dave, the philosophy behind our organizational structure is more republic than demoncracy. And the basis for much of the constitution is to protect the rights of the minority from being overwhelmed by the power of the marjority. "Marjority rule with minority rights."

As for gays being liberal, better check with Andrew Sullivan on that one - sexual preferences have nothing to do with political affiliation. However, that's an aside.

As I have said, the fundamental freedoms of our country state that I do not have to say an oath of allegience. Whether we do or not should be up to personal perogative. And whether I want to or not is my personal business.

If the oath wasn't a part of the public school system, I could care less what words it contained. As part of the public school system, I, as a citizen, have a right to be concerned about what it says, and to work accordingly.

As for how quickly this issue will be overturned, issues of constitutional law can take years to resolve - don't expect anything quickly. The best aspect of this ruling is that it opens the door to discussions about separation of church and state in this country, and this discussion is overdue.

Dave, thanks for stopping by and taking the time to submit longer comments and to show such interest. I appreciate it.

I'm soooo glad the court said you cannot force children to swear their allegiance to our country as a religious act in every classroom every day.

Let me count the ways their ruling is right.

* God is not god.

The pledge doesn't say "under a god" or "under some god". It is "God" with a capital G; a personal noun.

How about we substitute Vishnu, or Hera, or Goddess, or Satan in the pledge? Would you like that? Would that make you feel all patriotic and proud?

I'm Jewish. My God is not named "God". I hated standing up in class, saying the pledge but being silent when it came to the "Under God" part. "One nation, mumble mumble, indivisible..".

* The pledge is a promise.

Part of my faith, I take oaths very seriously. If the oath includes a religious clause, then you require me to mix civil and religious obligations in one promise. I should be free to pledge allegiance to this country without any reference to religion.

God, as I understand it, doesn't take sides. Does the United States have a treaty with God? God is on our side but none other? Balderdash. So why should we say our nation is "under God"? If you believe in this, then we are under god whether we say it or not.

* Freedom.

My family, on all sides, came to this country over the past 150 years to escape religious persecution. Including state persecution. It was the government that sponsored pogroms in Russia. It was the Nazi government that ordered extermination of Jews in World War II. In the last ten years we see governments in Europe ethnic cleansing on the basis of religion.

* Compulsion.

There is huge peer pressure to join in Christmas carols, hymns, and other christian holiday and religious music. I actually sat on the side lines by myself while my class rehearsed and performed a Christmas program. Year after year. Easter, Thanksgiving were not much better. And this is in public schools named for Lincoln, Roosevelt and someone name P.S.59.

There are a million places where you can affirm your belief in your god.

Public school shouldn't be one of them if it's part of the program.

* Public schools are the safe place.

A microcosm of our civic beliefs applied. Tolerance for multiple faiths is a gold standard. Separation of church and state, or even the suggestion of a state church, is a hallmark of what makes us different from theocracies and monarchies. Kings rule by a god's authority; we threw out the kings because we, as a nation don't believe it.

Keeping mandatory, institutionalized religion out of government schools is not political correctness.

It is good education.

btw, it seems we're debating the same things the U.S. founders did before, during, and after the constitutional conventions. Religion was such a part of American culture at the start that no one imagined praying in government places as a conflict (of course this was before public schools existed). You can see an evolution over the first 50 years as we stop paying local churches from national taxes, start rotating ministers leading congressional prayers to avoid a sense of one religion over others, and the rise of distinctly American religious movements.

Take a gander at "Religion and the American Revolution," Library of Congress exhibit.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html