Pledge Thing

[legalmoose]

Honestly, the whole pledge of allegiance thing, well, let's just say

"Tempest in a Teapot"

shall we?

It's not going to go anywhere. SCOTUS Justices have said, quite clearly, that phrases like "In God We Trust" have taken on a "'ceremonial deism' protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content." (Justice Brennan)

It'll be overturned.

Comments

[alfheimr.livejournal.com]

Perhaps you are right. (Okay I'll completely agree that it will be overturned.) That doesn't mean it SHOULD be. It doesn't mean that those of us non-christians who are happy about it should revel in a moment of the thought process vindicating us. A moment in the life with idealism truly coming to something. If feels good right now that for this one moment the court has given non-christians respect. They may change their minds but we know there is one judge out there who did.

So you may consider it ridiculous, but I consider it a moment of hope. Yet another instance where I'm given the ability to hope for equality someday.

Re:

[legalmoose]

Oh, I agree that it should not be overturned by SCOTUS. It is an expression "establishing" religion, but long precedence (and the moral outrage of the vocal minority) will keep it in place.

It is heartening to see that there are judges (there were two, acutally - the vote of the three judge panel was 2-1) who take seriously the establishment clause and the fight against making the religious and the secular the same thing. They're not, they should be separate, and the state (secular) should not force religion on the masses.

My main concern now is that it's going to be a huge banner waving money raising love fest for the religious right and their ilk. Like they need the gullible masses to send them more money, tax free. Ugh

SCOTUS

[virtualexile.livejournal.com]

I don't care what they've said, however clearly. This violates the Establishment Clause, on its face. The Constitition is not that difficult to understand, we don't need a Supreme Priesthood to tell us the meaning of the word "God".

[33mhz.livejournal.com]

Is it just me, or did Brennan just declare the pledge meaningless? It's not just the "under God" part that's been repeated ad nauseum, it's the whole thing.

And if it's meaningless, why not do away with the whole thing?