Missing the fucking point

[khaosworks]

Bushes Recite Pledge of Allegiance at Church

With two presidents named Bush in the front pew, parishioners at a seaside church recited the Pledge of Allegiance during services on Sunday, making clear their disapproval of a court ruling declaring part of the pledge unconstitutional.

...Chaplain M.L. Agnew, in honor of his powerful guests, diverted the congregation from the usual service briefly to lead them in the Pledge of Allegiance, a pledge of loyalty to the U.S. flag and "one nation under God."

What the Bush and the Shrub and even Agnew (now there's a name you can trust) and apparently what the majority of the United States don't realize about the 9th Circuit ruling is a couple of things. Let me spell it out.

(1) The ruling does not bind the entire country.

The ruling only binds the nine western states that comprise the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit.

(2) The ruling does not make the Pledge unlawful or unconstitutional.

However, in those states that are under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, public schools cannot require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance that involves the phrase "under God" as that would be a violation of the constitutional mandate to separate church and state.

So what's all the brouhaha about? Absolutely nothing, except a media storm in a teacup and a bunch of politicians getting their knickers in a twist over something that doesn't exist.

And you should ask yourself whether these politicians know that they're getting excited over nothing and are cynically exploiting the issue to gain points with the Christian Right and wrap themselves in the flag that is being so proudly hailed over the war on terrorism...

--OR --

...They really are sincere about their outrage, in which case they have jumped to conclusions without proper thinking and these are the guys who make your laws.

Cynical or stupid? It's scary to think that one or the other can be a palatable choice.

Comments

[poopsmoothie.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think it's whacked PERIOD that we have little kids recite the pledge. They didn't choose to live here. There's no reason that they automatically should have allegiance. That's at least as offensive by itself as the 'under God' bit.

If 'and the Son' is a filioque, what's 'under God'? Something deio, I guess.

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

But surely that is a completely separate issue from whether the Pledge in violation of the church-state separation doctrine. I can think of arguments for a pledge of allegiance - all of which essentially boil down to inculcating in youngsters (and a daily reminder for others) the obligations and values for which the country is supposed to stand. In other words, it encourages patriotism, which is not a violation of church and state separation, nor is it necessarily a dirty word.

(The proposition that children shouldn't be obliged to recite the Pledge because "they didn't choose to live here" implies that children have the right to choose where they live and under whose custody in the first place, which is patently untrue. Taken further, children shouldn't be obliged to follow laws they didn't have a choice in electing those who made those laws, either. I find this argument, therefore, unconvincing.)

Obviously it depends on your point of view as to whether or not a child should be required to recite the Pledge, and for what reasons. In the end, the best argument against requiring a child to recite the Pledge would probably be that mere repetition encourages contempt and dilution of the concepts involved. Personally, I have no problems with oaths of allegiance. As a public official, I took an oath to do my job well and I don't really see why a citizen should be exempt from pledging that he should be a good one to the country that he owes his protection to.

What is offensive about the Pledge is the "under God" clause, which, in a public school context, violating a basic doctrine behind the US Constitution. Perhaps the 9th Circuit should look at US currency next.

[poopsmoothie.livejournal.com]

I'm very tired (yes, an excuse), so I shall only reply to this: Perhaps the 9th Circuit should look at US currency next. with an interesting snippet (http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=mactavish&itemid=499451) from mactavish. (Written by Arthur Schlesinger, no less.)