As one might have predicted, politicians (of both parties) are going nuts over the Pledge of Allegience ruling.
President Bush considers the ruling “ridiculous.”
“The Supreme Court itself begins each of its sessions with the phrase `God save the United States and this honorable court,'” Fleischer said. “The Declaration of Independence refers to God or to the creator four different times. Congress begins each session of the Congress each day with a prayer, and of course our currency says, `In God We Trust.’ The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision and the Department Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress.”
So, because tradition says it’s okay, it’s okay? Yeah, that’s a really good basis for a Constitutional ruling.
The ruling was also attacked on Capitol Hill, with Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle, D-S.D., calling it “just nuts.”
After the ruling, House members gathered on the front steps of the Capitol to recite the Pledge of Allegiance en masse — the same place they defiantly sang “God Bless America” the night of the Sept. 11 attacks.
And senators, who were debating a defense bill, angrily stopped to unanimously pass a resolution denouncing the decision.
Informal gatherings of Representatives and resolutions of the Senate are not the basis for Constitutional law, either.
It seems likely that the case will end up at the Supreme Court. Court-watchers predict the ruling will be overturned. And perhaps that will be okay, if it’s based on a reasonable balance of the Constitution in the context our current culture.
Hopefully it will be based on more than outraged outcries of, “What next?! No more ‘In God We Trust’?!”
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh has some interesting analysis of why the court’s ruling was a reasonable reading of precedent, why “ceremonial Deism” (love that term) may still be okay, and how the Supremes are likely (but not certain) to strike down the ruling. He also talks about how “offensiveness” (either way, in this case) is not good law.
One thing I’m finding amusing in this are the number of folks who pre-date the inclusion who don’t think it’s a big deal taking “under God” back out again.
I have this thought – When both the right and the left, and even many of the folks in the middle don’t like something, that usually means it is the right things to do. (Related to that idea about haggling with a vendor – if both you and the vendor walk away from the transaction slightly disgruntled, you both got a good deal!)
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, it also give people the right not to say something if they disagree with it.
As a practicing Episcopalian, you should know that traditions are important. They unite different people under a commonality. I believe the pledge builds a sense of beloning and unity to the children, especially after 9/11/01.
I certainly value traditions, hence my general paean to the PoA when this story first broke. Tradition cannot be all, though, and while it can unite a community, it can also be a club for those who it does not unite.
Given that school children managed to have a sense of belonging and unity through the dark days of WWII without the inclusion of “under God,” and given that we’re a more pluralistic (if not secular) society today, the phrase does seem to be unnecessary.
The Supremes did rule (in 1943, noteworthily enough) that kids cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge, as a matter, yes, of freedom of speech. Exercising that freedom, especially in elementary school, is not a trivial matter, however; things that set you apart (especially based on a matter of principle) are difficult for a child to understand, let alone carry through. Putting an eight year old in a place where they have to make a positive religious dissent seems to me to be unreasonable.
Well, I feel like an ass. I missed your earlier story (I’ll do my best not to miss any more).
I think the power of the childs convictions should determine his/her actions, not a court. While in elementary school, I had several Jehovahs Witness (or is it witnesses?) in my class. Because of their religous convictions, they neither stood nor recited the POA. Although my memory isn’t what it used to be, I don’t remember them ever being picked on for not standing.
As a teacher, I had to deal with a 7th Day Adventist (I believe it was — it might have been a JW, though) kid who was not allowed to do art related to Halloween. My observation was that it was picked up by the kids, and made him a bit more of an outsider.
And, when pressed, it was clear that it had little to do with what the kid believed, but with what his parents believed. In most cases, we don’t expect a child of 8 to have a mature, grounded religous or political ideology; they just parrot what they hear at home — or, conversely, what they hear from everyone at school.
So, we come back to the esteem issue at school. Is it more important to deny all the other children the opportunity to make Halloween artwork for the esteem of the one child or does the one child risk be ostracized for the good of the class? Which I guess leads to the larger question: what is more important, the individual or the group?
That’s always been a tension in our culture, and has been answered both ways at various times. The basis for the constitutional principles involved here is the protection of the individual from the will of the majority (as instituted by the government). The tension between the accomodation individuals must make to society’s will (by law and social pressure), and what society has to do to accomodate individuals’ will, is ongoing; that’s the whole point of the Bill of Rights.
What gets the publicity is the latter case, because that’s what affects society; what doesn’t get the publicity is the toll of how frequently an individual’s beliefs are pounded down, hidden, or violated by society as a whole, with no recourse, in the face of what society (the definition of reasonability) wants.
Phew. Off that soap box.
In reality, it seems rarely so binary. Often an accomodation can be made so that society gets its usual way, the individual doesn’t feel compromised, and both sides are, as Mary indicates, only slightly disgruntled. What that means in any specific case is, of course, open to debate.
In the case of the Halloween artwork, I decided to continue with it as a class project; the kid in question went to another classroom to work on another assignment (which, in the context of kids coming and going for other reasons, did not make him stand out as much as some other alternatives). I wish I had been able to come up with a better compromise that would have kept the social tradition intact without violating the will of the parents.