Off the Hook: Pledge survives intact on technicality

[Tiassa]

Article Source: Associated Press (via Seattle Times)
Article Link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/headlines/D8371IF80.html
Article Title: "Court allows 'under God' on technicality," by Anne Geran
Article Date: June 14, 2004

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed millions of schoolchildren to keep affirming loyalty to one nation "under God" but dodged the underlying question of whether the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.

The ruling overturned a lower court decision that the religious reference made the pledge unconstitutional in public schools. But the decision did so on technical grounds, ruling the man who brought the case on behalf of his 10-year-old daughter could not legally represent her . . . .

. . . . For now, five justices said the court could not rule on the case because California atheist Michael Newdow does not have full custody of his daughter.

"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

Source: Associated Press

I'm disappointed insofar as the lack of "full custody" prevents almost any parent aside from a truly single parent from making any moves to prevent the slowing of a child's education brought by harmful superstitions. I'm disappointed insofar as the good doctor ought to have known. I knew. This ruling is neither a surprise nor an outrage. It is the correct ruling, and as such the assignation of theistic attributes to Americans at large is still an extremely vulnerable process.

But, being that I will defend the idea of releasing criminal suspects on technical grounds, I certainly can't complain that the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America remains at present a standard of bigotry for the world to see.

Rather, I'm dismayed that at an overzealous representative of a social body making an issue where he shouldn't have failed where he was obviously going to fail. As a performance art piece, Newdow gets 10 for 10. As a legal maneuver--I could see the gap to sail a bloody armada through; I erroneously figured that if I could see it then it must not be too hard to spot. Newdow failed to close the gap whatsoever, and retreated from many public occasions to do so. I'd be interested to read his legal argumentation on this count, but right now he scores a nice big red "F" for his project.

Random note: I just went looking for an old discussion of the Pledge case. I didn't find it, which is unfortunate because I'm trying to figure out how far off I was. I focused on the fact that custody of his daughter was not his own, but I didn't figure the legal decision to come down this apparent line. I was disappointed in Newdow's misrepresentation inasmuch as he tried to avoid direct confrontation about what his wife's say in the matter was, but I don't recall ever asserting that it would take him off track. I had presumed that his role in the child's parentage would entitle him to have an opinion worth respecting. I seem to have been wrong in that.

Nonetheless, I did find one of my offhand mentions of the case:

. . . the sweeping fury of progressive victory rising across the United States, at least, has set some folks to the defensive, at least since Lawrence, and the American countercurrent in hijab-related issues as well as the solid Sciforums argument on behalf of Newdow's case against the Pledge, not to mention rising world sympathy for the Palestinian side of a ridiculous conflict . . . it's been a hard run for the selfish, of late.



See: Critique of the Ethics Forum, 4.16.2004

At least I was right about one thing: it has been a hard run for the selfish. However, that didn't play out quite as I expected it to. Flip a coin ....

I find myself nearly caring enough to wonder who will bring the next round. But it will come, and that's enough for me right now.

After all, it's not enough of a big deal for me to raise the funds and bring the next round; I simply intend to teach my daughter to not recite the pledge until she has decided she understands what it means. When I finally chose to stop reciting the pledge, it had nothing to do with God (I was still in public school at the time, as well), but rather the idea that I should not be compelled to any ritual I did not choose. And what, with Reagan in office, I had some thinking to do.

 

[buffys]

Teach children to abstain from the pledge until they understand it (and attempt to assist that understanding)

I have many disagreements with the faith I was brought up in but one thing I think they got exactly right is the way they do baptism (I know this seems like a non sequitur but bear with me). Unlike the catholic church, for example, baptism is held off until the child can actually make an informed decision. The age is chosen on a case by case basis. Some are baptized as early as 8 or 9, others might wait until they're in their 20's.

The assumption is that before true understanding is possible, they take it as red that god will take care of them with or without baptism. I think that should be the case with the pledge, unless you actually understand what you're saying it's completely meaningless. Another problem with learning without understanding is by the time they can understand they already know it by rote and again the meaning is lost.

 

[spidergoat]

it had nothing to do with God (I was still in public school at the time, as well), but rather the idea that I should not be compelled to any ritual I did not choose...

Amen to that. I refused to say the pledge ever since 4th grade, but they told me I still had to stand up. I disagreed with the God part, but it was also the fact that they do it every day, and that seemed like brainwashing. I mean, you say it once as a pledge, why say it every day? As a matter of fact, I wasn't so sure that I had allegence to their damn republic! It is an artifact of the cold war, when we had to guard against those atheist commies. I grew up in rural Maryland, just north of the mason-dixon line, and we also had to sing songs about dixie, which was also fucked, since I thought the south lost the civil war!

 

[StarOfEight]

I think this issue has been blown hugely out of proporition, but the Court's response is that weakest shit imaginable. How does refusing to hear this case help anyone? It just means somebody else has to work their way through the court system, hoping they're free of any technical disqualifications.

 

[Mystech]

I’ve got to admit that in the grand scheme of things, and with other such pressing issues in the nation this debate seems almost childish at this point. Taken within it’s own context however, it can be a bit infuriating. The pledge, as it stands is something of an Orwellian mantra designed to brainwash children. The addition of “under god” ends a clear message, it’s a shameless attempt to try to make children associate patriotism with being Christian (Aside from the primary message that loyalty to country without any context at all is somehow a virtue).

My favorite argument for keeping “under god” in the pledge would be that it’s somehow how the founding fathers would have wanted it. . . but then if that’s how they wanted it then why the hell didn’t they put it in there themselves? Most of our founding fathers were not particularly religious people; they were mostly Deists, essentially agnostic when not outright atheistic. It was only 40 some odd years ago that the “under God” part was successfully added to the pledge by the Religious Right of the day. It really is annoyingly difficult to beat back big groups of people who are convinced that they’ve got the one true faith, but do we really need to enshrine little public monuments to these people’s beliefs just because they wont’ shut up? It’s a bit rediculous.