The SJC upholds the legality of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    The SJC upholds the legality of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience

    What is generally being seen as the second blow in a week to Atheist groups, the SJC upheld the position of the Acton-Boxborough school district with regards to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each school day.


    The reasoning of the SJC seems to follow along the same lines as the SCOTUS decision earlier this week. Essentially they held that the Pledge is a patriotic exercise not a religious one...notwithstanding the use of the phrase "under God".


    As I agreed with the SCOTUS decision earlier this week...so I agree with this decision. I actually think the SJC says it better too in their decision.


    As many who are familiar with my views here know, I have very strong views that Church and State should be kept separate. However, logic dictates that that separation does not mean eliminating the word "God" from the Pledge. Not every mention of the word God implies membership in religion nor does it carry explicit religious connotation.


    Added to that...reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is voluntary. No one is forced to say words they don't believe...however trying to legislate every word one hears isn't the answer either.


     


    http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?action=Search&cnt=DOC&db=MA-ORSLIP&eq=search&fmqv=c&fn=_top&method=TNC&n=2&origin=Search&query=TO%28ALLSCT+ALLSCTRS+ALLSCTOJ%29&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT6560956311595&rltdb=CLID_DB8629756311595&rlti=1&rp=%2Fsearch%2Fdefault.wl&rs=MAOR1.0&service=Search&sp=MassOF-1001&srch=TRUE&ss=CNT&sskey=CLID_SSSA2734356311595&vr=1.0


    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 2013soxchamps. Show 2013soxchamps's posts

    Re: The SJC upholds the legality of

    Bravo to the SJC!


    It's not like you are being indoctrinated into some religion by saying the pledge. The pledge is to the United States...not to a religion.


     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: The SJC upholds the legality of

    Do you think politicians/judges actual believe or understand the concepts. Of "under God"?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The SJC upholds the legality of

    What is pathetic is that this issue is even litigated at all....the Pledge of Alliegance, for God's sake..


    The bizarre views of the fantatics at the ACLU and other rabidly anti-religious organizations is that the word 'God' is pornographic and must be striken from public discourse...


    The First Amendment prohibits an Establishment of religion, it doesnt banish religion or the mention of a Deity.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: The SJC upholds the legality of

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    What is pathetic is that this issue is even litigated at all....the Pledge of Alliegance, for God's sake..


     


    The bizarre views of the fantatics at the ACLU and other rabidly anti-religious organizations is that the word 'God' is pornographic and must be striken from public discourse...


     


    The First Amendment prohibits an Establishment of religion, it doesnt banish religion or the mention of a Deity.


    [/QUOTE]



    It doesn't just prohibit an establishment of religion, but respecting an establishment.  Now, I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds to me that prayer is respecting an establishment of religion.  


     


    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: The SJC upholds the legality of

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Do you think politicians/judges actual believe or understand the concepts. Of "under God"?


    [/QUOTE]


    I think some do...and some don't. Some take things way too literally..and some take them in the spirit they are clearly meant.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: The SJC upholds the legality of

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:


     

    It doesn't just prohibit an establishment of religion, but respecting an establishment.  Now, I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds to me that prayer is respecting an establishment of religion.  


    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]


     


     [/QUOTE]


    Two high courts have said differently. "Respecting an establishment of religion" in this case means with regards to.


    Saying the words "under God" does not establish a religion. Further..the phrase is voluntary. No one is required to state something they don't believe.


    It seems to be that in both these cases the courts have looked at intent. For the Pledge..the intent is a patriotic exercise..not the establishment of religion.


    For the SCOTUS case about invocations opening a meeting..the intent was to bring a sense of good will to the impending meeting..again..not to establish a meeting.


    And..again..both are voluntary. No one is forcing anyone to say something they don't want to say.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: The SJC upholds the legality of

    I'm indifferent toward undergod in the pledge, it wasn't added until 1954, but at the same time there are just so many more important issues to deal with.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: The SJC upholds the legality of

    In response to RSF4Life234's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I'm indifferent toward undergod in the pledge, it wasn't added until 1954, but at the same time there are just so many more important issues to deal with.


    [/QUOTE]


    I tend to agree with you. Perhaps the people who brought this suit should be thankful that "under God" seems to be the biggest issue they have. Most people are just trying to get by these days and not trying to legislate every word they hear.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The SJC upholds the legality of

    In response to RSF4Life234's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I'm indifferent toward undergod in the pledge, it wasn't added until 1954, but at the same time there are just so many more important issues to deal with.


    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not religious and I don't care one bit if "under god" is said in the Pledge of Allegiance. Anyone who does has way too much free time on their hands as far as I'm concerned. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The SJC upholds the legality of

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     


    And..again..both are voluntary. No one is forcing anyone to say something they don't want to say.


    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly. It's like when I go to church for a wedding or funeral and prayers are recited...I'm not forced to recite said prayers. I just stand there silent while others recite. Same with doing the hands of the cross. While everyone does it I don't. No one forces me to do it. It's...wait for it....voluntary : )


     

     

Share