Court dimisses pledge case

[crimresearch]

" If that were but true, unfortunately there is a way for school officials to force their students to say the pledge; they just have to claim that not saying it is a "disruption" and the student is so forced. "

The same way they can say that being Jewish or not getting out of a wheelchair and playing dodgeball like every one else is a disruption?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

I imagine they actually have to say "how" its a disruption as a stipulation of course, but then again, this is something for which an excuse can be simply made up on the fly.

One case where a student was forced was dismissed on account of the student "raising his fist" during the pledge and the teacher's denials.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1085626373785

 

[ceo_esq]

If that were but true, unfortunately there is a way for school officials to force their students to say the pledge; they just have to claim that not saying it is a "disruption" and the student is so forced.

Hello, DM. Haven't run into you much recently.

I can easily imagine how this tactic might occur to some unconstitutionally-minded school officials. However, I hope and expect that a federal judge would immediately see through it.

 

[ceo_esq]

I think that there other groups:
4. Those that attribute a religious significance, and agree with the message, but whose sensibilities are offended by having a particular view, even their own, being given governmental endorsement.
5. Those that attribute no religious significance, and are offended by the profanity.

Also, would you consider a person who believes in God, but does not believe that this is a nation under God (perhaps even believes it to be a nation in rebellion from God) to be member of group 3?

Good points. I suppose I'd agree about the fourth group, but I suspect it's pretty small. I'm not sure about the fifth group. If you truly attributed no religious significance to the presence of the words "under God" in the Pledge, it doesn't seem likely that you'd view it as profanity (which normally is understood to arise from the inappropriate situation of things having recognized religious significance in a non-sacred context, or vice-versa). I would think that people who do object to the profaning of the words "under God" by their presence in the Pledge would normally disagree with Justice O'Connor that the words carry no "religious freight" (otherwise there would be no offensive juxtaposition of the sacred and the profane), so I'd probably classify such people under group 3. Hard to say, though.

Also, would you consider a person who believes in God, but does not believe that this is a nation under God (perhaps even believes it to be a nation in rebellion from God) to be member of group 3?

Yes.

 

[ceo_esq]

Bump.