Denialism

Maybe Newdow was right

—

by

MarkH
in

Fighting the “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance seemed like such a folly a year or so ago, but then Texas reminds us of just how pushy the religious can be.

Texas students will have four more words to remember when they head back to class this month and begin reciting the state’s pledge of allegiance.

This year’s Legislature added the phrase “one state under God” to the pledge, which is part of a required morning ritual in Texas public schools along with the pledge to the U.S. flag and a moment of silence.

State Rep. Debbie Riddle, who sponsored the bill, said it had always bothered her that God was omitted in the state’s pledge.

“Personally, I felt like the Texas pledge had a big old hole in it, and it occurred to me, ‘You know what? We need to fix that,’ ” said Riddle, R-Tomball. “Our Texas pledge is perfectly OK like it is with the exception of acknowledging that just as we are one nation under God, we are one state under God as well.”

And of course, to make it extra-unconstitutional, they are introducing a new concept to free speech in schools – student free speech is only ok if the parents approve.

By law, students who object to saying the pledge or making the reference to God can bring a written note from home excusing them from participating.

Charming. In a way this may end up being Newdow’s dream come true. The national pledge at least had 50 years of history (although the “under God” was shoved in for equally bad reasons) to contend with in the courts. This effort, if challenged, might undo both pledges, because this is completely indefensible.

Comments

  1. Ruth

    If it only says ‘a written note from home’, without specifying who the note must be written by, couldn’t the student simply write his/her own? So long as they write it at home, and not at school, then that would appear to fulfil the requirement.

    Reply
  2. The Ridger

    What? They pledge allegiance to Texas? That’s seriously warped all by itself. Do they have to promise never to leave the state, even if Mom or Dad gets a job in (gasp) Massachusetts?

    Reply
  3. agnostic

    Ruth,

    I think implied there is parental consent… Because children are the same religion as their parents whether they like it or not.

    It just makes it more difficult to disobey. They are effectively forcing kids to recite “under God” and their opinion doesn’t hold water and if the parents don’t want to rock the boat, all the better for the fundamentalists…

    Reply
  4. agnostic

    The children’s opinions don’t matter to the state of Texas, only their parents’ opinion and by forcing the children to get approval from their parents, they are making it that much more difficult to for the children to disobey (although who’s really going to notice if you just don’t say it?).

    No free-thinkers here, thank you – wait until you’re 18 to have an opinion.

    Reply
  5. Wicky

    It’s completely indefensible, because this is designed to go before the ultraconservative Supreme Court and establish the precident they want. There are very specific goals here

    Reply
  6. Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD

    Having “under God” in the pledge seems like no big deal in itself, as does the “In God We Trust” on the money.” But I object to these because they are used as justification for each additional dose of loonage.

    Reply
  7. natural cynic

    And how will it be enforced? A student mumbling “one snake under cod” or “one [cough, cough] [ahem]” or “one [silently mouthing something obscene]” is not likely to be found out. I decided in high school that “under God” was unconstitutional and never said it and noone bothered. It would take saying anything else clearly within earshot of Miss Prissy Fundy to make a problem. I would expect that a whole lot of snarky things go on during the pledge in Middle and High schools, and one more commandment from the state will only add to the cynicism.

    Reply
  8. Sastra

    This being Texas, I’m surprised they didn’t add in “one state under Jesus Christ.”

    Of course, it’s just ceremonial deism. And a metaphor.

    Reply
  9. Kagehi

    Sorry, but I don’t agree Tegumai. Lets put it this way. The pledge is potentially unconstitutional itself, or at the least goes against **EVERY** idea the founders had about making oaths of fealty to any government as a civilian. Its worse, because its constant repetition implies distrust. You make an oath, assuming you even understand what you are making, and you do it **once**, not over and over again. Then you glue “god” onto it, not because the nation wanted it, but because one specific religious group suggested it to the then president. Then you start sticking the same crap on the money. Now… They are trying to force it into a new pledge, which is, if anything, worse than the former one, since now you are not only requiring a oath to the nation, but to one of its vassals, which could be considered *in breach* of the oath to the nation, should some fool decide Texas was right, while the rest of the country was wrong (or something similarly stupid), but also now, trying to interject religion into that too.

    Not one of *any* of these actions are technically allowed by the constitution, even if it doesn’t explicitly prevent it (at least clearly enough to stop it), but it plainly goes against every opinion held by, written down by, or provably expressed to anyone by the people that *wrote* the constitutional laws being bent to make allow this BS to happen at all.

    Put simply, we shouldn’t be chanting a slogan written by a fundie to sell flags to schools, repeatedly, like someone the government doesn’t trust, *with or without* “god” in it, let alone one that could be interpreted as placing your “state” above the nation its a member of. Then again, maybe they would smarter than that and its says something like, “our state under god, which is but a small corner of this great nation”, or something equally BS, and oh so easilly adjusted when the PTB there finally decide 90% of the rest of the nation isn’t bloody insane enough to be in the same country as them. lol

    Reply
  10. The Ridger

    I’m having a hard time with the notion of a pledge of allegiance to a state. What happens if you move?

    Reply
  11. lifeethics

    In Texas, as I’ve said on another blog, we admire the “stubborn ol’ cuss” and the young one who won’t do what we tell ’em. I can remember Jehovah’s Witnesses and would-be anarchists refusing to stand for the Pledge to the US flag (and morning prayer) when I was in school, back in the day.

    On the other hand, we recognized that the primary unit of society is the family, and yes, the religion of a minor – and all the other choices – belong in the hands of his or her parents.

    Y’all come on down here and vote for your own legislators if it really bugs you enough. We don’t let the lawmakers mess with us more than every two years, for a few months. However, we’ve got some pretty smart lawyers who do not believe that the pledge is unconstitutional.

    Reply
  12. Ktesibios

    lifeethics, the question isn’t really whether your state-prescribed profession of mouth loyalty is unconstituional. If I read the articles correctly, Texas is compelling students to recite these magic formulae, and that is unconstitutional and was adjudicated so in West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette in 1943.

    Some highlights from the decision:

    To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual’s right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind.

    Whether the First Amendment to the Constitution will permit officials to order observance of ritual of this nature does not depend upon whether as a voluntary exercise we would think it to be good, bad or merely innocuous. Any credo of nationalism is likely to include what some disapprove or to omit what others think essential, and to give off different overtones as it takes on different accents or interpretations. If official power exists to coerce acceptance of any patriotic creed, what it shall contain cannot be decided by courts, but must be largely discretionary with the ordaining authority, whose power to prescribe would no doubt include power to amend. Hence validity of the asserted power to force an American citizen publicly to profess any statement of belief or to engage in any ceremony of assent to one, presents questions of power that must be considered independently of any idea we may have as to the utility of the ceremony in question…

    If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

    You can find the entire decision at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barnette.html . You’ll notice that it explicitly rejects the notion that a religious objection is required to be spared compulsory recitation, and makes no mention of getting a note from your parents.

    A for the religion of a minor being in the hands of his parents, please do go explain that to the nearest Anabaptists you can find.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *