I did not say it was invincible. I said it was (logically) unassailable. I stand by that.
Not only do I not see it as logically unassailable, but I don't see how it could be. It's an interpreation that says that having kids recite the pledge is a case of establishing a religion. It may reasonably be argued that it is, but it can also be reasonably be argued that it is not. I think Neo made a good effort at assailing the decision on this thread.
The pledge asserts the pre-eminence of monotheism (as contrasted with polytheism, atheism, or agnosticism). It cannot be pretended by a rational person that a Nation "under God" is neutral as regards the question of the existence of God, or to the question of whether allegiance to country is qualified by allegiance to "God". Think about that, please.
The pledge doesn't necessarily have to be neutral as ragards to the question of the existence of God for its receitation to not be an example of the establishment of religon.
Yes. If the law (or requirement) violates the Constitution (as does the text of the official pledge), then, of course, contempt for such a law would not necessitate contempt for the Constitution. But if the law rationally honors the Constitution (which is the Supreme Law) then contempt of said law would (obviously) be contemptuous of the Constitution.
Different people and different courts have had diffferent opinions about the meaning of parts of the constitution. Even if the supreme court later backs up this appeals court (something very much in doubt), it is still possible to think the supreme court got the decision wrong. Even if the people who think this are wrong thier contempt for the decision would be based on supporting their interpretation of the constitution not contempt of it.
There is no rational basis for insisting that honoring "God" above the Nation is not prejudicial to the intent and meaning of the Constitution. Thus, there can be no rational basis for pretending that the actions of Congress were not contemptuous of the Constitution.
Making the country an actual theocracy (or in other words trying to put the country under God or ideas about God) would violate and show contempt for the constitution, but it is far from clear that reciting such a pledge or opposing a decision that seaks to prevent reciting the pledge in any way shows contempt for the constitution.
How the US handles this conflict between mysticism and reason becomes extremely crucial. If they make laws to tolerate a "ceremonial" monotheism, then you can kiss rights and freedoms goodby...and you can use the Constitution to wipe up food spills, or something.
The US has tolerated or even encouraged such "ceremonial" monotheism from its earliest days, often to a greater extent then is alllowed for by the courts today. I don't see how this has caused us to have no rights or freedoms, or how it has made the constitution in to a mear rag or no legal or philisophical consequence. Before this decision kids recited the pledge in the area covered by the 9th circuit court of appeals, even after it kids recite the pledge from Maine to North Dakota, from Utah to Florida. I don't see how these states are unfree or that the west coast has suddenly been liberated from oppression and darkness.
Also ,any other countries have cenermonial religous elements in their government without becoming unfree.
Thank you, btw, for being thoughtful about this...
I'm always glad to see a debate centered on the issue at hand rather then the people participating in the debate, and one involving thoughtful argument rather then flames or mindless slogans.
Tim |
