[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

IF the law "required schoolchildren" to recite the pledge or sing the anthem, then the judge was correct.

Why? It gave them a religious and conscientious objector "out." A similar policy is in effect where I teach and has been ruled constitutional over and over. Every morning we all stand, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the general jerk-offs don't say anything, and the rest of the class recites the pledge. Big deal...

[tpaine]

, Charles H. (The_r0nin) wrote:

A similar policy is in effect where I teach and has been ruled constitutional over and over.

Every morning we all stand, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the general jerk-offs don't say anything, and the rest of the class recites the pledge. Big deal.

_____________________________________


Judge Thomas agrees, "jerk off" peer pressure is no big deal:

"I conclude that, as a matter of our precedent, the Pledge policy is unconstitutional.

I believe, however, that Lee was wrongly decided. Lee depended on a notion of "coercion" that, as I discuss below, has no basis in law or reason.
The kind of coercion implicated by the Religion Clauses is that accomplished "by force of law and threat of penalty.

Peer pressure, unpleasant as it may be, is not coercion.

But rejection of Lee-style "coercion" does not suffice to settle this case. Although children are not coerced to pledge their allegiance, they are legally coerced to attend school.
Because what is at issue is a state action, the question becomes whether the Pledge policy implicates a religious liberty right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." ---


--- "The Pledge policy does not expose anyone to the legal coercion associated with an established religion. Further, no other free-exercise rights are at issue. It follows that religious liberty rights are not in question and that the Pledge policy fully comports with the Constitution."

Justice Thomas on Elk Grove v Newdow
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1154185/posts

[steplock]

Why? When I first came to the US in the 4th grade in 1960 I remember the 'SHOCK' of the wording in the pledge to the flag and the reference to G_D and then the public prayers that were NOT of my Church.

To paraphrase the Words of Christ, "to Rome that which is Rome's - to GOD that which is GOD's" - in my upbringing that meant to not sully the name of G_D in secular venues.

Going a bit further on, when Jesus scolded the Pharisees on their PUBLIC DISPLAY of "godliness" admonishing them to pray in private.

The later statement of "where two or more are gathered in "My Name" and I will be there" (all paraphrased - I am NOT a Bible scholar) does not mean in a government forum. That is sacrilegious.

BTW - In school I refused to recite the the pledge because I give my pledge only to G_D and I do not pray in public either. I did stand and remain silent is RESPECT to the American Flag.

THAT is why this judge is correct declaring that the government cannot force a child to kneel in subjugation to a secular power.

[Prince Caspian]

...the general jerk-offs...

Ah, yes. I'm quite familiar with this group.

[Smile-n-Win]

Every morning we all stand, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the general jerk-offs don't say anything, and the rest of the class recites the pledge.

I think the PA law in question didn't allow the jerk-offs to remain silent.

[E Rocc]

A similar policy is in effect where I teach and has been ruled constitutional over and over. Every morning we all stand, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the general jerk-offs don't say anything, and the rest of the class recites the pledge. Big deal...

Are they required to stand? If so, the Supreme Court would probably slap it down, based on Barnette. Requiring a positive action be performed by all crosses the line.

-Eric