Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

The supreme court took the "Under God" case some time ago, today they actually will hear it.

New polls suggest "overwhelming" 90% public opinion support for "Under God" in the pledge.

This has been discussed here previously in some depth but basically there should be no debate.
Those who support public schools REQUIRING "Under God" in the pledge exhibit a PROFOUND misunderstanding of freedom. That might sound harsh but its entirely accurate.

The separation of church and state guaranteed by the constitution provides protections FOR RELIGIONS as well as FOR THE STATE. The state benefit to no church superstitions being involved is multifacted but one of the chief elements is that it eliminates discrimination by the state based on a particular religion. The church benefit allows any religion to practice freely without intervention from the state. These FREEDOMS protect both CHURCH AND STATE.

Forcing anyone to say "Under God" in ANY public setting is wrong. Even regardless of the constitution its wrong on the grounds of personal civil liberties and human rights (maybe the reason the constitution has such a limitation and might even have something to do with the founding of the United States?). The point is that the state should not sanction or endorse ANY religion. What if Christianity did not happen to be the pervasive religion and X was. Should we then require Christians to utter whatever phrase the X people want?

"God" implies first of all a belief in religion and second of all a belief in monotheism. Both of which are wrong to FORCE onto anyone. And even if students are allowed to OPT OUT of the pledge it is still not acceptable because an atmosphere of intimidation and peer pressure results for the few whom may opt out. Yes, few.

Most people do believe in God, most Americans are Christians. Thats fantastic. NOT uttering "Under God" in a public school will not hurt these people in any way, it will not hurt any people. These people can say it as much as they want BEFORE school, DURING school and AFTER school but it should not be FORCED into any activity supported by the state.

And its worth re-hashing the nonsense that brought "Under God" to the pledge. Many people STILL are not aware that it was added in the 50s by a zealotous congress (and McCarthy himself) bent on rooting out the "reds" (because of course they would not utter the sacred words). Stupidity that we have legislated for stupid reasons that now 90% of Americans support (draw your own conculsions about the intelligence of 90% of America from that one).

Will the court agree with the 9th circuit and declare "Under God" unconstitutional? Well its not likely but it could get interesting. The main zealot ON the court, Antonin Scalia, flew into such a rage over the fact that the lower court ruled in favor of the individual bringing the suit that he made a speech denouncing it at a RELIGIOUS RALLY. Whoops. After much pressure pointing out the stupidity and conflict of interest of such actions he recused himself. The court still has a few "whoppers" left to defend popular conservative opinion over the law though, there is always Clarence Thomas. Also apparently the court could bow to pressure from the current administration (pressure a court to make "activist" rulings, say it isnt so) and not hear the case at all because the the individual whom brought the suit did not have custody of his child at the time he originally sued. (The father sued when he did not have custody, the mother is "born again" and supports such discrimination and mandatory religion in public schools.)

Now should some miraculous bout of common sense come over the court and they actually rule correctly that the obvious religious monotheistic "Under God" is unconstitutional, will the mob rules 90% stand for it? Uh, doubtful again, then will just have a call for an "amendment" to codify more Christian religious beliefs into law.   Supreme Court to hear Pledge of Allegiance case