Off topic warning...

Last week the 9th Circuit Court of appeals refused to hear an appeal of last summers ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance. It's getting a lot of press now because the ruling will go into effect on Monday. I've been reading some articles about it I and am continually depressed by the quality of public debate in this country.

But, I did read Roger Eberts column about it and was impressed. It's the first time I've read something that actually makes some sense and doesn't sound like propoganda and war-mongering. Go read it here. There are a couple places where he seems to go off the deep end, but overall it's the first thing I've read that sounds intellignet. Of course it's also the first thing I've read that I agree with, so I know that has something to do with it.

I've also read several things that furstrate me, and I'm not sure which is scarier:

(Warning about number 1, I am not a lawyer and have only a loose understanding of constitutional law.)
1. The case in question specifically involves the Elk Grove schoold district, who will honor the ruling unless it is stayed by the US Supreme Court (this is good, they would be in contempt otherwise.) However, the ruling applies to the 9 western states in the 9th circuit. This means that starting Monday until the ruling is stayed or overturned by the Supreme Court it is unconstitutional for schools in those states to have students recite the pledge of allegiance as long as it includes the phrase "under God." But there are some school districts that plan on continuing on because they're sure that the ruling will be overturned (read about it here.) Think about that, these are public officials in charge of our schools willfully and knowingly doing something unconstitional. Why? Because they don't agree with it...

2. One guy in an editorial complained that the minority population was restricting his right to say "under god." Seriously, everyone in the country continues to be free to say whatever they want. This is about how when a teacher leads a class in an activity it is not a strictly voluntary activity. Have people been out of school that long that they don't remember how this stuff really functions (or maybe I just remember it especially well since there were many places where I disagreed with the majority.)

3. There are many who claim that this whole thing is unpatriotic. It is no less patriotic to recite the pledge without the words "under God." This is not about patriotism, it's about kids in public schools being institutionaly encouraged to participate in an activity that directly opposes their religious beliefs. There are many, many kids in our schools that either don't believe a god exists or believe in many gods. We are either socially excluding them or forcing them to act against their beliefs every day the current pledge is read aloud in school.

Ug, I've vented now and feel better. As always I welcome your opinions.

Still want more?
Read the Archives!