Court rejects Pledge of Allegiance... [Archive]

DavidCPA

06-26-2002, 03:08 PM

No I don't think it is sad though I believe I will be in the minority on this one. The "under God" was only added in 1954 in a much less diverse era. I agree with the court that it could infringe on a citizen's beliefs (or non-beliefs) and has no place in a national pledge. Do you have to believe in God to be a good citizen? I don't think so.

Some will say this ruling puts religion down. I don't agree. It affirms that the Constitution is a religion neutral document and that America should be a religion neutral country where citizens are allowed to pursue their beliefs free from repression and intimidation.

What is sad to me is that people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell will have a heyday with this material and be able to raise more funds in support of their various narrow-minded causes.

-DavidCPA

Chris Floyd

06-26-2002, 03:39 PM

My first reaction to reading the MSN story is that it's a shame that the guy who brought this suit is so obviously using his daughter as a pawn for his personal legal agenda. Think he filed the suit after her very first day at school or waited a couple of days?

Anonymous

06-26-2002, 03:43 PM

I have an idea Aim, how about you shut your mouth and let the mass media tell us what your opinion is. Fucking moron

You and the congressional morons who rushed out to the steps of the capitol (where the camera's could see them all better) should collectively gather take a deep fucking breathe and mellow the fuck out. Understand what the fuck is going on in the world around you before you begin prancing around like a faggot screaming they are trying to outlaw god.

btw the economics of america is a fucking mess, the war on terror is a war on domestic liberty, bush is attempting to find a new "evil empire" to reignite the military industrial complex, the world is growing weary of our imperialism, corporate wealth and corruption is growing obscene and the media and politicians are failing to keep it all under wraps and you are fucking worried that they are going to remove in god we trust from the fucking dollar bill!!!!! fucking idiot

Bub, Andrew

06-26-2002, 03:56 PM

Oh come on. It is pretty shallow. There's a great big forest here and this guy and this 9th circuit court are going... "hmmm, don't like that tree over there."

And, since it has bearing, I'm an atheist myself. I wonder if I should sue the Treasury next? I mean, having "In God We Trust" on our money is incredibly offensive to me and is causing me psychological damage just thinking about it.

Mark Asher

06-26-2002, 04:03 PM

I don't really see the controversy. Just take out "under God" and be done with it. Both sides should be happy then.

AIM

06-26-2002, 04:16 PM

Having a bad day stupidity? haha

:D

Erik

06-26-2002, 04:20 PM

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Uh oh. Looks like we need to trim the Declaration of Independence a little.

AIM

06-26-2002, 04:20 PM

And, since it has bearing, I'm an atheist myself. I wonder if I should sue the Treasury next? I mean, having "In God We Trust" on our money is incredibly offensive to me and is causing me psychological damage just thinking about it.

Yea, and how about when I go to a baseball game and we have to endure the Pledge of Alligence before the game begins. That is going against my belief that we come from little green men. I should sue, sue, sue!!!!!

Oh... And how about the tragedy of 9/11 and when everyone was playing god bless america. I should sue, sue, sue.

And isn't Star Wars real? What it's fake!! I'll never be able to go out now. This has ruined my life. I should sue Gearge Lucas the bastard.

And... this site has consumed all of my time. Time that I'll never get back. Mark, you ruined my life because now I'm addicated to this site. I miss work all the time just so I can post all day, so you owe me missed wages. And I never socialize anymore, so you owe me for that. I know what I'll do. I'll sue sue sue....

j/k :D

Mark Asher

06-26-2002, 04:24 PM

Why? Are kids being made to recite the Declaration of Independance daily?

Why not simply remove the phrase "under God" (which was added in 1954)? Is there any good reason not to?

Bub, Andrew

06-26-2002, 04:34 PM

Why not simply remove the phrase "under God" (which was added in 1954)? Is there any good reason not to?

Aside from the fact that the protest against those two words is... silly. There's some very good reasons. But first, are you really this naive? No offense intended, but you realize how important those two words is to some people, right? St. Louis is a pretty religious city, look around you. Don't you know anyone who would get really bent out of shape about it? Haven't you paid any attention to the Prayer in School debate? As an example.

Seperation of Church and State is really important, imo, but taking a stand over two words in the Pledge of Allegiance is not where the fight should be fought. It's superficial. It would just piss off too many people. Ahem, too many voters for any politician to get behind. That's why.

Besides, according to ABC News, the Supreme Court of the US has apparently previously ruled that "Under God" qualifies as an accepted cultural expression, not a religious one. If the case gets that far, expect it to get struck down.

Erik

06-26-2002, 04:37 PM

Anonymous

06-26-2002, 04:56 PM

I think there are much bigger fish to fry all around and I won't get worked up about this regardless. My personal take is that any overt endorsement of one religion over another by a governmental body is a bad thing.

Since the vast majority of Americans follow one monotheistic religion or another refering to 'one nation under God' can only be so offensive to so many people and isn't a clear endorsement of a state religion.

On the other hand, I tend to really have better things to do than worry about religion and find my political opposite numbers much more motivated by religious fervor rather than rational thought. This goes for Al Qaida and the Christian Coalition for whom diversity and tolerance are seductive evils that compete with righteous conformity for the souls of us all.

Despite that I really don't see the vestigal, almost neutered, references to Christianity in our governmental rituals as very offensive. Heck, I'd probably be much more offended about the lamed down appropriation of these spiritual symbols if I were a practicing theist. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's but he should keep his grubby hands off my God. Right? :)

Erik

06-26-2002, 05:03 PM

From Scalia's half-prescient dissenting opinion in Lee v. Weisman, the 1992 case that ended school prayer:

The opinion manifests that the Court itself has not given careful consideration to its test of psychological coercion. For if it had, how could it observe, with no hint of concern or disapproval, that students stood for the Pledge of Allegiance, which immediately preceded Rabbi Gutterman's invocation? Ante, at 583. The government can, of course, no more coerce political orthodoxy than religious orthodoxy. West [505 U.S. 577, 639] Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Moreover, since the Pledge of Allegiance has been revised since Barnette to include the phrase "under God," recital of the Pledge would appear to raise the same Establishment Clause issue as the invocation and benediction. If students were psychologically coerced to remain standing during the invocation, they must also have been psychologically coerced, moments before, to stand for (and thereby, in the Court's view, take part in or appear to take part in) the Pledge. Must the Pledge therefore be barred from the public schools (both from graduation ceremonies and from the classroom)? In Barnette, we held that a public school student could not be compelled to recite the Pledge; we did not even hint that she could not be compelled to observe respectful silence - indeed, even to stand in respectful silence - when those who wished to recite it did so. Logically, that ought to be the next project for the Court's bulldozer.

Slippery slope! Slippery slope!

Anonymous

06-26-2002, 05:12 PM

we did not even hint that she could not be compelled to observe respectful silence...

Slippery slope! Slippery slope!

Double negative! Double negative!

chet

06-26-2002, 05:43 PM

Yea, and how about when I go to a baseball game and we have to endure the Pledge of Alligence before the game begins.

Huh?

As for don't they have bigger fish to fry - if the case is in the courts, the case is in the courts. Even little fish have to get their day.

Chet

Ben Sones

06-26-2002, 06:11 PM

Of course the Declaration of Independence is not (nor was it intended to be) an official statement of America's endorsement of religion. It's just a letter, a list of grievances from the Continental Congress to King George, basically an inter-office memo that could have been entitled "Why we won't be sending you taxes any more." The text reflects the personal beliefs of the drafters and is fairly specific to their circumstances. Unless we are going to pass a law saying that anyone working for the government has to be an athiest, you'll have to live with it.

The Constitution, by the way, is much more religion-neutral.

Mark Asher

06-26-2002, 06:24 PM

Are kids being made to recite the Declaration of Independance daily?

Worse, they're made to endure a constant barrage of unalienable rights whose admitted source is the Creator. Unless you think the little Dianic Wiccan boy sobbing in Civics class is crying tears of happiness from too much pursuit of (Monotheistic) Happiness, then, yeah, there's a big problem with the DOI.

I'm changing my stance then. Let's ban the daily recitation of the Declaration of Independance on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment towards children.

Just remove "under God". Is that really a bad thing? I'd prefer to remove the pledge entirely, since I don't really like the idea of making children recite a pledge every schoolday.

Dirt

06-26-2002, 08:32 PM

Maybe it should be changed to:

"under God, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Buddha"

Nah.

Murph

06-26-2002, 08:42 PM

Saying the pledge every day in school always bothered me. Not that I have a problem with the pledge, and certainly not the "Under God" part, but it just seems a bit much. Got on my nerves.

mtkafka

06-26-2002, 09:01 PM

I usually mumbled the pledge before classes. I was never awake at that time. :lol: So shoot me!

BTW I ahve no problem with 'under God'. Since I'm a God fearing guy, I wouldn't want something like 'under no God' or just a blank capitalist state that beleives in nothing but money (which it already seems to be).

etc

Jason McCullough

06-26-2002, 10:45 PM

My summary of the obligatory histronics everyone on Fox News is having:

Legalistic bent, tack 1: "Mentioning god in the pledge of allegiance clearly does not meet the coercion requirement that the Supreme Court laid down in previous decisions. There's nothing coercive about everyone but you in a school reciting the pledge every day."

Legalistic bent, tack 2: "Mentioning god in the pledge of allegiance cleary does not establish religion under the criteria specified by the Supreme Court. As you can clearly see by everyone going completely apeshit about this, it's a totally innocous and meaningless expression of community."

Everyone else: "I don't like the establishment cause. Can't we use government to advance our religion just a little?"

Wholly Schmidt

06-26-2002, 10:57 PM

Personally I'm going to take the initiative and stay one step of the atheists. I'm here to help! Anyone who'd like to get rid of there God covered money can send it to me for disposal!

Jason McCullough

06-26-2002, 11:00 PM

'My first reaction to reading the MSN story is that it's a shame that the guy who brought this suit is so obviously using his daughter as a pawn for his personal legal agenda. Think he filed the suit after her very first day at school or waited a couple of days?'

Does this somehow invalidate the logic of the decision?

'Oh come on. It is pretty shallow. There's a great big forest here and this guy and this 9th circuit court are going... "hmmm, don't like that tree over there."'

Perhaps the government should never make small decisions?

'Yea, and how about when I go to a baseball game and we have to endure the Pledge of Alligence before the game begins. That is going against my belief that we come from little green men. I should sue, sue, sue!!!!!'

It's an entirely voluntary, non government-sponsored event, and as such, is not covered by the establishment clause.

'Aside from the fact that the protest against those two words is... silly.'

Perhaps you'd prefer "Under Xenu?"

' Since I'm a God fearing guy, I wouldn't want something like 'under no God' or just a blank capitalist state that beleives in nothing but money (which it already seems to be).'

Right, because the only alternative to not choosing a favored religion, or group thereof, is government sponsorship of atheism.

For everyone's reference, schools can still mandate that children recite the pledge all they want, as long as the offending snippet "under God" is not included. The effectiveness of mandating allegiance pledges of children at preventing a later turn to traitorous communist is obviously non-existent, mind you, but there's nothing unconstitutional about it.

Oh yes, I have a blog now!

zebco.blogspot.com

Not that anyone should care, technically.

mtkafka

06-26-2002, 11:01 PM

Big whoop. I mean we have terrorists with crosshairs on America and big companies raping there employees, and a recession that won't end. There's more important matters than a stupid pledge most people forgot (including me) :oops: .

The guy who started this case is an idiot. Its like those people who were against prayer in school (and won!). Why bother. Are they THAT offended by it? And then making it apolitical issue makes it even more stupid. Lets vote on it. Stupid.

etc

Jason McCullough

06-26-2002, 11:07 PM

.....aaaaaaaaaand, providing an example of category Everyone Else: mtkafka!

Alan Au

06-26-2002, 11:09 PM

Ok, so now I'm curious why they added the "under God" bit in the first place. Apparently it was inserted only as recently as 1954.

At dinner the other day, a buddy of mine noted that Australia got England's criminals, and we got England's religious misfits. He was wondering if Australia got the better deal. ;)

- Alan

Bub, Andrew

06-26-2002, 11:13 PM

For everyone's reference, schools can still mandate that children recite the pledge all they want, as long as the offending snippet "under God" is not included.

And for *your* reference schools cannot mandate that children recite the pledge at all (a moment of silence is the alternative) AND they can still use the offending snippet "under God" too. Because the Court that made this decision has no real enforcement of it's decision, that would require the Supreme Court.

And again (according to ABC News this evening) the Supreme Court considers "Under God" a cultural colloquialism and not a religious expression, and therefore not a Constitutional issue.

Put that in your Blog and smoke it.

Jason McCullough

06-26-2002, 11:19 PM

Alan, it was stuck in there as part of the Red Scare (McCarthy, et al) during Eisenhower's first administration.

'And for *your* reference schools cannot mandate that children recite the pledge at all (a moment of silence is the alternative) AND they can still use the offending snippet "under God" too. Because the Court that made this decision has no real enforcement of it's decision, that would require the Supreme Court.'

There was a decision invalidating mandatory pledges? I'll be damned. Do you know the case? And federal circuit court decisions *are* binding, unless the SC accepts the case for review. I'm not sure how decisions are handled in-between the initial decision and submittal before the SC (which doesn't accept the vast majority of cases.) I'd be surprised if they didn't take this one, though, as the 7th ruled the other way.

'And again (according to ABC News this evening) the Supreme Court considers "Under God" a cultural colloquialism and not a religious expression, and therefore not a Constitutional issue.'

Individual justices have stated this as an aside in other decisions, or in interviews, but there's never been an official determination of this.

Bub, Andrew

06-26-2002, 11:26 PM

There was a decision invalidating mandatory pledges? I'll be damned. Do you know the case?

I don't. My only source is the ABC News telecast at 5:30 CST today. In there Jennings reported that the Pledge is not mandatory and that you can observe a moment of silence. I also recall a Newsweek MY TURN column on the subject wherein a 17 year old girl lamented how she was made fun of for conscientiously objecting to reciting the pledge... even though that was 100% her right. It was the Pledge she was talking about, not School Prayer. Anyway, there probably wasn't a case because it's never been mandatory, therefore never contested.

And federal circuit court decisions *are* binding, unless the SC accepts the case for review. I'm not sure how decisions are handled in-between the initial decision and submittal before the SC (which doesn't accept the vast majority of cases.) I'd be surprised if they didn't take this one, though, as the 7th ruled the other way.

No word was mention about the SC save their opinion on the subject. I recall, I could be misremembering here, the news report saying the "Under God" thing was rendered a colloquialism during the School Prayer decisions.

Jennings did report, as a specific point - and I'm sure about this, that this ruling changes nothing in practice and that "Under God" at this time is still part of the PoA.

Also, the Pledge should be changed but they're focussing on the wrong words. Take out "Indivisible"... because ever kid says "Invisible" and that can lead to severe misapprehensions about our great land.

Murph

06-26-2002, 11:29 PM

And again (according to ABC News this evening) the Supreme Court considers "Under God" a cultural colloquialism and not a religious expression, and therefore not a Constitutional issue.'

Individual justices have stated this as an aside in other decisions, or in interviews, but there's never been an official determination of this.

Well, I'm not legal expert, but as common as expressions like "By God" and "God damn" (think about the real meaning of that one for a second) have become, this makes total sense to me.

And I still believe that the original founding of this nation was to be "a nation under God", albeit not one that forced its citizens to worship a certain way. But I suppose that's neither here nor there, at this point.

mtkafka

06-26-2002, 11:54 PM

Like I said before. Its a stupid issue over a stupid pledge that shouldnt be taken literally. This issue gets more talk and media over the Worldcom fiasco just proves how ... whatever. Fine, its offensive and unconsitutional. Under God should not be in the pledge of allegiance. It should be...

I pledge of allegiance
to the flag
of the United States of America.
and to the Republic for which it stands
One nation under Jason McCullogh :lol:
with liberty and justice for Tom Chick. 8)
And go to hell you Godless evil people!
Show me the money Uncle Sam!

BURN IN HELL!

etc

Desslock

06-27-2002, 12:08 AM

>so now I'm curious why they added the "under God" bit in the first place. Apparently it was inserted only as recently as 1954.

...for the same reason they added references to "God" to the Canadian national anthem in 1982 - because it was politically advantageous to do so, given the sentiments and influential interest groups of the moment. The Canadian additions were particularly ironic, since they were made concurrently with enactment of our Charter/Bill of Rights, which was designed to protect individual rights from the "tyranny of the majority".

Dave Weinstein

06-27-2002, 07:20 AM

It is illegal to mandate that a student recite the pledge. That decision came down in 1943, 11 years before the words "under God" were inserted.

As near as I can tell, the words were inserted under the delusion that some communist infiltrator would be willing to falsely recite a pledge of allegiance, but those Godless Commies would never mention the almighty.

And for those keeping score at home, I believe the original author of the pledge (in 1892) was actually a socialist. Go figure.

Personally, I have to agree with both sides. I think the majority were correct, it is an imposition of religion under state auspices. If you disagree, play a word experiment and make it "One nation, under the Gods" and guess how many people would be screaming across the Bible Belt.

But I also have to agree at least somewhat with the dissent, I think this could well fall be considered "de minimus", which as I understand it, means so minor as to not constitute a foul.

And the pragmatist in me really hopes it gets overturned, because otherwise the politicians are going to fall all over themselves ammending the Constitution, and I *really* don't want them opening up the Bill of Rights for political gain.

--Dave

Tyjenks

06-27-2002, 08:00 AM

One of the numbnut state politicians in the good 'ol bible belt down here came out and said, "There may be a separation between church and state, but there is no separation between God and state." UGH!!!

Don't get me wrong, I love living in the South and I do believe in one god or powerful being, or whatever and I know 9 out of ten politicians would eat shit on live T.V. to stay in office, but our extra special brand of bible thumpers make my ass hurt.

Our chief Supreme Court Justice, Roy Moore, in Alabama wrote in one opinion that homosexuals were "evil". That just leaves me at a loss.

P.S. Now if he had said gay men and left out girl/girl internet porn....j/k :wink:

dannimal

06-27-2002, 08:08 AM

We had a godless pledge at our school (about an hour north of NYC). I only remember because we also had a "conscientious objector" who refused to stand for or recite the pledge (he was also a good friend of mine, so I used to joke with him by making sure to put him between me and the flag so I could face him and recite it loudly at him), and I can clearly remember reciting it without the "under god".

Ben Sones

06-27-2002, 08:21 AM

At dinner the other day, a buddy of mine noted that Autralia got England's criminals, and we got England's religious misfits. He was wondering if Australia got the better deal.

Without question.

Ben Sones

06-27-2002, 08:28 AM

Personally, I have to agree with both sides. I think the majority were correct, it is an imposition of religion under state auspices. If you disagree, play a word experiment and make it "One nation, under the Gods" and guess how many people would be screaming across the Bible Belt.

Better yet, see if you can get people to say "one nation, under Satan." If it really doesn't matter, then nobody will care, right?

But I also have to agree at least somewhat with the dissent, I think this could well fall be considered "de minimus", which as I understand it, means so minor as to not constitute a foul.
I agree here, too. I oppose it as a matter of principle, but realistically, it affects almost nothing at all.

Don't get me wrong, I love living in the South and I do believe in one god or powerful being, or whatever and I know 9 out of ten politicians would eat shit on live T.V. to stay in office, but our extra special brand of bible thumpers make my ass hurt.

I would vote for any politician that ate shit on live TV. Just saying.

Anonymous

06-27-2002, 10:12 AM

I object to the entire pledge. I pledge allegiance to humanity as a whole. I pledge allegiance to the planet Earth. Those things are real. Those things matter. Why the fuck should I pledge allegiance to an invisible line that's been painted around this part of North America and been declared "the greatest on Earth" by a bunch of flag-waving assholes with guns. Fuck that. I'm not going to stand with a government that was elected by plutocrats against the interests of humanity and the planet Earth. I am going to fight any actions of that government which threaten human rights. That's where my allegiance lies. Eat shit and die, American flag.

Jason McCullough

06-27-2002, 10:16 AM

Further legal oddities: school districts can now legally force drug testing on you if you're in extra-cirricular activities.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=01-332

Dahlia Lithwick commentary on oral arguments:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2063370

Bub, Andrew

06-27-2002, 10:27 AM

I agree with Lithwick but I wonder why she avoids discussing one of the more compelling reasons for these tests? As I remember the debate, it centered around catching atheletes doping or taking steroids. Naturally to keep it fair it'd have to affect every extracuricular activity but I find it interesting she ignores that more compelling reason in her argument.

Again, I agree with her and think (even for atheletes) a warantless search is wrong. Catch a Football player or bando behaving erratically, then there's warrant, but without that leave them and their pee the fuck alone! But I find it annoying when someone ignores parts of an argument when making their case.

Tyjenks

06-27-2002, 11:04 AM

Further legal oddities: school districts can now legally force drug testing on you if you're in extra-cirricular activities.

Veering even further off topic:

High School athletes here in central Alabama are, believe it or not, being tested for cigarette smoking. However, they are allowed and encouraged to take all manner of dietary supplements (creatine, et.al.) to bulk up and get faster and stronger at an abnormally accelerated rate. A 17 year old died the other day after 15 mins. of "voluntary" summer practice from unkown causes.

All hail the bible thumping, football factory that is the Heart of Dixie.

Met_K

06-27-2002, 11:51 AM

This just in, 9th Circuit Appeals Court finds that money having color offends blind people. Rules that all paper to now be printed in various shades of gray, as well as having braill on then.

Newswire bulletin! They are now saying that radio offends the deaf. All radios must now have close captioning on them.

Wait, wait, newsflash! In other shocking developments, Rome declares America unjust in their persecution of Roman people's. Citing the fact that most American bills include artwork from Egypt, a long-time enemy of Rome's, it has filed a lawsuit in the 9th circuit appeals court.

An onslaught continues as scores of politically correct activists file lawsuits in the country's most controversial, and most over-turned, court. Other lawsuits include one brought by Roman Catholic Cardinal John Frances on behalf of the Vatican. In this lawsuit, Cardinal Frances states that the United States government has unfairly used the Church and God as excuses and reasons to fight wars, and has as such unfairly profited of it.

Numerous wars have been cited in this lawsuit. Including the revolutionary war, which some might remember as the war which was faught for seperation of government and religion, and freedom of religion. In reality, however,the Church contests that the newly created American government wanted to instead free itself of all taxes and debt it owed to Great Britain, and used religion as a fallback and reason to call to arms a crusade of holy proportions.

Film at 11.

Bub, Andrew

06-27-2002, 11:58 AM

I brought up money saying "In God We Trust" earlier. Since our money is from the Federal Treasury (State), and God is being interpreted by then 9th Circuit as Church... why isn't this an issue too?

"As an atheist I cannot say the Pledge of Alliegance in good conscience. Um... can I use money?"

Wholly Schmidt

06-27-2002, 12:02 PM

Alan Au

06-27-2002, 12:06 PM

Alan, it was stuck in there as part of the Red Scare (McCarthy, et al) during Eisenhower's first administration.
Uh, because of the strong relationship between Communists and religion? ???

Anyway, it doesn't much matter what I think. Sure, I pay taxes and vote, but there's not much I can do when the majority of the politicians are Bible thumpers. :cry:

- Alan

Anonymous

06-27-2002, 12:11 PM

Good to see some rational people still left in the world.

Biggest lesson I learned over the last 24 hours was the undeniability that "objective" reporting went out the fucking window a LONG time ago.
from outlawing god to patriotism was unconstitutinal, man the lies tasted so good!

btw when the fuck has congress EVER moved that fast? I mean fuck they had talk of constitutional amendments w/in like 2 hours, yet they still cant balance a budget or fix the medical system? and w/in like 4 hours the senate had brought a issue AND voted on it! Shit the whole fucking congress was off setting world records for beuracracy! That is what I want to see...fuck poverty, unemployment, medical care, education, or the vast gap between the top and the bottom, just make sure the atheist liberal communists dont fuck with god! (sarcasm, in case you are stupid)

Jason McCullough

06-27-2002, 12:29 PM

'As I remember the debate, it centered around catching atheletes doping or taking steroids.'

Right, but that was for athletes, which was a previous case. The case decided today was for any other activity outside of school: band, debate club, whatever.

'I brought up money saying "In God We Trust" earlier. Since our money is from the Federal Treasury (State), and God is being interpreted by then 9th Circuit as Church... why isn't this an issue too?'

The use of money doesn't promote a religion, and it's not coercive. I can't remember where I saw the case, but it's been previously ruled as not violating any of the SC-designed criteria. There's a pretty big difference between using currency with something printed on it about god and being coerced into professing belief in god.

On that Alabama dietary supplements thing: thanks to Orrin Hatch, pretty much all the FDA and every regulation on medicine is now pointless. You can get away with selling people lead and mercury in a bottle, as long as you call it a "dietary supplement."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0109.mencimer2.html

Bub, Andrew

06-27-2002, 12:39 PM

"The use of money doesn't promote a religion, and it's not coercive. I can't remember where I saw the case, but it's been previously ruled as not violating any of the SC-designed criteria. There's a pretty big difference between using currency with something printed on it about god and being coerced into professing belief in god."

But I can't put "In God We Trust" on a courthouse, right?
Naturally given what you just told me I withdraw my complaint about Lithwick. Man, I'm going to have problems when Maggie gets to High School. I'm not going to be a happy dad if they try and drug test her without cause.

Mark Asher

06-27-2002, 01:02 PM

Met_K

06-27-2002, 01:07 PM

"Naturally given what you just told me I withdraw my complaint about Lithwick. Man, I'm going to have problems when Maggie gets to High School. I'm not going to be a happy dad if they try and drug test her without cause."

What are you going to do when she applies for a job and has to take a drug test?

The biggest difference there is that you don't *have* to work for that company, and you don't *have* to take that drug test. You *don't* have a choice when attending public school. And as suspicious, paranoid, deceptive, and horrible some supers and principal's can be, I would expect this to be abused in certain places.

I should know, I do live in the most corruptly run school district in the state of Texas.

Bub, Andrew

06-27-2002, 02:03 PM

I won't like that either Mark, but it's not the same thing. The jobs that typically require those kinds of tests also usually involve heavy equipment and/or danger. I was a medical courier... picking up drug tests and delivering results was something I did for years.

I'm against that too, on principle, but I wouldn't balk at it. Especially if she's over 18 because then it stops being my business. When she's a minor she's under my legal protection and I just hate the idea of a child, especially a good innocent child (I'm assuming a lot for Maggie here, I know), having to pee in a cup as a prerequisite to join the band or drama club. It's offensive to demand that of a minor.

And as Met K put it, I don't trust High School administrators very much.

Mark Asher

06-27-2002, 02:10 PM

Actually, lots of companies want drug tests for desk jobs nowadays. It's not just driving and/or heavy equipment jobs.

Bub, Andrew

06-27-2002, 02:18 PM

Ok, maybe so.

In Milwaukee the number was about 20% of White Collar companies required tests while roughly 80% of the dangerous jobs required it. At least that was the number according to Aurora Clinical Labs (the #1 hc company in Milwaukee) as of 1997. And at that time the numbers were dropping because companies were judging the program ineffective.

Now, of course we've got no argument if you consider 20% "lots".

Ben Sones

06-27-2002, 03:04 PM

The biggest difference there is that you don't *have* to work for that company, and you don't *have* to take that drug test. You *don't* have a choice when attending public school.

Yeah, exactly. It's the difference between drug testing as mandated by the federal government, and drug testing as a requirement for voluntary employment. There are plenty of employers that don't test for drugs. If it bothers you, work for one of them. You can't get out of sending your kids to school, however. And like others that have posted here, I think that without a warrant and without probable cause, it's a blatant violation of the 4th amendment.

As a country we're getting pretty lackadaisical about protecting our rights in this age of "terrorists everywhere" (which reminds me more and more of McCarthyism every day). Scary stuff.

Erik

06-28-2002, 09:39 AM

Alan, it was stuck in there as part of the Red Scare (McCarthy, et al) during Eisenhower's first administration.

Uh, because of the strong relationship between Communists and religion? ???

Soviet Communism was militantly atheistic. The phrase 'Godless Communists' actually has a meaning apart from an ironic indication of how stupid you think people used to be. In Stalin's words:

"The Party cannot be neutral towards religion. It conducts an anti-religious struggle against all and any religious prejudices."

dannimal

06-28-2002, 10:53 AM

I don't buy the arguement that you don't have a choice about public school. Not only could oyu move to a school district that doesn't require testing, but without moving there are charter schools, private schools, a growing number of school districts becoming "School of Choice" which basically allows you to choose which school your kid goes to. On top of that, there's home schooling. Yeah, a lot of that is impractical, but there are options.

To me, it's just not a big enough deal (peeing in a cup periodically) to get all worked up over. And I have a 7 year old daughter, so it might be an issue for me some day.

Anonymous

06-28-2002, 11:41 AM

"The biggest difference there is that you don't *have* to work for that company, and you don't *have* to take that drug test. "

Yeah, but how many people really have that much choice in regards to employment? I'm sure that a lot of people in the US really have no choice in the matter, as no matter how you feel about drug testing being a violation of your civil rights, you're gonna choose being able to afford to eat over principles nine times out of ten. The sad thing is that nobody should have to make those compromises in a supposedly free society.

BTW, EB in the US was requiring drug testing of employees a decade ago. I remember being in the one in Massena, NY, seeing the sign saying that the workplace was drug-free, and then asking the guy working behind the counter in amazement about it. I've never heard of any drug-testing being mandatory for employment here in Canada, though maybe Stefan knows more about this. The whole concept frightens me.

Dave Long

06-28-2002, 11:51 AM

Now that Brett mentions it, I recall that drug test at EB before I became a manager. I never gave it much thought. I was more concerned with landing my first real job out of university and working with games seemed like the right fit. 8)

--Dave

Mark Asher

06-28-2002, 12:04 PM

If you go to the trouble to drag your sorry ass out of bed to go to a job interview and they tell you have the job providing you pass a drug test, you're going to take the drug test. Any ethical considerations at that point won't stand in the way for most of us.

Unless you know you're going to fail it, of course. Then you're maybe better off just withdrawing the application.

Desslock

06-28-2002, 02:27 PM

>I've never heard of any drug-testing being mandatory for employment here in Canada, though maybe Stefan knows more about this

I've only seen it in Canada in companies that are subsidiairies of U.S. entities. The RCMP may have it, however.

copeknight

06-30-2002, 09:39 PM

As a teacher (and Christian, for that matter), I say throw the whole thing out. The fact is, as has been brought up, no one can be forced to say it. Great. But the suit was, as I understand, that hearing her classmates say "under God" caused this 2nd grader grief. Or, more accurately, her father grief. By the same token, other religious groups who believe that the pledge is basically idolatry could make the same objection about the entire procedure.

Sure, I think it's important to remember that the nation was founded under, basically, Judeo-Christian principles. The Pledge doesn't reflect those, though. It reflects worries over increasing immigration when it was first written, and later over the scourge of godless communism when "under God" was added.

On, and as a teacher, it's a bitch to have to have the little bastards recite the stupid thing. Even worse is when charming states like Nevada add a moment of silence to it. Sure, that works wonders.

asspennies

07-01-2002, 12:55 PM

Yeah, but how many people really have that much choice in regards to employment? I'm sure that a lot of people in the US really have no choice in the matter, as no matter how you feel about drug testing being a violation of your civil rights, you're gonna choose being able to afford to eat over principles nine times out of ten. The sad thing is that nobody should have to make those compromises in a supposedly free society.

Ok, that's just a damn stupid argument. I'm sorry. Not having a choice in regards to employment? Open up the frigging want ads. There's pages and pages of jobs available. Sure some of them may be for less money then others. But they don't drug test!

You want choice? You have choice not to do drugs. Try that one if you're so concerned about these jobs that you have no choice but to work for. Sheesh.

Mark Asher

07-01-2002, 01:52 PM

"You want choice? You have choice not to do drugs. Try that one if you're so concerned about these jobs that you have no choice but to work for. Sheesh.

What upsets some isn't the worry of being caught but simply the loss of privacy.

Jason McCullough

07-01-2002, 02:17 PM

'You want choice? You have choice not to do drugs. Try that one if you're so concerned about these jobs that you have no choice but to work for. Sheesh.'

The argument isn't that you should have the legal right to do drugs. The argument is whether people (the government, schools, and employers, in decreasing order of constitutional difficulties) should be able to test you for drug use when they have literally no probable cause.

Would you mind if they ransacked your house looking for drugs whenever they felt like it? I mean, you might be using them.

Chris Floyd

07-01-2002, 02:24 PM

"Probable cause" is really only applicable to crimes, though, isn't it? The point is that it might be arguably wrong for the government to invade your privacy to test you for illegal drugs, but a corporation is only invading your privacy because you're *applying to work at their company*. They can have (nearly) any standards they like about their applicants, and they don't want their applicants to be drug users. That's their right. It's not an invasion of privacy and it's not constitutionally "difficult." As the man says, if you want to do your drugs AND work, you'll be limited in your choice of employers. Is there something illegal about that?

asspennies

07-01-2002, 03:27 PM

Exactly. My point is not "Drugs are bad" or "Don't do drugs." As far as I'm concerned, go nuts. Do what you want.

My point is that the business has a right to know what it wants to know about the people they are hiring. Hell, they have a right to request that their employees get surgically castrated if they really want to (ok, that might be a stretch) - and the employee has every right to say "No" and go get another job.

As long as the business applies this standard of drug testing uniformly across all races, genders, and creeds, then there's nothing illegal about it. And there's nothing overtly discriminatory either. It's simply their policy - and it could very well be your policy not to apply for a job at this company. I'm sure they'll respect that just fine.

What I'm rejecting, however, is the argument that "people [don't] really have that much choice in regards to employment" - that's just flat out wrong. There are plenty of choices out there. If you choose to do drugs - and it's your choice - you are actively limiting the amount of jobs you can get. On your own. That's your decision.

If you don't like that restriction, you can actively choose NOT to do drugs. That's all I'm saying.

Anders Hallin

07-01-2002, 04:30 PM

I don't know how it is in the US, but in Sweden, you might lose some of your benefits as an unemployed if you reject employment that is offered to you.

Jason McCullough

07-01-2002, 08:23 PM

That's a good point I hadn't thought of, regarding unemployment benefits.

You're correct there's nothing unconstitutional about it. The closets analogy I can think of, though: can you seriously imagine a job that forbids you from ever drinking while employed there? I mean, both alcohol and pot affect you at work the same amount if you use them in your hours not at work: none.

asspennies

07-01-2002, 10:34 PM

I believe business are required to be upfront about whether employment requires a drug test. So before you start applying to these places, you can simply ask if they test. And then if they do test, and you don't want to be tested (for whatever reason), then you don't have to apply. And in that case, I'm pretty sure you won't be offered the job. And I'm pretty sure you won't run afoul of any unemployment regulations that way.