[Mushinronshasan]

After reading the replies to this article, I am surprised that so many people have misinterpreted the ruling. The obvious "what's wrong with the pledge" response ignores what the ruling did. It's not prohibition of the pledge, it's a prohibition of a government from compelling it's citizens to do something they are not required to do.

If the state of Colorado thought that tolerating gays was a good thing, would it be a good idea to require all teachers and students to swear a pledge to say so? Some of those who disagree with that lifestyle might not want to pledge an oath to it. Would the state have the authority to make them do so? I don't think so.

The judge is right. Whether the pledge is good or bad is not the question. The freedom of the citizens to accept it or not should not be a function of government.

[ladylib]

I totally agree.

[cake_crumb]

"If the state of Colorado thought that tolerating gays was a good thing, would it be a good idea to require all teachers and students to swear a pledge to say so? "

I agree about non-compunction, though no one was being compelled to say the pledge. Your analogy was a bad one, because if you exercise your First Amendment rights and say you don't like the gay lifestyle, you could lose your job or be convicted of a hate crime. In fact, anything not interpreted by whomever wants to make an issue as being anything other than loving and tolorant to their particular lifestyle, religion, gender or fetish can cost you your job or get you convicted of a hate crime. Just illustrating the flip side.

Speaking of flip sides, let's also not forget that a Federal Judge ruled that children going to school within the area of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are compelled and coerced NOT to say the words "One Nation Under God" is they opt to say the pledge. Non-compulsively, of course.

[jwalsh07]

The judge is right. Whether the pledge is good or bad is not the question. The freedom of the citizens to accept it or not should not be a function of government.

The judge is wrong as regards the students, he is right regarding the teachers if they are indeed coerced to recite the pledge. But I doubt the state of Colorado would codify that.

Since 1943, coerced recitation of the POA has been unconstitutional.

However, even the infamous 14th Amendment does not protect against embarrassment or peer pressure. At least it didn't used to, no telling if that's one of those new transcendent liberty thingamobs or not.

[goldstategop]

Its not about coercion. Students can get a note and opt out of saying the Pledge if they're not comfortable with it. No, what bothers the ACLU is that patriotism should be in the nation's cirriculum in the first place.

[DPB101]

The question is if you wish to be ruled by judges or elected representatives.