[sourcery]

The law requires the teacher (a government employee) to recite the words, with the students as a captive audience. It also sets up a situation where there is strong peer/social pressure on the students to recite the pledge along with the teacher.

How is it that requiring a teacher to recite a pledge whose words strongly imply belief in a Supreme Being does not clearly constitute an "establishment of religion"?

How is it that requiring students to listen to their teacher recite a pledge whose words strongly imply belief in a Supreme Being does not clearly constitute an "establishment of religion"?

How is it that subjecting students (by force of law) to a situation where they will daily experience strong peer/social pressure to recite a pledge whose words strongly imply belief in a Supreme Being does not clearly constitute an "establishment of religion"?

When the law says you must stop at a stop sign, it means you must come to a complete stop. The Constitutional prohibition against laws that establish religion is no different. Once you start allowing the scofflaws to slide by at one mile an hour, they'll start pushing for ever greater relaxation of the restrictions. What part of "Congress shall pass no law" don't you understand?

[Nightshift]

How is it that requiring students to listen to their teacher recite a pledge whose words strongly imply belief in a Supreme Being does not clearly constitute an "establishment of religion"?

The congress did not establish any religion, but only acknowleged that God exsits and gave us those inalienable rights that we have today (See Declaration of Independence) So what are our rights given to us by the creator? Look at the US Constitution and the Bill of rights. This is what the founding fathers wanted us to have. Rights, given to us by our creator (a clear acknowledement of God) not men. The Declaration of Independence and the Constiitution was influenced by men that believed in God.

If this establishes a religion, then the declaration of independence and the constitution are both unconstitutional and that our inalienable rights are unconstitutional. Should we then rewrite them?

However,I do agree that the child should not have to listen to other children recite the pledge,but dealing with peer pressure is something we all do all of our life.

[Betty Jane]

What part of "Congress shall pass no law" don't you understand?

Well, let's look at that phrase. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; etc.

Now, let's parse, shall we? Congress shall make no law...This pertained to the U.S. House and Senate, not state legislatures, not town councils, not school boards. Is saying the pledge in California a U.S. law or a local one? I believe it is local.

Next, respecting the establishment of religion. This means there will be no national church, such as the Church of England. It did not refer to individual states or towns. A state could have had it's own church and taxed everyone for its upkeep.

Last section, or prohibit the free exercise thereof;. This says that Congress doesn't have the right to tell people they can't read a bible in public, or pray at a football game. It says mind your business, you power hungry little creeps in Congress.

The whole problem has come up because the Supremes feel it is their job to expand the role of government into every facet of people's lives, and we let them.

If we were to truly follow the Constitution, There would be public schools whose flavor would tend mostly Christian, although many different denominations would be represented, a few Jewish, and a couple less Moslem. There would be others who would vote for no religious references, but it would be done at the district level and not the national.