..and here it is again. Rather than offer sound reasoning or evidence for your disputed claim you just repeat it more "adamantly."

I heard the slippery slope argument the first time and it's as unconvincing now as it was then.

The separation of church and state need have no affect on the private sector.

Removing '"In God we Trust" from our money threatens public Christianity not one iota.

I'm a practicing protestant Christian attending a church-sponsored college, it is exceedingly rare that I miss a weekly service (pretty hard to miss, it's with eyeshot of my dorm.)


Yet I accept that the government should not have anything to do with specific religious establishment.

The government has a duty to remain religiously neutral for the good not only of the minority but for every US citizen who doesn't want the government taking stands on religion, an issue entirely out of it's purview.


Separation of church and state does not impose anything on anyone, on the contrary, it removes the government from the arena entirely.

I voted other. Even though I feel "under god" is a breach of the Constitution, the issue in and of itself is of miniscule importance. However, it is VERY important as part of a bigger picture.

Getting rid of this religious affirmation in schools is a victory in this war against the cultists and the moralists. And in war, no victory is too small. You attack us with obscenity laws? Consider this a counter attack. It is one step closer to getting rid of 2000 years of shame, hypocrisy, self denial, and torture. It is one step closer to an America that is truly based on freedom, not mandatory morality. This is a blow to the ONLY enemy that can destroy America, because America is virtually indestructible from the OUTSIDE. So, while this is a minute breach of the Constitution, it still must be fought against fiercely.

Start repealing obscenity laws, drug laws, vice crimes, etc., and maybe we can talk of getting along. However, hearing "live and let live" from groups who do just the opposite tends to bore me.

The matter is simple, so let's just cut to the chase. For nearly two hundred years, governmental promotion of an abstract or non-sectarian form of Christianity was acceptable under the establishment clause. This is inarguable, and I think everyone here would agree that this has occurred.

So, we must ask ourselves the following question: Does the first amendment say the same thing today that it said when it was first passed or has it changed? Obviously, it remains the same. So, If all of these controversial things that are now being ruled unconstitutional were constitutional for the first two centuries we must then ask what has changed.


That is an opinion. It may, in fact, be the right one. The point is that it is not required by the first amendment, as is evident by the policies implemented by the very people who wrote that amendment. If you use the free market place of ideas to convince enough people you are right, then we will implement such a policy through legislation. Using the courts to sue your way to that end only causes strife and division. This is very much a part of why our country is becoming so dangerously contentious.

This statement is factually inaccurate. There is no need to argue it as it is a factual statement and not an opinion. There have been numerous cases where the Supreme Court has ruled against government involvement with non-sectarian forms of Christianity. You many look no further than the Ten Commandments case of last year for one example.

Furthermore, the fact that the Supreme Court has not ruled on any given issue does not mean that the issue has been ruled "Constitutional."

The court cannot act on an issue unless and untill someone raises the issue.


So what? For over one hundred years women were denied the vote. Sorry Lincoln, keeping history in mind, it does not impress me that atheists, agnostics, or those who worshipped multiple Gods did not raise any given religion/State issues to the Supreme Court in 18th century America, 19th century America, or the better part of 20th century America for that matter. Many things were/are considered to be "acceptable" for lengthy periods of time during our history (Constitutionally and otherwise). The inclusion of the word "God" on our money and in government funded school chants are just two examples.

I was referring to the time period between 1789 and 1946 when all of these activities that are considered to "promote" Christianity occurred: public school prayer, bible reading, displaying religious monuments, federal funding for missionaries, churches, and bible printing, etc...

I don't think the founders can tell us how to run the country today, so please don't misunderstand me. I do, however, think that the writers of the Bill Of Rights are the only authority on what the words mean. When they use words like "Congress" and "law", these words had specific meaning and to try and conflate those meanings is disingenuous and dangerous. If we don't like the meaning of the first amendment as understood by the founders, there is a process which we can use to amend the Constitution. This has been done, Argonaut, to give women the vote. Imagine if we would have just decided to start pretending that the Constitution already provided it to them and left the text unchanged. That would have been a joke.

The people here who think a presence in the public square of the majority religion in this country is tantamount to oppression of women and African Americans are, in my opinion, misrepresenting the issue in a dangerous way. The implication is that people who want "under god" in the pledge, or the 79% of people who think public displays of the Ten Commandments are alright are just as bad as slave-traders. I can't say it enough; Good people are on both sides of this debate.



It wasn't even the Supreme Court's job to decide something "Unconstitutional" until the 19th century Marbury vs. Madison decision in which it took that power for itself over complaints from the other two branches of government. So public religious expression was certainly Constitutional during the time period directly after the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the words mean the same thing today as they meant then.

Please don't think I am arguing for having prayer and bible reading in school, etc. I am only saying they are allowable under an accurate reading of the first amendment. That is NOT to say we should allow such things. This is to be decided by the American people through our legislatures.

Is the Pledge of Allegiance a patriotic exercise, or a religious affirmation? Why?

I disagree with this questions presumption that it cant be both at the same time. Obviously, it contains much praise to America (and is consequently patriotic), but at the same time, it also affirms the existence of god, by mentioning him.

Will this case make it to the Supreme Court?

As I donut believe there has been a previous Supreme Court precedent on this issue, it would make sense for them to make a ruling on it. However, I don't really know how the selection process that they use to choose cases works.

If so, how will the Court rule?

No idea. Last time they had a major case on religion (on religious symbolism on public property), they ended up ruling a compromise. I'm not quite sure how they will rule this time, as Roberts may end swinging the court to the right, and a compromise would be difficult when facing a yes or no question like this anyways.

What should they rule?

The first amendment states that congress shall not make a law respecting an establishment of religion. The words under god were added into the pledge, in the 50s via congress, thus, I think the Supreme Court ought to repeal/over rule the law in which that change was made. However, if state or local governments want to make laws that put god into the pledge, they are perfectly within their rights do so.

I refer you to President Bush's remarks on 27 June 2002, when he first made this pronouncement at the White House. (Check AP for the exact details.) He's said much the same on at least two other occasions. It's true (the president could give a hoot about Article VI), and you're right: it's inflammatory!

According to President Bush, people who don't share his belief in one god are not eligible to become federal judges. In other words, he's a bigot and he's danged proud of it too.

The First Amendment is most certainlly not the same today as it was 200 years ago. When it was brand new, it restricted only the national government. Now it restricts mayors, governors, school teachers, and cops.

Here's a brief review of the development of our understanding of the First Amendment as it relates to this discussion:

http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/521/1/2/

Just 20 years after the Supreme Court decided that We The People actually have a right to free speech, the matter of the Pledge of the Allegiance was before the Supreme Court on two occasions.

Of course the first amendment remains the same. Perhaps its application has been extended because of how the fourteenth amendment has been interpreted (something we've dealt with earlier in this post). However, we have a process for changing the constitution and never have the first amendment's religion clauses been altered by that process. They mean the same thing now as they meant when they were ratified. The task at hand is for us to ensure that we only allow judges to serve who will read the constitution as it is and not as they think it should be. If we, as citizens, have strong opinions about what is acceptable public religious expression and what is not, we need to elect people to Congress who agree with those views. This will allow the American people to decide this very important issue and not an Oligarchy in Washington.

Don't you agree that they (the religion clauses) were altered by constitutional amendment?

Before the 14th amendment, the 1st amendment restricted only the national government. After the 14th amendment (and by intent) it restricted state and local government. That's quite a significant alteration, is it not? And it was done by constitutional amendment, was it not?

Don't you agree that they (the religion clauses) were altered by constitutional amendment?

Before the 14th amendment, the 1st amendment restricted only the national government. After the 14th amendment (and by intent) it restricted state and local government. That's quite a significant alteration, is it not? And it was done by constitutional amendment, was it not?




Why do you suppose that so many Supreme Court decisions are split 5:4? If the Constitution is so clear (and the Common Law so plain), then why don't we replace nine justices with one? Why not just automate the whole shebang?

Do you believe that the Constitution is so straightforward that we could get a computer to replace the one reasonable justice (knows how to read the Constitution) of the Supreme Court? Could a computer compute what is 'cruel and unusual punishment'? If a computer (interpreting the Constitution in terms of what it meant in a world gone by) said that the Miranda ruling was in error, would that be good cause to dispense with it? If if said Griswold was in error, would it be OK for a state to ban contraceptives? If it said Brown was in error . . . .

Parts of the Constitution are explicit; other parts are quite vague (e.g., what constitutes a 'religious test' or 'an establishment of religion').

Article III is pretty obtuse. Is that an accident, or was it written for a computer to interpret?