School Boards are a government body. There are numerous cases which reached the Supreme Court where School Boards are a party.

-----

It is not sufficient to make religion voluntary in the schools to avoid violating the First Amendment. There is case law on that from the Supreme Court. School Board may not establish religion teaching even if they are voluntary.

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

The Pledge is, of course, primarily a patriotic affirmation. However, the words "under God" constitute a religious affirmation. To affirm that the flag of the United States, and the republic for which it stands, are "under God" is to profess belief in God. Hence, to recite the Pledge is to affirm religious belief. No child being educated at public expense should be invited to join in such an affirmation. There is already ample opportunity during the school day for students who believe in God to commune privately with this supposed entity.

If the words "under God" are void of religious significance, they should be removed, since they are certainly void of patriotic significance. That only the religious claim these words to be devoid of religion is an ironic hypocrisy.

Similarly, the phrase, "In God We Trust" is a religious affirmation and should be removed from the nation's coinage.

Personally, I never join in the recitation of the Pledge, not only because it expresses a religious belief that I do not share, but also because I do not consider that I owe allegiance to the government of the United States. Obedience, which is a practical relation, I usually render, though not always, and I might cease to obey entirely if it ever suited me; allegiance, which is a moral relation, I refuse. That I was born not far from Pittsburgh gives no one in Washington, or even in Harrisburg, a claim to my allegiance. Moreover, to pledge allegiance to a flag is an absurdity.

Will this case make it to the Supreme Court? If so, how will the Court rule?

The Court as constituted will find some reason, couched in law, to reinstate the recitation of the Pledge, since doing what republican principles actually require would be exceedingly unpopular. The Court is merely a political institution; there is noting mysterious or sacred about it.

I agree with the "In God we trust" bit. I think a case could be made differently for the pledge, though. Every faith in which I am familiar requires that a person hold their faith in God above the state. When a Christian (and I'd assume other religion as well) recites the pledge as is, he/she is swearing allegiance with a caveat that it is under God's approval. Without the "under God" portion, the pledge requires the swearing of allegiance to the state (over or excluding God). I'd say that qualifies as exclusionary (the "prohibit the free exercise of" bit). It also sounds Nazified and/or Communist. Better to scrap the pledge altogether. Swearing allegiance to the state is creepy.

I went to primary school in Texas, and the "under god " part of the phrase was used as an evangicelical opening to "preach the gospel" back in the 60s- not saying the pledge either got you sent to the principals office and probably a "whuppin" (quote from teacher I clearly remember from grade school to a child not loudly and clearly saying the pledge)- so this whole thing about it being "voluntary" is pure poppycock- it is NOT voluntary for the child to say that- they WILL find a way to punish the child for not <ahem> "not voluntarily saying the pledge" - so, ya, it is outright attempt to force religion at the elementary school children-

and those that want to force others should move to Afghanistan where the state forces religion- perhaps Christians can set up thier theocracy in another geographical location more suitable to them (like blingice- if they want to set up a theocracy- move somewhere else LOL)

I'd like to press you on this particular topic. It's curious that you think those who find the words "under God" unobjectionable in this context should "move to Afghanistan" or set up our own theocracy somewhere. Just the other day you said the following regarding the German Elections?



So Germany is "actually democratic" but for America to recognize God puts us on the fast boat to Taliban-style theocracy? You are aware of the conservative party in Germany, no? link



So, an "actual democracy" can thrive despite one of the political parties being openly Christian, but for me to support "under God" in the pledge, I should move to Afghanistan. This does not appear to be a very even-handed analysis.

While this is technically accurate, the pledge was established by Congress and was amended by Congress.

The compulsory nature of educational activities, especially when led by a teacher has been resolved by the Supreme Court in the past to represent an effect of force. This was the original issue with school prayer, and I agree with SCOTUS' interpretation in that affair.

If you think the "Under God" addition was benign its in intended addition, think again:

While I think in the larger scheme of things the pledge of allegiance is relatively insignificant as it relates to Federal codification of religion, nonetheless in its current form is does serve as both a patriotic and religious affirmation.

Doc

The recitation of the pledge in school is not unconstitutional, and determining whether or not it's appropriate should not be left to the courts anyway. The fact that there are people here who want the courts to decide this, as well as most other disagreements over what is acceptable religious expression, indicates a misunderstanding of the Judiciary's appropriate role in these matters.

It seems to me that those who adamantly want a position of religious neutrality from the government are misdirecting their energy by focusing on the courts. Actually, creating such a policy, or not creating it, is completely the prerogative of Congress. The text of the first amendment is plain, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It is evident from this concise statement that the courts are only tasked with keeping Congress from transgressing the Constitution by either of these extremes. That is, the courts must knock down any law passed by Congress, requiring citizens to adhere to a religion or prohibiting them from doing so. However, all of the grey area between these extremes is actually supposed to be the domain of Congress.

Congress can pass laws outlawing the display of Ten Commandments monuments on public property. Congress can outlaw required reading of Bibles in public schools. Any policy Congress wants to implement relative to religious expression can be passed as law. Of course, the courts would then decide if such laws are constitutional to prevent a law that prohibits free exercise from standing. I am not saying that I personally think a strong policy of strict neutrality is either good or bad, because my opinion is irrelevant to the facts and would taint the discussion.

The point I am making is that the courts have decided that the grey area should be theirs to deal with even though the Constitution doesn't afford them that role. It is clearly the realm of the people and their elected representatives to decide the specific policies concerning the degree of religious speech allowable in the public square and whether the inclusion of the "Under God" statement in the pledge of allegiance is appropriate. Yet, the job of a judge would be much less interesting if they adhered to that restriction and followed the text of the constitution, because then judges wouldn't get to decide the details of appropriate religious expression and would have much less power in that area. So, instead we have stood witness to a game of "telephone" of sorts. The original message, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", has been greatly distorted over time and the Judiciary aggregates more and more decision-making power to itself. Now, the distorted message in this game of "telephone" has become the framework taught in Law schools and adhered to by many judges. The actual text of the constitution is now of less significance than the precedent set by each previous court which "whispers" the ever-changing message into the ears of the next generation of lawyers and judges.

The truth is that the Judiciary does not function well as a legislative body, and Supreme Court opinions are never as stable or unambiguous as a bill passed through Congress and signed by the President. For those of you who desire to promote religious neutrality, you should not ask the courts to create or maintain it. It's like complaining to Homeland Security about tax complexity, it’s just not their domain... calling the IRS would be more effective.

As long as the courts are playing this game, decisions will conflict across the country and decisions will be overturned over time, even in the Supreme Court. No clear policy will likely ever be established and contradictory policies will be promoted, as we've seen over the past several decades. Congress should take this duty back to itself and we must hold them accountable to do so, because the courts were never supposed to decide the grey areas of religious expression and are completely unequipped to effectively do so.

If you want the pledge changed, call your Senators.

How come it's always the people that I disagree with that always say the funniest quotes. yet

What defines something as "unconstitutional?" If it were a mandatory practice, then there probably would be an argument against saying it. But once again, it is optional, so it can't be unconstitutional. Even if the pledge said "Almighty lord Allah", and it was optional, it wouldn't be unconstitutional. BoF, what requirements, other than the religion and state argument, causes something to be unconstitutional? Isn't there a prerequisite for the unconstitutionality claim that means the action is mandatory?

Show where the Constitution says that a 230 year old practice is unconstitutional in the sense that it A: is the government that is forcing a religion on it's citizens, B: it is mandatory and C: the fact that public schools giving an option to lead kids in something they want to do is unconstitutional. I bet that if a public school led 3 prayers: One for Muslim people, one for Jewish people, and one for Christian people, and made options availiable to people that practice other religions there wouldn't be a problem, but the fact that someone just notices two words in a 230 year old statement of dedication to your country and can't come up with a valid unconstitutional argument other than "In this way, the government is fully supporting religion" which isn't valid in itself because God can't necessarily be defined as it is an idea, not a fact. This argument would only be valid in such a vague manner if the Pledge said something like "Glorius leftist beliefs" and forced people to say it, once again, the only reason it is unconstitutional is because it is mandatory.

Please, give me an example of something that was found unconstitutional but not mandatory.

It amuses me blingice that you have asked me a question without quoting one word that I wrote.

If you had read this thread blingice, you would have noticed that the words "under god" were not added to The Pledge until 1954. That's a couple of centuries shy of 230 years.

Here's the link for the third time.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm


Further, the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1887. thats 218 years ago, not 230 and Francis Bellamy (no, he wasn't one of the Bellamy Brothers) wrote the original Pledge, without the words "under god" in 1892, a mere 113 years ago. It's strange that Bellamy, an ordained Baptist minister, saw no reason to include the "under god" bit, but the Knights of Colombus, a Catholic fraterhal order, threw a conniption fit until they snuck it in.

Here's another link to Pledge history.



http://www.classbrain.com/artfree/publish/article_190.shtml

Now, blingice look at the date Congress made th Pledge an official part of the U. S. Flag Code--1942. That's 62 years ago, not 230.

One's credibility doesn't suffer as much if he gets his "facts" straight.


Actually blingice the ruling about whether the voluntary nature of a religious a practice matters came from the United States Supreme Court 43 years ago in a case called Engle vs. Vitale. (1962) The Board of Regents of the New York public schools had written a prayer to be recited in the state's public schools.



Although the Regents argued that there was no compulsion on students to recite the prayer, Justice Hugo Black observed in the court's opinion: (Note the words in red by Justice Black.')



http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatedec...EngelVitale.htm

Now, this is what is called a precedent (something John Roberts has talked about extensively the past few days) so, it is the only "example" that is necessary.

Any further questions?

I'm sorry, but isn't the judiciary an equal branch of the government? When Congress passes a law, such as putting "In God We Trust" on our monetary system or "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the judiciary does not look at the law. They hear cases brought before them by the people: you, me, Michael Newdow, anybody. Michael Newdow has brought this case to the legal system, which is the very method with which our Founding Fathers had intended to occur. When the legislative and executive branches are controlled by a single party, the judicial system is the only thing that keeps those two from running rampant with improper legislation under the guise of "majority rules". Sorry, but our country is not a "majority rules" place.


This is actually a false interpretation of the First Amendment. The verbage you quoted is accurate: "respecting an establishment of religion". Many people view this as Congress shall not pass laws mandating religion on Americans--this is not true. It says "respecting an establishment". An establishment is defined by the dictionary as an institution--the Catholic Church is an establishment of religion. By including the word "God" in any sort of legally-binding document, it violates the Constitution's separation of church and state clause. The problems we have been seeing from placing the Ten Commandments in government and public buildings is not because they are trying to restrict freedom of expression. Judge Roy Moore refused any other religious display inside the courthouse. If other religious displays had been allowed, there wouldn't have been a problem. But of course, this comes with the added question of, "How much real estate in a courthouse should be dedicated to 2-ton monuments of religious dogma?"

All that said, the Pledge of Allegiance is not a legally-binding document and holds no fiat over the citizens of America. However, look at the history of why "under God" was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance and you'll see that it is precisely against the First Amendment. Congress passed legislation which respected the establishment of religion in the Pledge of Allegiance. This was due to fear of atheistic communists. Our country is comprised of many religious beliefs, including atheists. A pledge of allegiance to our country should never contain something as purposely divisive as "under God". That it comes right before "indivisible" is simply humorous irony.


What are you reading?? The First Amendment specifically mentions that Congress has NO place dealing with religious issues whatsoever. The courts are designed to make sure they don't. The only proper method of government is a secular one that has no involvement with religion at all. Whether its the government intruding on religion or vice versa, the results are historically disastrous. Our country was created by people who dealt with this.


Yes, the Supreme Court's opinions are never as stable or unambiguous as, say, the Patriot Act or the recent transportation bill. Have you read those things? Congress doesn't pass anything unambiguously. I agree that the Supreme Court should not act as a legislative body, but I also recognize that they have never behaved like one. The Supreme Court can not simply decide a particular law is unconstitutional. Someone must actually bring it before them and ask them to decide.

I've listened to Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and all the other conservative talk show hosts whine and ridicule the judicial system as being comprised of "activist judges". This is a delusion from people who feel what they think must be right, no exceptions. Is a ban on gay marriage illegal? Yes, but it needs to be presented by lawyers in the correct light. Do not present it as a matter of sexual orientation, but show marriage as governmental discrimination based on gender. Since our government can not discriminate on certain immutable traits (gender, race, etc.), this is an element to the argument which has not been brought before the court. If a lawyer does argue this, and the Supreme Court rules that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, it is not "activist judges" who have done this. It is "activist lawyers", if anything at all.

Like I've said, and many others have said, this is really a non-issue that appears to be a waste of time. But since it was brought before the courts, they need to resolve the matter. It would be "activist" of the judicial system to state that "under God" is to be removed from the pledge. But no, all they can do is pass judgment on the constitutionality of it. The 9th Circuit Court found it unconstitutional, sending it to the legislature to let them figure out how to deal with the "under God" phrase, just as the founding fathers had intended.

Beyond 'theory' of the rights and wrongs, my children must recite the Pledge every day of their lives in school. "God" has become of great interest to my 10 year old. He is not without understanding of the meanings of Pledging Allegiance under a God, even more than to a country. He asks about the meaning of this 'god' constantly. He is confused about God, he doesnt understand why 'god' is in school but not at home. I am angered to no end about this, because 'god' is not supposed to be in school but within a family context.

I have problems with Pledging Allegiance to the government, and as Mrs P. succinctly put, its just creepy. Ill go further, its just downright brainwash. But, she seemed to say that if children pledge to 'god' that it somehow forgives the matter in a merged Pledge to God and Country, so is therefore acceptable.

I disagree.
My family follows Buddhist philosophy of right thought which hopefully makes right action. There is no God watching our every move, we are not sinners. I do NOT want my children indoctrinated into the guilt society that is Christian thought. I do not believe in this/their GOD. I am science minded and refuse outright to have myself or my kids barraged by others fantasies as some sort of fact, when there is no fact just mythical storytellling.

I REFUSE and CONDENM the right of mythical believers to try to teach and make my children site mantras daily which I, as the head of my spiritual and physical family should have complete control. Intent, by Constitution was separation of Church and State, with very good reason. It is NOT schools nor the government that has rights to spiritual education and belief, it is a family matter, a personal matter. That is something the religious cannot seem to understand.

I will neither have myself or my children slaves to their government nor an imaginary being called 'god'. Both will ultimately let them down.

My first quote taken out of context on this site- I promised myself I wouldn't cry LOL

I was refering to actually paying attention to a "real" democracy instead of the farce that is Iraq- definately off topic, but needing to be addressed- the difference is a chasm between us and Europe on this one-

1) They have many parties, some very small ones want a theocracy as well- however, we have one of our two main parties that definately wants a theocracy, thier actions are undeniable

2) No first world nation has a incredibly powerful voice in goverment comparable to the religious right- that is were we come so close to the Iraqs and Irans rather than a truly free goverment- we seem to be marching backward AWAY from freedom, instead of towards it- while most of the developed world is making progress- for instance, Canada.

Artemise pointed out quite succinctly WHY there should be NO pledge in school:

1) It is not voluntary, because kids don't have the skills or the knowledge to refuse- we restrict rights to children for this very reason, and demand that parents have a say in certain aspects of thier life, regardless of the child's wishes, this is the same- it is compulsory, because of the ability to co-erce children

2) It is pro-christian at the exclusion of other beliefs- which establishes an state sponsored religion

3) It is a form of brainwashing.

It is an attempt by the state to subvert the religious beliefs of a minority of parents- exactly what the constitution was meant to do- protect the weak from the strong.

1. Wrong. It is voluntary, and kids do refuse to say the Pledge at my school. Of of them wishes she didn't live in America. The kids that are to afraid not to say it are probably in 2nd grade and too young to have any sophistocated political stance.

2. It is completely vague on what religion it is mentioning, so it can't be an infraction of government and religion policy.

3. Why? So you are saying that everyone in the military is brainwashed because they are fine dying for a country? Does this mean that even if the objectionable two words are eliminated it is still brainwash and should be outlawed?

4. I don't even understand that point. Explain please.

I agree wholeheartedly that the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights desired the government to take an official position of neutrality towards the various Christian denominations in American. This was because they came from a Europe that faced serious conflict in the Century following the Protestant Reformation, with some nations aligning themselves with a particular denomination and persecuting citizens who refused to do so. It was not desirable that America become a "Catholic" nation or an "Anglican" nation or a nation that favored any of the many denominations. Instead, an abstract form of Christianity was promoted in the public square at that time, and concerns about denominational neutrality can be seen in some of the discussions about how to choose the chaplains in Congress in those early days.


I think you are going a bit far with this assertion. Let us remember that our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, clearly states that all of our rights are given by our "Creator". Rightly or wrongly, the consensus at that time was that the rights we enjoy exist only because of the will of God, and accordingly much of the early legislation mentions God.

It should also be pointed out that there is no "separation of church and state clause" in the Constitution. Those words come not from the Constitution but instead from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. In this letter he was assuring the Baptists that Congress would not be able to interfere with their religious activities because the first amendment erected a "wall of separation between church and state". Jefferson wanted them to know that the power of Congress to restrict religious expression was severely limited by the Bill of Rights.

Secondly, Jefferson was in Europe at the time of the drafting of the first amendment and didn't really have any part in it, so it's ironic that his quote would come to embody the text of the religious clauses of the first amendment for so many.

Thirdly, Jefferson was very critical of the concept of judicial review established in the Marbury versus Madison case. Of course, judicial review is the power the courts granted themselves in that case to be able to rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.


Jefferson thought that judicial review violated the principal of separation of powers and elevated the courts to a level of power greater than that of Congress. The second time the court used this concept of judicial review was in the horrible Dredd Scott decision fifty-four years later. Now its used virtually every year.

The irony keeps building when we consider that people cite Jefferson's phrase, "separation of Church and State" to support something very different from the sentiments expressed in the letter in which it's written, while promoting the practice of judicial review, which is something he adamantly opposed.


Fully accepting the idea of judicial review only means that the courts must ensure that Congress makes no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise. The Constitution was not intended to keep the public square free of religion or to prevent public school prayer, the recitation of the pledge of Allegiance with the added reference to God, or Bible reading in schools, or any such thing.

Again, if these things are not appropriate in an increasingly pluralistic America, it can only be legitimately dealt with in two ways: 1) Congress can pass laws forbidding such things in a way that does not also prevent free exercise. 2) We can amend the Constitution to explicitly mandate a public square devoid of religious symbolism. Doing the second would justifiably give the role of determining what is acceptable religious expression to the courts. The present wording of the first amendment and the intention behind it is something entirely different and the best evidence for this is our history.

During the lifetimes of the people who wrote the text of the first amendment many things happened that would be considered unconstitutional to a modern court. Under George Washington's presidency, federal funds were used to finance Christian missionary trips to the west. There are Bibles in existence today that were printed with tax money in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries that say, "Issued by Congress for use in the public schools". Ben Franklin, who was not a traditional Christian by any stretch of the imagination, thought Bible reading in schools should be mandatory. Church services were held weekly in the House of Representatives and were attended by most political leaders at that time.

My point in mentioning these examples is only to say that if they were Constitutional in the century and a half following the ratification of the Bill of Rights and if the first amendment says the same thing today that it said then, (which it certainly does) then these activities should be and technically are still Constitutional today.

I am not taking a position as to whether these activities are appropriate. Strong arguments are made that in an increasingly pluralistic country, promotion of religion, even if it is non-sectarian as in the above examples, is undesirable. I am only saying that if the American people think such activities are not appropriate then we should force our Senators to outlaw them rather than pretend that they violate the first amendment.


If you or I walk outside and look around we will notice that the buildings around us share a similarity in architecture and design for the most part. That is the result of a deeply ingrained cultural history. If you go to a traditional Chinese community, the design of the surroundings will be significantly different according to their cultural heritage. The point is that we in large part have a cultural history rooted in the West. From Greece to Rome to European Christendom, the West has been shaped and we are one of its descendents. The same case can be made for religion and its appearance in the public square.

To further elaborate on this analogy, a Chinese man visiting or living in America does not have to abandon his culture just because his surroundings don't reflect that culture back to him. In America he is free to buy land and build a traditional Chinese styled house or anything else he wants to promote his culture. However, it is unrealistic to expect that because he moves to your city, every building or structure with a Western design must be torn down and replaced with a structure that is partially Western and partially Chinese in design. It is equally unrealistic to make a rule saying that for every Western structure there must now be built a Chinese structure of equal size.

It has always been the case that the majority culture has been represented in the public square. If you go to a community that is 80% Hispanic you will likely hear Spanish spoken as the primary language and it is probable that Roman Catholic figures will be in the public parks. A community that is 80% Buddhist will likely not choose to put a Ten Commandments monument in their court house and would not be expected to do so. Roy Moore was in Alabama which is mostly Christian so it was not a real shock that the monument placed in the court house was affiliated with Christianity.

Since that monument was not put there because of a law passed by Congress and no one was forced to adhere to the commandments written on it, it was not really unconstitutional. If we don't want such monuments, we should have our legislative bodies outlaw them. It isn't up to the courts to decide whether or not they are legal.

It isn't easy to decide how much religion should be in the public square or whether acknowledging the beliefs of the roughly 90% of Americans who believe in a God (according to census bureau statistics) by having the contentious phrase in our pledge is appropriate. Regardless of each individual’s opinion on the subject, we ought to all agree that it isn't the role of the courts to figure out the specific policies concerning appropriate religious expression. Congress makes the laws, and as long as judicial review is the accepted practice, the courts must simply rule as to whether such laws violate the text of the Constitution based on cases brought before them.

1. Just for verification you do admit that it is mandated that the pledge gets recited at your school though, correct?? The kids just don't, whenever, they please get up and say the pledge, they are directed, correct??

2. Your second point is incorrect. God with an uppercase "G" is religion specific.

3. Everyone in the military isn't fine with dying for a country. ... But to your other point about Brainwashing. Why are we taught to say the pledge at such an early age. Why do we pledge ourselves to a flag and a republic. Why do we start at age 5, when our ability to understands such thing have yet to develop...

4. Majority of America are Christians or at least religious. The minority is not. But this is Atheist's/Agnostic's nation too, and it does not reside under God, because God does not exist to Atheists/Agnostics or any other religious group without belief of God. God is not a fact, it is an opinion, one that will only come to realization upon death. For the majority to mandate that a pledge be said that affirms the existence God is wrong.

We are humans. We are social by nature. We desire acceptance from our peers in many ways. Anyone with kids and who has seen kids play, or has a memory know how vicious kids can be to other kids. At the young age of 5, 6, 7, and on, you would have a kid of such a young age single themselves out by not saying the pledge or affirm at least with words the existence of a god that that child has no belief in. That is putting kids in a very coercive situation.

When I was a kid- NOT saying the pledge resulted in incredible persecution- you were sent to the principals office, you were whipped, you were ostrasized by both your peers and your teachers, and regularly beaten up by other kids, with the teachers looking the other way during this child delivered but adult sponsored beatings. I saw this for myself at age 5 in 1970 in Texas.

It is total denial that somehow this pledge is voluntary to children- when, the strongest conditioning of all is social pressure- they just have to be made to feel different and inferior for thier behavior- no overt ordering is neccesary- so

1) IT IS NEVER VOLUNTARY IF IT IS SAID IN SCHOOL BELOW THE AGE OF 18

2) As pointed out- if, like Artemise, you don't wish your child to learn about god, then it is definately religion, because Artemise is an athiest, and the school is introducing the mythology of God, as she explained quite nicely, - why is this so hard for the christians to grasp? You are indoctrinating children with the concept of god, what could be more clear than this?

3) I was in the Army, and yes, basic training is DEFINATELY brainwashing- whoever tells you different is outright lying- it is textbook brainwashing- they deprive you of sleep, yell slogans at you all day and night, make you do hard physical excercise and keep you exhausted at all times so you obey instantly without questioning- ya, pretty much brainwashing, a text book case

in the case of the pledge- they use social conditioning to force the issue- and at the age of five, if you know anything about developmental psych- you know that this is a form of brainwashing- using social "scaffolding" to impregnate thier little minds with all this "god" mythology

4) The christian majority is forcing it's early indoctrination of christian/single god or even that there is a god at all upon folks like our Artemise's children- regardless of her beliefs and wishes of the opposite- exactly what our framers feared.

Can't be more clear than that?

blingice

You asked for an example of where something that is voluntary can still be unconstitutional. I gave you a 1962 precedent case, Engle vs. Vitale. Did you just ignore the precedent Justice Black’s opinion set?



Further, I think “kids,” even adults, are subject to peer pressure long after the 2nd grade.

Here’s an interesting quotation from The University of Nebraska:



http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/family/nf211.htm



Be that as it may, the Declaration of Independence had/has no legal authority apart from separating the colonies from England. Does the president swear to preserve, protect and defend the Declaration when he’s sworn in? No! He promises to uphold The Constitution of the United States. The Declaration is irrelevant to this discussion.

The key point here is not the text of the Declaration, it is the fact that much of the early Congressional legislation explicitly mentioned God and was not unconstitutional despite FargoUT's claim:


I just pointed out that the statements in the Declaration give us an insight into why Congress referenced God in so much of the early legislation.

The constitution supercedes and over rides the declaration of independence- the constitution over rides any creator reference in the declaration- in fact, as pointed out in numerous threads have shown, the framers debated this at length, and purposely left out mention of God in the supreme law of the land- they deliberately, and with debate, left the word God out of the constitution, after considerable time and deliberation-

case closed on that one I believe

As I said before, "in any sort of legally-binding document". The Declaration holds no such fiat on our legal system. It was merely a document separating America from England. Additionally "Creator" is a much more encompassing term than "God" is. "Creator" could be your parents, Mother Earth, God, Brahma, etc. The same could be argued today of the Pledge of Allegiance--it holds no legal authority over its citizens. And yet, the pledge was not originally created with "under God" in the text. It was introduced by a Catholic organization. This means Congress went out of its way to put God into something which is recited by children in public schools every day.


If Thomas Jefferson said there is a separation of church and state inherent within the First Amendment, then it is there. It does not say "there shall be separation of church and state" in the First Amendment because that would have been too vague. So they ratified the Constitution with the amendment to protect religion from government and vice versa.


And yet, while President Abraham Lincoln vocally disapproved of the Dred Scott decision, he also said, "We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution." (Abraham Lincoln's Speech on the Dred Scott decision)

This sounds awfully like what goes on today, actually.


I disagree. Yes, the Constitution does not prohibit free exercise of religious expressionism. The problem does not come from citizens exercising their Constitutional right to express their religious views. The problem is when government starts dictating which religious view takes priority over that of others. "Under God" in the Pledge is one instance of government crossing the line. "In God We Trust" on our monetary system was another. Not coincidentally, these both came about around the same time, during the Eisenhower administration. It was done out of fear and nothing more. Many things are done out of fear that are Constitutionally suspect. Look at the Patriot Act for one recent example. That does not make them right, and judicial fiat will push Congress and the people of the country to respect the nation's governing document.


Actually, it is up to them. That is what the courts are there for--to determine the legality of something. The courts can not rewrite the law or alter it (which would be activist), all they can do is state whether or not the case before them breaks the laws of the Constitution.

And it was unconstitutional, what Judge Roy Moore did. Not because he put a monument up--that was not the problem (although I personally view it as tasteless, since only two of the ten commandments are present in the legal system). The problem was Judge Moore's insistance in preventing other religious displays. Including the monument can be viewed as "free exercise" but refusing other religions from doing likewise is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".


So if the courts decided, as they did, that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, then this is okay, by what you just argued? What the courts can not do is rewrite the Pledge. They are declaring it unconstitutional, and sending it back to the legislature to either fix it or eliminate it. Isn't that what is supposed to happen?

Again, I wasn't citing the Declaration as an example of legislation since it obviously isn't. I was pointing out that a lot of the legislation that this country has passed has referenced God in some capacity and it hasn't been considered unconstitutional, despite your claim:



For example, this Veteran's benefit legislation contains a reference to God:

H.R. 311 - Library of Congress

If you're serious that just including the word "God" makes a law unconstitutional, then this law should have been struck down as written.

If such an extreme interpretation of the first amendment as has been promoted here were seriously accepted, then this legislation concerning a treaty with China demanding tolerance of Christians would have been unconstitutional for explicitly mentioning "establishments of religion" like the Roman Catholic church and promoting "the principles of the Christian religion" in the text:

Treaty with China - Library of Congress

This treaty with Morocco would have been unconstitutional as well for the clear inference in its seventeenth article:

Treaty with Morocco - Library of Congress

Under such interpretations of the first amendment, Washington should have been roundly criticized for endorsing the role of schools in promoting religion and morality in Article three of the first major federal bill passed into law:

Northwest Ordinance - www.earlyamerica.com

If you've ever wondered why the post office is closed on Sunday's it's because several Christian denominations complained about the government not keeping the Sabbath day, so their petitions were referred to the postmaster general as is described at the bottom of this House journal:

House Journal 12-18-1811 - Library of Congress

It goes without saying that legislation that concerns land given by the government to the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the native American people would have been unconstitutional if modern views prevailed:

Brethren Bill - Library of Congress

Finally, if the following house resolution mandating prayer before congressional meetings was acceptable under the first amendment, I don't see how having "under God" in the pledge possibly violates the establishment clause:

House Resolution 12-10-1857 - Library of Congress


These are only a few examples out of hundreds. For anyone who doesn't believe me, I recommend you use the Library of Congress' search engine and enter a few phrases like "Jesus Christ" or "God", but be aware that the search engine can only register 100 positive hits per search even though many more may exist.

LOC search

Also, remember that the Library of Congress only has a small portion of its immense library available on-line and much of the earliest legislation isn't there. You would need to take a trip to Washington to see it.

To reinforce my primary point, if all of the preceding legislation is Constitutional, which we must assume it is as none of it was ever overturned on Constitutional grounds, then we are faced with somewhat of a dilemma.

We either have to believe that every judge serving during the first century and a half of our nation's history was completely incompetent not to have noticed that so many violations of the first amendment were occurring or we must accept that judges today are misinterpreting its text and aren't viewing it in the historical context in which it was written.

Lastly, The Congress has dealt with claims that public religious expression is unconstitutional before. Specifically, there was a serious attempt to force the government to abolish the office of chaplains in Congress, the Army, and the Navy on grounds that they violated the first amendment. This prompted the House Judiciary Committee to produce a report on the subject referred to in this text:

3-27-1854 House Notes - Library of Congress

Unfortunately, the report itself is one of the many Congressional documents unavailable on the Library of Congress website, but a portion of the text reads as follows:

"There certainly can be no doubt as to the practice of employing chaplains in deliberative bodies previous to the adoption of the Constitution. We are, then, prepared to see if any change was made in that respect in the new order of affairs. . . . On the 1st day of May [1789], Washington’s first speech was read to the House, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of Dr. Linn as chaplain. By whom was this plan made? Three out of six of that joint committee were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the [Constitutional] Convention to the hall of Congress. Did they not know what was constitutional? . . . It seems to us that the men who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things would cry fire on the 39th day of a general deluge. . . . But we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment—without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices."
“Had the people during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination]… In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity… That was the religion of the Founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”

[bold emphasis added]
Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854).

Now obviously many of us living today disagree with Congress' conclusions as to what is best for the country, and the government we have inherited gives us the ability to make changes if we so desire. However, the above conclusion concerning the Constitution and the intent of the founders is difficult to dispute. If radical social reconstruction is desired and we want to legitimately remove every vestige of Christianity from our public square, it can only be done by legislation or by Constitutional amendment. We can no longer pretend that school prayer, Bible reading, ten commandments monuments, religious phrases on our coinage or in our pledge, or any public acknowledgement of God violates the first amendment. Such a position is untenable when held up to the facts and the history of our nation. To seriously hold such a position requires that we overthrow a hundred and fifty years of legislation as unconstitutional.

You could also believe that, while the Constitution hasn't changed, the style of interpretation of it has changed over time. Which, surely, is something the Founders could have anticipated and prohibited (if they had felt it was necessary)?

If you accepted this third interpretation, though, you'd have to also accept that interpretation is a matter of opinion, and that preference for one style of interpretation (that accepts references to God) over another (that doesn't) is also a matter of opinion. This would, in turn, mean citation of one style as justification that the other is invalid is self-defeating, so the whole argument would boil down to what it's really all about anyway, which is a battle not between Christians and Godless heathens, but between a certain type of proselytising Christian who sees everything, even the Constitution, as a vehicle for further proselytising, and everyone else (including many Christians) who see some areas of life - specifically government - the law and education as off-limits.


No, it just requires the removal of specific Christian references.
But even if it does require total overthrow, so what?
Would the America disappear in a puff of Constitutional logic if treaty XYZ with country 123 were renegotiated to talk about minority religious persecution per se, or even persecution of all kinds, based on any criterion explicitly referred to in (say) the Universal Declaration of Huamn Rights?

I don't think it's an either/or situation. I think it has much more to do with cultural paradigms than incompetence or current misinterpretation. The assumption of Christianity was like the assumption of discrimination - sadly, most people simply didn't think about it. Were all the judges who upheld Jim Crow laws imcompetent? I highly doubt it. They were operating within a paradigm that made sense to them. That doesn't make those judges right, but it does offer a third option to your two - an option I believe more likely.

Just to show how little people really are concerned with 'Gods laws' except when useful to their politics:

'
http://www.sabbath.org/

I suppose if the human Emperor Constantine can change Gods law, then christians must believe that Gods law can be changed by regular humans, then I/we can change Gods law too. Unless only Emperors can do it?

I just cannot see why people of faith think its so important to have everyone besides themselves continuously barraged by their faith? and have it so public? Of what matter is it? Is the faithso fragile? Why do we need monuments to God everywhere but in homes and churches? Is there fear of some godless society?
Then what of the Master Planner? What of the Rapture? All good god fearing souls will go to heaven and leave the rest of us down here to suffer. Are monuments going to change that? Please tell me WHAT is the Stake or fear of NOT having God on our money (ludicrous when you think of Jesus's teachings,) or in a pledge to the United States? Its not as if anyone but the faithful, especially the kids growing up these days actually fear god as in the olden days. They fear a future of poverty, or war or no place for them, or lack of sufficent video games and Itunes to get them through the day. All this is handled within the family, not by the government or by the schools.

That said, if it gets to the Supremes they will not strike down 'under god' for not only precident but general upset and rioting in the streets.
All faiths are strong in America. In my mind that should be enough to keep the Christian hoards happy for some time. Then again, it seems they will never be happy until every house has a big illuminated cross on the roof, corporate greed is sanctified, we have burned every book, movie and magazine with any suggestion of sex or the occult and every third world country explodes from over-population and AIDS. Oh, and Rock, Rap and Hip Hop are permanently outlawed, homosexuals exiled to....somewhere- along with single mothers and prostitutes.
Each and every child begins their day with "Our Father who art in Heaven....."

I thought Id add this for a little bit of Spice:


Yes, God continues to bring us joy, or is it humans who screw it up and politisize it for the worse?
SO-For the good of ALL it would and should be relegated to personal choice, not government sanction, but total neutrality.

Is the Pledge of Allegiance a patriotic exercise, or a religious affirmation? Why?
Even with the words 'under god', it's more a rote patriotic recitation than anything nearing a religious affirmation. This observation coming from a devout agnostic. My daughters will learn it just as they will learn the national anthem, as is my desire, but I am not concerned whether or not they recite it in school or not. I said it in school and I am neither a fascist nor a religious zealot.
Aside from the fact that this is currently in the news and columnists and pundits have material to ensure continued employment, I cannot for the blasted life of me understand how anyone can get their knickers in a twist over the constitutionality of the pledge, when your government oversteps it's constitutional bounds daily and rapes your paycheck like a Sicilian mob boss.

Will this case make it to the Supreme Court? If so, how will the Court rule?
Yes, and I predict that they will overturn the oft overturned 9th Circus.

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

I think that is is just a patriotic exercise. Congress does not force someone to say the words under god. For all i care they can say under allah in their pledge of allegience. When I was in high school we never said the pledge of allegience nor did we ever say the pledge in middle school. It is the indivuals own right to recite it.



Will this case make it to the Supreme Court? If so, how will the Court rule?

It will probley go to the Supremem Court. And if memory serves me correctly, they will "shoot down" the appeals court only because this father dosent have custody.

Apologies for the context.


Actually, most of our nation's historical documents would seem to indicate that we live in a theocracy, at least based on this definition:

Wouldn't "divine guidance" explain Manifest Destiny, the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance, etc. Still looking in the Bill of Rights for that "freedom from religion" amendment...

Canada, who has the Queen on the money.
The Queen, who has the title Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
The Church of England - official state religion of that first-world nation, England.

As for progress in the rest of the world and the USA marching backwards, we'll have to agree to disagree there...at least based on my travels of the past 20+ years.

Allow me to add to the list of European countries with state religions:

Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, and more. Even France, which is supposed to be a secularist's utopia, maintains a list of state sponsered religions that it gives money to. Germany is similar. If the U.S. is marching backwards, then these countries must be in the dark ages.

Now, I'm not say the U.S. should have state sponsered religions, I hope that it doesn't. I'm just pointing out that state sponsered religion is alive and well in 'modern' Europe.

The Pledge was created by a socialist who hoped to end the fervent independence the majority of Americans felt and their disdain towards the central government itself.
The goal of the Pledge was to foster a devotion to the State itself and right up until hitler ruined it for everybody children were taught to salute the flag during recital with their arm upraised and hand out--after WWII it was switched to the hand over the heart.
The "under god" was inserted to help create a continued sense of hate towards the "godless Communists" of the Soviet union. Always useful to help maintain your power when you have a convenient enemy like the terrorist boogeymen, who replace the red menace, perpetually at the gates
It would be funny except for just how many actually fall for it.
I find it particularly amusing that those so passionate about defending the pledge are supporting an attempt to destroy the very ideas they claim to support. Somewhere Robert Bellamy is laughing his backside off.

To those who decry the loss of States rights and the ever growing death grip of Washington over your freedoms--You should re examine your support for a Pledge designed to do nothing more but make the central state the centerpeice of society.


I care not for the "under god"--the pledge itself is wrong.
We do not exist for America--America exists for us. We are sovereigns--not servants.

quarkhead, I have to respond to this one:


Surely you don't think that those who advocate allowing a non-sectarian Christian presence to remain in the public square are the moral equivalents of those who supported slavery. If so, that is a very sad and inexcusable position to hold. Remember, the Constitution has been amended to correct the mistakes of our forefathers, giving all Americans full personhood and the right to vote. So, if you really think Christianity's presense in the public square was a "mistake" of the same order, it too must be dealt with by a constitutional amendment or by legislation but not through judicial decree.

Those who have read my posts carefully will notice that I have never advocated either a position of strict religious neutrality or one promoting Christianity in the public square. I have merely cited facts which clearly show that public expression of religion does not violate the first amendment. This does not indicate whether I personally think such expression is desirable or not. In fact, I have stated several times that in a country with growing religious pluralism a good case for strict religious neutrality can be made, and I respect many of those who advocate that position. It is not the "end" that you are striving for that I am arguing against, it is the "means" by which you seek to reach that "end". The facts are inarguable, and they clearly show that it is not a violation of the first amendment to have religion in the public square. I don't respect people who think that the ends justify the means and are willing to use an illegitimate means to reach a goal of religious neutrality, regardless of how noble that goal may be.

In the 1940's, advocates of strict religious neutrality knew that convincing the country to reject prayer and Bible reading in schools would be a difficult task so they looked to subvert the democratic process. Instead of using the American free market place of ideas to convince others of their position, they chose instead to seek aid from sympathetic judges willing to sell out the constitution for personal agendas; such men as Hugo Black, a Supreme Court justice who had an affiliation with the KKK and a strong anti-Catholic bias, which blinded him to the text of the Constitution and over a hundred and fifty years of precedent and allowed him to create a whole new interpretation of the first amendment which stands to this day.

Those of you who desire strict religious neutrality would be much better respected if you would use the free market place of ideas to explain to your neighbors why you believe "Under God" is inappropriate in the pledge, and why that small cross on the Los Angeles county seal should be removed permanently, and why Ten Commandments should not be displayed in public, etc. rather than demonizing those who take a different position. Again, I have stated that strong arguments can be made advocating your point of view. However, in light of some of the outrageous statements that have been made for purposes of demonizing people on the other side, I have to point out that they have equally strong arguments as well. I know good people on both sides of this debate. Normally I would avoid even responding to such outrageous statements, but in today's society extremist opinions that are not responded to often begin slipping into the mainstream unnoticed:


Artemise, to suggest that Christians won't be happy until every third-world nation "explodes from over-population and AIDS" is at best a very ignorant statement, considering that Christian charities provide more assistance to African nations than all other charities combined (religious or otherwise). In fact, Christian teaching is designed to discourage the kind of rampant promiscuity that causes the two problems you cite. It's also inaccurate to say that Christians want to see homosexuals, single mothers, and prostitutes exiled. Remember, Jesus saved the prostitute's life from those who would have stoned her and then He left her with the words, "Go and sin no more". Desiring for a person to be delivered both from the hands of self-righteous judgementalists and from their own sins is a very loving position indeed. A Christian is one who follows Jesus Christ, and if you have run into people who call themselves Christian but don't follow His teachings, please don't judge the faithful by those who really are not.

Artemise, even though it's not the subject at hand I will also say to you that you are absolutely right when you say that the Sabbath is Saturday. Unfortunately, the Orthodox Jews and the early Christians quickly realized that they could not share the religious meeting places on Sabbath and since Christians were in the minority, they had to concede. So the early Christians began treating the Lord's Day or Sunday, which is the day on which the Resurrection occurred, as their day of worship. As you so rightly stated, Constantine established the Sunday Sabbath in law for the infant Roman Catholic Church and it has remained that way ever since. However, even some Christians today observe a Saturday Sabbath (Seventh Day Adventists, for example). I only cited the Sabbath example to show that Congress was altering policy due to religious considerations and that such action didn't violate the first amendment.

So, to make myself absolutely clear to anyone concerned, I think that there are good arguments on both sides of this debate and I am only saying that using a misinterpretation of the first amendment to sidestep democracy is a reprehensible way of achieving your goals. Lets all agree that the courts have no business deciding what constitutes appropriate religious expression. They only must ensure that Congress makes no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof as the Constitution states. The Judiciary must leave the rest up to the democratic process. For those supporting a public square devoid of religious expression, it may be a harder road to take using the free market place of ideas to convince your fellow Americans that you are right while avoiding the short-cut of illegitimate judicial decree; but I promise it is a better road that will cause less division in the long run and is best for our country and all of its people.

The Pledge of Allegiance would both be a patriotic exercise, and a religious affirmation. It is a open affirmation about how Christian God is above anything else, and this God is the leader of the people of United States. (Theocracy once again).

If it was any other country, it would be considered a breach against your constitution, but i do not know if it actually would win it in United States, as its very important for the goverment to combine God with the people of United States. But hopefully, the court would say its Unconstitutional, because it is. Nothing to debate here.

Eric- It makes no mention of a "christian" God. It has been recited with the phrase "under God" for half a century. No one is required to say the Pledge at all let alone those two words.

I think this kind of constitutional challenge crosses the line into fanatacism.

Incorrect. it specifies the god as God (Capital G). This refer to it as the Christian God.*




Dont be ridiculous Hayleyanne, you know as anyone else that any youth (kid) in school refusing to say the pledge would be punished in open one way or another. If not direct, indirect.



*Added: The "under God" clause was also added during the 1950's to show does "evil godless communists" that United States was a country under God (Christian one nonedeless.

I have never heard of God (capital G) meaning specifically the Christian god. Where are you getting that from.

I know that the phrase was added in the 1950s, that is why I said, half a century ago.

As far as the peer pressure issue goes-- That is life. People are guaranteed their rights by the government, but the government can't insure that they exercise their rights.

Think about the flip side of the issue. Our constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise one's religion. Where is the protection from peer pressure, should a child desire to add "under God" to the Pledge. Similarly, some religions, like Jehovah's Witnesses, will not say the Pledge at all. Where is the protection from peer pressure for those young children, whose religion forbids them from saying it at all?

Well, I think we all agree that Hitler kind of ruined the Roman salute for everybody...

I doubt that the millions of Jews, Catholics, Adventist-Reformists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Orthodox Christians who suffered and died in the Soviet gulags, or were forcibly exiled from their homes into special settlements would appreciate your "scare quotes" around the words godless communists. For you to belittle the anti-religious nature of communism is to ignore history.


Even funnier when the terrorist boogeyman kills 3000 people in one day, no? How about the terrorists boogeymen we caught in California with the explosives. Busted a gut when I heard that one. I find Zarquawi particularly hilarious. It's all in his delivery.

Our government is based upon three branches of government. These three have checks and balances upon each other. The judicial branch limits what government can do based upon the constitution. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution and it limits what government can do in regards to individual rights.

The language in the Constitution is not always clear. We have a Supreme Court, as imperfect as it may be, to interpret the intent of the Constitution. It is not a reach to interpret that the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment mean to limit the intrusion of religion upon individuals via government. The First Amendment limits the establishment of religion by the federal government and those limitations are extended to state government by the Fourteenth Amendment.

If the federal government and state government are limited by the Constitution, certainly School Boards are also.

God is a religious figure. He is not a patriotic figure. God is being introduced by government via public schools. It should not be permitted