From the Washington Post.


We have discussed this here before.

Questions for Debate:
Is the Pledge of Allegiance a patriotic exercise, or a religious affirmation? Why?
Will this case make it to the Supreme Court? If so, how will the Court rule?

I can't predict how the Supreme Court will rule -- but I hope that if the case DOES make it there, they rule that the words "under God" be removed from the Pledge. I learned it with "under God" included in my grade-school days, but there are a number of people older than me (40) who learned it just as well without those two words that can be so divisive.

For the record, I am a Christian. But I am not living in a theocracy, nor do I want to.

EDITED TO ADD that with the words "under God" included, the Pledge becomes something of a quasi-religious affirmation -- enough to make me uncomfortable about it. It SHOULD be a patriotic exercise.

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

I believe the pledge is designed to be a patriotic exercise. It also requires that pledger to utter the words "under god" in the pledge.



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

I would think this case would make it back to the Supreme Court. It is a hot political issue and is overwhelmingly supported by the general public. This is great cannon fodder for those who believe in activist judges who are trying to force their will on the people.

I believe the court will support the pledge as it exists and be roundly applauded for its sanity on this issue.

We have two choices. We can confirm Roberts and get another conservative on the court and inject some common sense into our system and reject this nonsense.

Or, we can cater to the ACLU and the 9th circuit, and replace the phrase "under God" with "using condoms".

The 9th circuit, to my view, is most often not part of the United States. I don't know exactly who they represent now that the USSR is no more.

Neither. You aren't patriotic because you say the Pledge and you aren't more religious because you say "under God". The pledge is made of words...that's it. It's a unnecessary part of a high school student's day meant to make him/her appreciate the country. It's a monumental waste of time. Having said that...there is nothing unConstitutional about the Pledge. Having someone SAY "under God" in a public school does not mean that the government is trying to "establish" a religion.

God I hope not but God I think so. Assuming Roberts and Joe Conservative Next Justice get confirmed, the Conservatives will leave the Pledge as it is...And I won't lose any sleep over it.

CP

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

As it’s written now, it’s both. I was one of those people who learned it without the phrase “under god.” Those words were added in 1954, after:



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

Quite frankly I could care less what the Knights of Columbus want or wanted.

With all of our problems with Katrina, the war in Iraq, a possible housing bubble, the pending Senate vote on stem cell research, the possible bankruptcy of two major airlines, the hearings John Roberts and the appointment and hearings on Sandra Day O’Connor’s new replacement, we have a full plate without worrying about the pledge.

With the words “under god” I think it is a quasi-religious exercise. Minus those words, it is a rote useless waste of school time. I think it’s at best a secondary issue, but I also think unconstitutional with the words “under god” included. I support their removal.

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

Cases take time to get to the United State Supreme Court. I don’t think we can answer this question. The case is now in a federal district court and would have to pass through the appellate courts before the USSC justices decides whether or not they wish to hear it. By that time the Court will have at least two new justices.

BTW: I am neither an atheist or theist, but an agnostic. I hedge my bets. Several years ago we were required to do the pledge every morning with kids with IQ's as low as the single digits and as high as about 50. Most of them couldn't pronounce the words, and none of them had any idea what it meant. Still we were required to recite it. It was, in fact a problem, getting some the kids, including some wheelchairs, turned around so that they were facing the flag. I had a teaching assistant that noticed that I omitted the words "under god" when we said the pledge. She asked me why I didn't say them and I simply told her I didn't want to. Somehow, I've never had any impulse to explain myself to someone who asks an intrusive question.

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

Patriotic. The reference to God in the pledge is a reference to the permanence of our fundamental rights. Man cannot take away that which God has given. It's a good principle and should remain in the pledge.

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

Considering that the last case made it could be a sign that this one has a chance. I am hopeful, however, that the new and improved supreme court will uphold the pledge as it currently stands.

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

Without a doubt -- a patriotic exercise.


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

The case will likely make it to the Supreme Court because the circuits are split on the issue -- with the 9th circuit taking the rogue view that it is unconstitutional. The Supremes need to resolve it once and for all. It is a silly issue and I think it is ridiculous to think that our religion clause is meant to forbid the pledge.

I would think that the words "under God" would be under review and not the pledge in its entirety.


But I probably have similar feelings to you about this for different reasons. I wish this wasn't in a court room because I don't think that our secular based government hangs in the balance because of these words that were added to the pledge in 1954.

It also is great fuel for people who like a good straw man to bash all liberals with.

True Eeyore. It is the phrase "under God" that would be under review. And I totally agree that it has the potential to be used to "bash" liberals. What angers people like me about this case, is that it seems to go after religion in an instance where, as you say, the secular nature of the government is not being threatened. It certainly doesn't help that the man behind it is Newdow-- who appears to be a bit unstable himself and seems to have some kind of personal agenda to root out all mention of religion in any government context.

I voted other but not because I think the clause is constitutional. (How would we feel if the clause was "under Krishna" or even "under Allah"?) However, the issue is one that has been compromised by court rulings that no one can be forced to say the pledge and that should be sufficient relief until and unless the Congress reconsiders. With issues of war, plutocracy, and militarism that have the republic hanging in the balance (to say nothing of unaddressed issues that threaten our very survival), I'm would like to let this sleeping irritant go unscratched!

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

I think the way it's set up now it can be view as both. It's definitely a patriotic exercise, and as CP points out, a rather useless and time wasting one. It could also be seen as a religious affirmation due to the "under god" part. But this type of nit-picking for establishment clause stuff is wothless. I'm agnostic and I always get a tingling feeling when I feel the establishment clause line is being crossed, but this doesn't bother me in the least. To me this is a technicality not worth considering. If we take out "under god" in the Pledge, what about "In God we Trust" on ALL United States money? Is that Newdow's next goal? Somethings are worth fighting for, and somethings are worth letting go.

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

I don't know, but if the Pledge gets changed back to it's origional way without the God part then great (that's seems like what would happen in any case and I think would be a fine outcome). But if that doesn't happen then no big deal.

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

As of now, both. I selected "Other" in the poll, since I view the pledge of allegiance as ConservPat views it: as a monumental waste of time. Arguing over its constitutionality is also a waste of time. Still, our country can handle the multitasking, and I'm sure the Supreme Court will want to accept this case in order to set the record straight.

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

They will vote that the pledge is not unconstitutional, although I will disagree with their decision. I don't believe children should be required to say the pledge (in fact, I don't think they should be saying it at all). But I also recognize that children can be cruel towards those they view as different, even when it comes down to something as simple as not reciting the pledge along with all the other students. It becomes a bit of a challenge whether to view this as something worth arguing over. Since it has been brought before the courts, they should strike "under God" from the pledge, returning it to its original state pre-1954. Maybe it's just me, but I find it laughable to precede the phrase "indivisible" with something as divisive as "under God".

The pledge of allegiance, as it stands, is not an endorsement of religion by government, since the pledge holds no legal authority. Refusing to abide by the pledge will not get you thrown in jail. It is ridiculous, but the only way around this is to eliminate the two controversial words. It can not be argued that God is an all-encompassing term since the basis for which it was added to the pledge was pushed by the Catholic group Knights of Columbus, using fear of atheistic communists as a means to an end. Therefore, it is intrinsically biased against atheists from the start.

I am not an atheist, nor do I believe in God. I do not know, so I opt out of passing judgment either way. If we are going to require children to recite the pledge of allegiance in schools, it is definitely unconstitutional. I remember having to say the pledge every morning. One day, I didn't feel like it. I got my name on the board with a check by it from the teacher for what was considered "poor behavior". This was the extent of punishment, which was negligible, but that I was actually punished for it is absurd. Maybe if I had cared more, I would have fought that one.

I agree with the 9th Circuit Court's decision, in which the judge's opinion was intelligent and well-reasoned. But if this is going to keep becoming an issue, the Supreme Court should simply strike the two words from the pledge. The removal of the words "under God" do not represent a promotion of atheism or any other religious value, since the resulting pledge would be secular in nature. This is, ultimately, the proper course. I doubt the U.S. Supreme Court will see this the way I do, but then again, I think it's a huge waste of resources to even bother fighting this in court.

*edited for clarity purposes*

1. Purely patriotic. I think that the current policy, which is in my school now, is once a week, optional, is fine. You get to see the people that say it and don't say it. I think that the people who don't say it because they are truly atheist, etc. ought to find their own modified pledge. If they refuse to submit to the US by saying "The Pledge of Allegiance", then they shouldn't live in the US. If you don't love your country enough to die to protect it, then go to another country. I am an atheist/agnostic, I certainly don't have a problem with saying a pledge TO MY COUNTRY that has the word "God" in it. I know that the people who make up the government are religious, and the people that created the US were religious. Those religions were moral foundations, and everyone has a moral foundation. So just because someone has a different moral foundation, this isn't about "God", it's really about moral foundations, means this lawsuit-happy guy just isn't tolerant of other moral foundations. I am extremely tolerant until the moral foundation includes disrespecting the US. I really want to ask this person if they would die to protect the US.

2. This is like asking a dentist how to cure epilepsy. I haven't even finished 10th grade yet. This question is definetely for lawyers...

If you really think children are being oppressed due to reciting the pledge (when did that happen? Back in the 60's or something?) against their volition, religion is being forced down our throats by pledging allegiance to the country that gives you 24 hour news channels, and making you squirm because you think 80% of the world is delusional, then why stop with the pledge?

Shouldn't we renounce our independence? After all, the Declaration of Independence starts with:


How about the Emancipation Proclamation?


My point is, the country was founded on Christian values whether you believe/like it or not. You may believe 80% of your fellow citizens are delusional, but you are in the minority. The pledge says nothing about pledging to God, Allah, or Mickey Mouse. It pledges to a country, emboldened by the goodness of an ideal, and attempts to hold us to a moral value where no other symbol really exists.

One cynical bitter person is fighting a personal battle with his demons at our expense. The Supremes will take this case and instead of punting, set this ruling on it's head where it belongs. The Bill Of Rights has never said anything about separating the church and state:

That's all it says. It's morphed into every agnostic's wet dream. I believe the Supremes will show that there is nothing in the pledge that establishes any religion or belief because God is simply a sign of our values.

Truth be known, I doubt the judge in this case really believes any of this hogwash. He saw a precedent, followed it because he doesn't want to be considered an activist judge, and knew someone else would have the final say. In other words, HE punted it and had no other way to do it. So he kicked it upstairs for all intents and purposes.

I want to draw your attention to the part of this post I have italicized. Do you really feel that "submit" is the best word? And then - "If you don't love your country enough to die to protect it, then go to another country." Our country was founded on certain ideals. Those ideals included respecting minority views. In my opinion, what makes this country a grand experiment is precisely that groups like the Amish and the Quakers can live here without fear of persecution. Those are two religious groups who do not join the armed services. In the case of the Amish, they live their lives very separated from the "English" world. Are you saying that because they refuse to die protecting the US that they should be kicked out?



But it doesn't say "one nation under a moral foundation," it says "one nation under God." Conservatives who complain that liberals often use a broad-based interpretation of the Constitution, are taking what they deride as the liberal activist view here - that "under God" is somehow a broad meaning term, non-specific. But it's not. It's two words. Under. God.

We live in a secular society. The United States does not have an official religion. The religion of the founders is irrelevant. The first amendment is clear. "One nation, under God" clearly states something contrary to the first amendment.

And liberals that use the argument "it doesn't bother me, so why change it" are using the wrong measure for this issue. Declaring our nation is one under God violates the first amendment of the Constitution.



Unlike my colleague lordhelmet, I believe that a plurality of views is EXACTLY what makes America a great country. I can't think of many things that he and I agree on - but I don't think he is not a part of the great plurality of visions which comprises this country. The 9th Circuit Court is liberal. His suggestion that liberals are not a part of the US, and that the ACLU (and again, by extension, liberals) would rather have "using condoms" than "under God" is reprehensible and highly unconducive to civil debate. Even so, even though I might think he is as wrong as it is possible to be, I still count him as an American. Because America, at its essence, is the place where such debate is allowed. Where all views have a voice.

I think that if he does some careful reading of history, lordhelmet will find that, even prior to the breakdown of the Soviet Union, the 9th Circuit Court was never representing that nation. I'm not sure where he does his research...

Saying "under God" in our national pledge of allegiance is going against the plurality of ideals that defines our great nation. It is also going against the language explicit in the first amendment. Does it 'bother me?' No. Do I find it offensive? No. But I do think the court is correct in calling it unconstitutional.

This is yet another case that gives lie to the myth of conservatives as "constructionist" and liberals as "activist."

I'll admit that I was struggling with the word as I typed. It truly is a statement saying to your country that you will fight for it to protect it and the ideals it follows. That's why I am very pro-Iraq/Afghanistan war: because (of course this is my opinion) I think that it protects America, it preserves freedom, and it makes Americans safer. I'm sure no person in the military would forego "The Pledge of Allegiance".



This is my religious disclaimer. If you are really against the Pledge for religious reasons, then you have no obligation to say it. I have a problem with the people that live in the US, and oppose the US's actions so much that they won't say the Pledge. I mean, if you hate America, then why do you live here and not somewhere where the grass is greener, as the adage goes (but you won't find a better country than the US, please, please tell me, quarkhead, that you agree with that). I'd hope that the Amish and the Quakers would agree with that also, because the US is probably the most nurturing country for their religions. So, if you were going to devote yourself to any country, religion-biased or not, wouldn't you want it to be the best one?



I think that this would only be unconstitutional if they punished you for not saying it. Since it is optional, there is definetely not a Constitutional infringement. I would be horrified if this man stopped the option of saying "The Pledge of Allegiance" in public schools. Would you? If he did, he would probably try to stop kids praying by themselves in school as well. Pray before a test? Suspended. Accidently say "I swear to God..."? $150,000 fine.

Plus, the Pledge is very short about those words. If the Pledge theoretically said something like "By the religious values of Christianity," I'd see a problem. Church/state is always a paranoid subject. Someone always says "Uh-oh, the president's going to church. Impeach him." If the president said, "Anyone who doesn't go to a Christian church next Sunday will be deported." There is where they are connected.

Not to get too off topic here, but I just wanted to address this. A person can hate everything, and I mean everything about America, and still want to stay. Why? Because they have the ability to voice their opinion freely, without persecution, and have the ability to try to change what they don't like. That is one reason people may live in America who don't like it. I assume you're talking about people who dislike some things that have been done in the last few years (ie. Iraq/Afgahnistan) and people who protests (ie. Cindy Sheehan) but they are exactly what makes this society great, as quarkhead pointed out. Opposing views and ideas creates a society unlike many as you know. So, just because someone is opposed to most, or even all things in America today that doesn't mean they're not trying to change it so they can have an America they'll be proud of tomorrow. I'm not sure about Quark, but I can say that I feel America is the best country, maybe not by much, but as of now it's the best.



I could not have said it better myself. I think a simple test could tell you whether or not the word "God" in the Pledge was broad based or not. If you go out and ask 100 people randomly on the street (this is a non-scientific study, sorry I don't have the time to make up a great random sample method to study the entire population) what the term "God" means to them or "Under God" I am confident they will say something about their religion/Christianity/faith/Jesus/ect. By this I'm trying to point out that the term "God" does not mean a broad all encompassing idea of faith as might be interpreted. What it means is what the population defines it as. If I call a guitar a six-string no big deal, but if I call a car a truck then there's problems. People have decided the word car means something in our society and truck means something different. Likewise the word "God," or phrase "under God," mean something too, and I would bet people give it a Christian connotation.

Ugh. I don't know where to begin sorting out this mess. I guess I'll start from the top.

This topic has nothing to do with the Iraq War or the military, so let's not bring them into it. It will only complicate things.

Emphasis mine

This is the complete opposite sentiment that should be held by every American. America was founded on principles of a republic, not a majority-rules democracy. The purpose of this was to create a place where people could live without fear of governmental tyranny. When something is not as someone feels it should, they either attempt to get a law passed or ask the judicial system to rule on it. It is that fluidity that keeps our nation great. So even when I think President Bush is a complete idiot and our involvement in Iraq is a disaster that will forever alter our nation's credibility with the world, I know we can change it from within. We don't have to pick up and leave if we don't want to. I love this country too much to abandon it, frankly. Even when I see it heading in a direction that I fear will lead to totalitarianism (or, worse still, fascism), I know that if things ever get out of control, there are balances to correct our country's flaws.


This is a common fallacious argument with no bearing on reality. Nobody, including Michael Newdow, is saying people shouldn't pray in school. The problem is when the school mandates prayer. Allowing a moment of silence for personal reflection or prayer is fine, but praying over the intercom is not.

The First Amendment is designed to protect citizens from a government imposing religion on them. The verbage here has been determined to imply that personal religious values are fine, as long as they remain personal. Once they push past the personal and start to involve themselves in the lives of others, it becomes questionable. Once the government starts passing laws and mottos and monetary bills which contain religious words, it becomes unconstitutional. Yes, "In God We Trust" emblazened on every quarter and dollar bill is unconstitutional, but I highly doubt that will ever be changed now. I don't really care myself (except that I find it humorously ironic that the name of God is placed on something so material as money).


Every President has been Christian, and none has ever been impeached due to religious values. The President still maintains the rights granted by the Constitution, including the right to personally display his/her religious values. We hear President Bush mention God in his speeches, but nobody says it is unconstitutional, because they are his values. The problem only arises when government (and governmental institutions, such as public schools) become playgrounds for espousing particular religious ideologies. The pledge endorses a particular God, which makes it a violation of our First Amendment. But like I said before, the pledge is not a governing document, so it definitely blurs the boundaries. I personally find it reprehensible that a pledge of allegiance to our country contains any religious phrases at all. The pledge has nothing to do with religion whatsoever, and "under God" is inappropriate.

Lastly, I want to state that religion is a private matter and should remain one. Putting it in courthouses, schools, capitols, etc., seems to be an affront to what religion means. It's not something to be waved around like a flag or tacked onto the bumper of a car to show to everyone else that you believe in something. Because government is an inherently flawed institution, I always wonder about these people who find no trouble putting Ten Commandment monuments on courthouse properties. Isn't that cheapening the sanctity of it? But that's another topic really...

*edited for formatting mistakes*

The Pedge itself is fine, but what about "Under God?"

I suppose that depends on were it originates. Determining how it got put in can give all of us a better understanding of the intent behind the words.

History of Pledge

According to the oaths history, a group called the knights of columbus added in two words during 1954.

Knights of Columbus

So, that pretty much settles the intent. A religious group wanted a religious phrase added into the pledge of allegiance (Which, by the way, advocates a pro-life position.).

Therefore, I'm going to make the call here that a school supporting the phrase of a Catholic group is unconstitutional. No government institution should incorporate the dictation of any religious group within its daily practices.

I personally support the exemption of this phrase on patriotic grounds. The pledge of allegiance should be restored to the way it historically had been, before it had been tampered with by outside political groups.

Otherwise, its a silly thing to waste time on.

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

The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic exercise. As such, it should be returned to it's original form -- sans "under God". I don't see why it was inserted in the first place. Just put it back the way it was. No big deal.

Quarkhead-- you are demonstrating exactly what you call the "myth" of liberal activism on the Court when you state that the phrase : "under God" goes against the language explicit in the first amendment. In fact, such a reading of the first amendment's prohibition that the state shall not "establish" a religion, is precisely the kind of liberal activism that many find offensive. The first amendment says nothing about a general reference to a supreme power. As you well know, such references are abundant in our government -- and have been for centuries. Your assertion that the phrase is unconstitutional based on the language of the first amendment represents an extremely broad reading of the amendment-- in short a liberal activist reading.

Good Morning QH, it's been a while since I've debated on AD, and love to return to a patriotic subject.

While I agree that plurality (your fav word on this post) is important, I believe that the pledge of allegiance in schools does not specifically encourage or prohibit religious doctrine of any particular form. Consider that "one nation, under God" does not ever specifically mention which God. This could apply to Judeo-Christian ideals, Muslim faiths, etc. Gods were used in Mythologies and the term is used in numerous applications. The pledge, however, never forces school children to believe (or consequently not to believe).

QH, saying that liberals are not activists is like saying Rush is not a zealot. Haleyanne points this out very eloquently, but the point is that the first Amendment doesn't specifically prohibit the allusion to a non-specific higher power. In this case, the Court is arguing that "under God" is the point of contention... well, are the children forced to say it?Of course not. What if we simply removed that phrase? Was this case attempting to remove the phrase, or the patriotic notion of pledging allegiance to the United States? I hate to sound like Ann Coulter, but this just makes me feel that sometimes liberals really do hate America or at least what really makes me feel "American". (not up for debate... that horse has been beaten)

Consider that if the case had been to "remove God from the Pledge", the opinion would be starkly different. Many years ago, public schools stopped forcing children to recite the pledge, and recently they quit forcing them to even stand up.

What's next, are we going to stop raising the flag? Will soldiers not be forced to salute the flag? Where does it end? No more star spangled banner at ball games? I feel like the Left in America really is attempting to carve up or partition America. We're in the middle of a national disaster, a gas crisis, and are at war. Yet, the Court in California is outlawing the pledge of allegiance?

Consider that there are millions of men that came before us, that fought on foreign shores to ensure our freedom. Consider that (regardless of your war opinion) there are men and women fighting for their country right now, and we're attempting to wash an affirmation of patriotism out of schools?

Ponder what the pledge is really saying... "I pledge Allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America"... is that such a bad thing? Seriously liberals, at what point does this bickering cease? Have you all run out of legitimate issues to chase? Are there no more civil rights violations? Are there no more down-trodden minorities to pander to? When we have children, I pray that America will be done with this incessant squabbling over these inconsequential details.

To be more specific the amendment states that Congress cannot make a law "respecting an establishment (noun) of religion"


I do believe that passing the law altering the pledge of allegiance, which as BecomingHuman clearly pointed out involved respect to a particular religious group was unconstitutional and the pledge should revert to it's original form.

I think if you look back at most of the posts in this topic most people will agree that this isn't an important issue, especially when compared to anything current that's happening. Most people are either not bothered by it or think it should just be returned to the way it was.











In the end it seems that no one is advocating the removal of the pledge, but just the removal of the words "under God," and even that doesn't seem to hold much interest, to most.

Aevans



Actually, it does state which god by making the word God, instead of god. There is only one god named God, the Christian god. And even if you wanted to extend "God" to muslims and jews, due the the fact all three worship the same god, it still specifically mentions the god of Abram. So out goes your non-specific argument.

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

It can be a patriotic exercise, but it is a religious affirmation.

Some one saying the pledge may or may not feel patriotic. The words "under God" affirms that God exists and our nation resides under God.

The Pledge of Allegiance was intended to encourage good citizenship and patriotism. In its original form, no one can really argue with that. What we are dealing with today is the legacy of the 1954 Congressional Act that changed it.

What was the intent and purpose of the 1954 Government Act to add the words "Under God?"

Was it a secular purpose?

Or was the purpose religious and political in nature?

The legislative history of the 1954 act states that its purpose was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon... the Creator..." And said President Eisenhower, who led the movement after hearing a sermon at his Presbyterian Church urging that the pledge be changed, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." All of this happened against the backdrop of McCarthyism and the struggle of America versus "Godless Communism."

Would anyone who is confident that the 1954 act was constitutional, be interested in explaining why the act was done for secular purposes, rather than for religious and political purposes?

I have to agree with you here. I don't think that there is any question that by "God" our founders meant the God of Abraham - shared by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Similarly, in the Signature of the Constitution, we see a clear reference to "our Lord." I don't think that there is any question who the Lord is in this context, given the years since his birth is referenced.
Which makes me wonder, does the Constitution violate the Constitution, at least according to the Ninth Circuit?

You're equivocating here...

Merely referring to the time standard AD (anno domini) in its English translation is not, in and of itself, a religious act. Until the "Common Era" system arrived (A.C.E) it was the only way a date was recorded in the West.

"Under God" however had an expressly religious purpose and was not merely a lingual standard. This is borne out by the fact that it wasn't in the original pledge.

No it doesn't Quark, come on. Having someone SAY the word God in public school is not the same thing as ESTABLISHING a religion. Saying God doesn't make you Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish or Buddist or anything, saying God makes you someone who says "God", that's all. I have yet to see an argument that is convincing that starts with the premise, "saying God in a public school means that the government is establishing a religion." And until I do, I'm convinced that there is no first amendment violation here.

CP

You should look more carefully at the first amendment. It does not say "Congress cannot establish a religion" it says.

Congress shall make "no law respecting [ie concerning] an establishment(noun) of religion."

The law that changed the pledge was driven by a religious establishment for the express purpose of injecting religion into the pledge. That goes against the letter and spirit of the first amendment.

I understand....And if you can point out how saying God in school even helps establish a state religion, I'd be happy to consider it a violation of the Constitution. Saying God doesn't "concern" the establishment of a State religion. I can understand how this point can be taken in say a case like the 10 Commandments in a public school or place. But "God" doesn't belong to any one religion. Every religion uses the word "God" in some way shape or form.

CP

In my opinion the words "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. It should not have been changed to include them in the first place. As for the "In God We Trust" that appears on money ... well, I'm not even going there. If our country can get its knickers in a twist about simple phraseology, edited to remove profanity

Every god has a corresponding religion, but not every religion has a god. Jainism is such a religion and there are others.

Now here is my question. If saying God affirms there is a God and every god has a corresponding religion, how does affirming God not respect the establishment of certain religions??

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


The Pledge is a patriotic exercise and a religious affirmation. It is also an oath.

For some it is profound. I do not think it is should be constitutional to require minors to make a pledge, or an oath. It falls under the concept of freedom of speech. Government should not require people to think a certain way.

For some it is meaningless. I see no advantage to teach minors that words they say have no importance. Why should we be teaching children to say profound things and not mean it? This point is not a constitutional issue but worth mentioning. We should be encouraging minors to think about what they say and to be truthful.

The phrase 'under God' does refer to religion. Government should be neutral in regards to religion. The language used in the First Amendment demonstrates that intent and it has been extended via the Fourteen Amendment to include all levels of government.

Constitutionally, the wall of separation between church and state has been inexact and shaky. The Supreme Courts has been inconsistent on this issue and continues to be to this day( I am specifically thinking of the recent rulings on the Ten Commandment issues.)

DaytonRocker brought up the historical symbolism of religion in government. Indeed this has been a frequent argument used by members of the Supreme Court. I am one who does not think it to be a logical rationale. It is essentially avoiding the question. I believe it is one used by those who know better but do not think the citizens would accept a decision otherwise or by those who like our country to be somewhat theocratic. Clearly, our Supreme Court has changed its interpretations of the Constitution over the years. Demonstrating that at some point in our history there was not a clear separation between church and state does not mean that is the ideal. As far as history, the Pledge itself has changed.

Will this case make it to the Supreme Court? If so, how will the Court rule?
It will go to the Supreme Court. I expect the ruling to contrary or inadequate to what I would decide if I were on the Court.

------

Reading the thread thus far, I have these observations:

The strongest Constitutional argument made to support a ruling against the Pledge was exemplified by bingice and this post). He demonstrated that the Pledge can be used by fellow students to label them and judge them by their participation or lack of. The Supreme Court has been fairly consistent in its ruling in regards to schools subjecting students to prejudice via voluntary religion activities at the schools.

There are others who seem to support the concept that the right thinking sort of people wish to keep God in government and the other kind are bad.

I am disappointed and worried when people believe mixing religion and government is patriotic and to not think so is unpatriotic. Patriotism can be a dangerous thing when built upon belief systems. It is why the separation of Church and State is important. We should strive to have a government free of religious prejudice.

quarkhead's post championed the principle of our country supporting a pluralistic society. The reply to this idea has been to label quarkhead. Labels are scurrious and unAD. quarkhead's well stated ideas rise above such tactics.

While not an issue upon which our secular based government hangs in the balance, it does not have to be to be an important Constitutional issue. It is of great importance as to the ripples through our society created by acceptance or rejection of 'under God' being repeated over and over by our children in our schools. It is important. Do we wish to be a little bit theocratic? Do we wish to be a little bit prejudiced against those who do not share the same religion views as the majority ?

Establishment is a word with multiple meanings so context is key here. The constitution does say say "respecting the establishment" but "respecting an establishment".as in...

Thus any law respecting any particular religious establishment, including even referral to one god (monotheism) is barred by the first amendment.

Congress is not to make any religious laws, period.

First of all, I would like to point out that simply saying the word god in a school is not and should not be prevented. No one here argues that; students can start religious clubs or speak with other students about their beliefs for all I care.

The problem occurs when schools start incorporating religious material. As the history of this phrase shows, it was a religious phrase added in by a religious organization. Its intent was religious and therefore, its meaning is ultimately religious as well. Catholics added in this phrase to show support for their god.

As such, when the school sponsors this pledge, they are sponsoring the words of a religious organization.

I think that if you study the founder's intentions with the first amendment, it is not to eliminate all references to God in public places, especially when the subject of natural rights are being discussed. Their concern was with state sponsored religion wherein people are forced to worship and pay taxes to a faith they did not agree with. Church of England anyone? The purpose of the first amendment is to allow people to worship how, where, or what they may. The pledge of allegiance does not take that freedom away by any means.

This is a good point, and I'd agree with your interpretation of what an "establishment" is. Question - if Congress shall make no law, does that mean that a school can't require the pledge? Outside of symbolic instances, does Congress require that students say the pledge of allegiance?

There wasn't even a Department of Education until 1867, but Congress still opens its sessions with a daily prayer.

Emphasis mine.

Though I think we can all agree that this particular separation of church and state is kind of nit-picky, schools that recite this pledge (and, more to the point, the phrase "under god") as part of a typical schedule are sponsoring the words of a religious organization about their deity. The phrase's history is fairly straight forward, theres no doubt that the intent was indeed religious. Schools, by making the phrase a part of their daily routine, are indeed sponsoring the wishes of the Knight of Columbus, a Catholic charity group.

It doesn't because simply saying God does not institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement [which is the dictionary's definition of establish]. Making kids say "under God", however stupid it is, does not institue religion permanently by enactment or agreement.


As Carlito said, Congress isn't forcing anyone to say "under God".

CP

And the fact that Americans who attended public school are converting to Catholicism in record numbers is proof? Oh wait

Let's not forget that it was ultimately congress, which represents the majority of Americans, that included the words in our pledge.

Now if the words said, 'under Catholicism', or 'under the Church of America", I would have a problem with it. But a generic reference to God is not grounds for concern.

ConservPat



Agreed, it does not institute a religion, but that is not what makes it unconstituional. There is a law that mandates public schools to lead a recitation of the Pledge. Within this Pledge is wording that is shows reverence to a God. This god is part of a religion. Thereby, the law is respecting an establishment of religion. That is why it should be unconstitutional.

There is nothing unconstitutional about a kid going to school early and saying the pledge with the words "under God" in it. But once you make it public policy to acknowledge a God and affirm its existence by saying a pledge that acknowledges its existence, you went constitutionally too far.

Edited to add

DeerJerkyDave



There is nothing generic about the reference of God. God is specific.

The Sun is a star

Other planets outside our solar system may have their own sun(s), but they do not have the Sun. The Sun is a specific star, it is a specific sun, it is our sun.

Same with God. Religions have names for their gods. The Christian name for their god is God. "under gods" is generic... "under God" is very specific.

Yes, but only if Congress makes the law. If, in fact, it is a Federal law that Americans MUST say "under God" in the pledge, then yes, it's unConstitutional...I don't think that that is the case however. I could be wrong, and if I am, tell me, but I don't think that this is a Federal issue, and hence is not unConstitutional.

CP

Children converting to Catholicism is not necessecary to prove "under god" is unconstitutional.

And congress passes a number of things which the supreme court declares unconstitutional. So, this to is really besides the point. If muslims persuaded congress to pass a law that officially changed the pledge of allegiance to show support for allah, and schools incorporated that as a part of their daily routine, it also would be consider illegal for schools to institutionalize muslims support for allah in the pledge.

First, as Turnea pointed out, government institutions cannot confirm or deny the existence of any god or gods. Schools that use the phrase "Under god" are violating this principle.

Furthermore, as the history of the phrase clearly points out, this particular usage of under god isn't generic at all. As I have said several times, and which almost all my opponents in this thread seem skip over, is that the phrase "under god" was a religious expression of Catholicism. This was not added into the pledge by a consensus among religions that a generic reference to god was needed, which, by the way, is still unconstitutional. The cold facts indicate that this phrase was a project created, sold and enjoyed by Catholics.

Forcing people to say under god is not required for a school to break constitutionality. The fact that the pledge the school sponsors incorporates "under god" does.

An early draft of the 1st Amendment started out as, "No religion shall be established by law..." and later morphed into its current state, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." When you read the current definition in the context of its earlier version, it takes on a whole different meaning. I understand this to mean that congress cannot establish a state religion. If this interpretation is accurate, then the pledge is not unconstitutional.

I’m not sure rough drafts of the Bill of Rights count.

According to a history of the Pledge which I provided along with a link in post #6 says:



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

BecomingHuman reposted the same link in post #20.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=168056

While the First Amendment is about Congress, its provisions have been applied to the states by the courts through the process of incorporation. Regardless of how many times some of us point this out, some still want to ignore as if the 14th Amendment and subsequent amendments never happened.



http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html

I understand incorporation, but have the states required that children say "under God" or is it still only individual schools? Or are schools by extension "the state"?

In Fort Worth, the District in which I taught for 25 years, mandatory recitation of “The Pledge” was required by the board of education at the beginning of each of its meetings and in each individual school at the beginning of the day. In every school I’ve ever worked in “big brother’ has piped in The Pledge over the intercom using the words “under god.”

I don’t suppose anyone just has to utter the words “under god.” I didn’t and an assistant with her nose in someone else’s business asked me about it. That was fine. I was an adult and it didn’t bother me that she asked. To put it more forcefully, it wasn’t any of her damn business.

Kids are another matter. Their independence is often overshadowed by peer pressure. They have a need to belong. They are much more likely to be held up for ridicule for straying from the herd, possibly even by an insensitive and shortsighted teacher or administrator.



Again, I think this and the gay marriage issue on another thread, are both diversionary and secondary issues, the type that seem to have occupied our time in most of the 21st Century as opposed to things that are grossly more important.

I almost forgot to answer your question Carlitoswhey. Sorry!

I don't think it matters. In Texas we have independent school districts, but much of their funding comes from the states and even the federal government. The State of Texas has imposed mandated testing on local schools since 1984. The tests are written and scored by the state. Consequences for not doing well or rewards for doing well are imposed by the state. No Child Left Behind does the same thing on the federal level. So, funding and regulation are all intertwined to the point that it really doen't matter where the edict is coming from. School districts are now at best quasi-independent.

I agree with BoF that this really is a secondary issue. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state but honestly who is being harmed by the words "under God"? I think that the words should have never been put there in the first place, but now that they’ve been there for so many years I don’t see the advantage to altering the Pledge. If a person is old enough to understand the significance of the words in the Pledge and they do not agree with them, then they can just choose to not say it. If they're too young to understand concepts such as the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, etc. then they won't be offended.

In fact, becoming overly PC is a danger too. I remember that when I was in the fourth grade my teacher taught the class about Mexican culture and Los Dias de Los Muertos. Just for teaching something remotely religious she was nearly fired.

These two words do not really necessitate the Supreme Court overturning an action of Congress. Perhaps if enough people don't like "God" in the Pledge, then Congress will officially change the Pledge of Allegiance. To my understanding, it would be illegal to actually force someone to recite the Pledge so I do not see the words in it as unconstitutional. Well, actually do you have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to gain citizenship? If so, then the words “under God” should at least be optional.