The Pledge stays as it is...

[GW_in_04]

The main fact that is always trampeled on and taken out of context from the original constitution is that the pilgrims and founding fathers wanted to make sure no one church was set as the one and only one, as had been mandated in England. If they truly wanted no part of God and gov't many of the laws and letters written by them would have no mentioning of God. But they do. And so do many of the buildings they built and many of the traditions that are passed on from one generation to the next. Argue all you want about separation of church and state, but those exact words were never used back then. That is something liberal individuals and atheists have made up to support their theories. Try as hard as you want, this country WAS founded on many Christian ideas and morals. You can't take that out of our history.

 

[opus_dei]

Here you have misinterpreted the issue. Removing "under God" from the pledge would NOT be prompting the minority view. It would be to not promote the majority view. If the pledge was altered to say, "one nation under NO GOD" that would be promotion of the minority view.

The current pledge states that a god exists. Removing "under god" would simply be restoring the pledge to one that does not address the question as to whether one exists or not.

And, the fact is that the constition prohibits the government from promoting one religious view over another. The only way to do that in this case is to mot address the god issue - leave it out.

point taken on the BoR as i did misconstrue. however, to the latter establishment argument...that is a more narrowly defined definition than even the SCOUTS (which has refused to review many of the cases) and appellate courts have held of the establisment clause.

to wit:

Aronow v. US in the 9th Circuit

It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise

Madalyn Murray O'Hair, et al. v. W. Michael Blumenthal, Secretary of Treasury, et al in the 5th Circuit

From this it is easy to deduce that the Court concluded that the primary purpose of the slogan was secular; it served as secular ceremonial purpose in the obviously secular function of providing a medium of exchange. As such it is equally clear that the use of the motto on the currency or otherwise does not have a primary effect of advancing religion."

In a dismissal w/o trial when the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" sued:

"...we find that a reasonable observer, aware of the purpose, context, and history of the phrase 'In God we trust,' would not consider its use or its reproduction on U.S. currency to be an endorsement of religion

As well, referencing Lynch (below) the 10th circuit stated:

The motto's primary effect is not to advance religion; instead, it is
a form of "ceremonial deism" which through historical usage and
ubiquity cannot be reasonably understood to convey government
approval of religious belief.

ALLEGHENY COUNTY v. GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 US 573

[o]ur previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge [of allegiance], characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief."

O'Hair v. Blumenthal, 462
...the motto does not create an intimate relationship of the type that suggests unconstitutional entanglement of church and state

Lynch v. Donnelley, 465

The concept of a 'wall' of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any


Now, as we all know, in order to violate the "Establishment" clause, the suggested offense does have to pass the "Lemon Test." ie:

The Lemon test requires that, in

order to be valid under Establishment Clause, a statute must (1)

have a secular legislative purpose, (2) have a primary effect that

neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) avoid excessive

government entanglement with religion.
------------------

These are the issues that must be satisfied / overcome before a reversal of any "God" in the pledge is removed. Yes, while the rulings are generally on the national motto "in god we trust" these cases are pretty much the bellweathers when it comes to determining what violates the establishment clause.

to use a simple "1st amendment" argument is not sufficient. if you want more info, findlaw.com is a great place to start.

 

[crazyfingers]

Now, as we all know, in order to violate the "Establishment" clause, the suggested offense does have to pass the "Lemon Test." ie

The Lemon test requires that, in

order to be valid under Establishment Clause, a statute must

(1) have a secular legislative purpose,

President Eisenhower, during the Act’s signing cere-mony, stated: “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.”

That does not look like a secular purpose to me. Adding "under god" can be nothing but a religious purpose

(2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and

Teaching in public school that a monothiest god, namely the judeo-christian god, exists, advances monotheism in general and judeo-xianity in particular.

(3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion

Does not apply.

The pledge fails on 2 of the 3 counts and only one failure is needed for it to be unconsitutional.

 

[opus_dei]

Does not apply.

The pledge fails on 2 of the 3 counts and only one failure is needed for it to be unconsitutional.

as the court has not ruled on the merits, are only our opinions and irrelevant. and important note, however....pres. eisenhowers comments when he signed the bill have no relevancy in the courts as they do not have the affect / power of law. his opinion would be about as legally binding as this entire conversation.

 

[Philosoft]

as the court has not ruled on the merits, are only our opinions and irrelevant. and important note, however....pres. eisenhowers comments when he signed the bill have no relevancy in the courts as they do not have the affect / power of law. his opinion would be about as legally binding as this entire conversation.

Also note that the court can take into account just about anything it deems relevant when applying the Lemon test. I don't think they could ignore Eisenhower's words in that context.

 

[opus_dei]

Also note that the court can take into account just about anything it deems relevant when applying the Lemon test. I don't think they could ignore Eisenhower's words in that context.

quite true, as the court can consider basically whatever it wishes. but it's a pie-in-the-sky argument because, in practice, they do not.

 

[Nasreddin]

Argue all you want about separation of church and state, but those exact words were never used back then. That is something liberal individuals and atheists have made up to support their theories.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson is the author of that phrase - and he was a deist, not an atheist. Not sure if he'd be a "liberal individual" by your standards, so no comment there.

pres. eisenhowers comments when he signed the bill have no relevancy in the courts as they do not have the affect / power of law

Quite right. They do, however, give us more insight into the reasons for which the law was adopted - and I think that this is what crazyfingers was referring to. Her main points were that 1) the purpose of the law was obviously not secular, and 2) that the primary effect of the law was to advance religion. Would you disagree with either of those?

 

[opus_dei]

i think that crazyfingers is a he...lol. but i'll answer in a second.

 

[Nasreddin]

i think that crazyfingers is a he...lol.

Aagh. That's what I get for going to sleep at 4am...sorry 'bout that, CF.

 

[MysteryProf]

I think that politically speaking, SCOTUS made the best decision it could. At this point in time, any ruling would be extremely volatile, especially with a presidential election coming up.

However, as an atheist, I have to say I don't think the pledge is Constitutional. As an American, I shouldn't have to pledge loyalty to a God while pledging allegiance to my country. Even though the majority of people in America believe in God, and regardless of what the founding fathers believed, it's simply not right for the pledge, as a reflection of America itself, to pass judgement on whether or not we are indeed "under God." The Constitution was deliberately written without appealing to the divine.

I really think the argument is that simple. The best part about being an American is that we're all free to believe what we want -- and we shouldn't be forced in any way to profess otherwise.

 

[Thecla]

Hey, I'm a Christian and I have to say the atheists here are absolutely correct. It's not about individuals dismissing or accepting God, or about taking God out of our nation completely. It's a matter of discriminating, officially, between people who believe in God and people who don't by use of the pledge. No matter what religion you are, that's not in line with the American spirit.

 

[2001MustangGT]

Considering that we added "Under God" to the pledge to show those evil commies that we werent athesits like them.... How can anyone, knowing the history of this two word insertion, claim that it is NOT about professing a religious belief?

And how long until this issue comes up again in a situation where the custody of the child is not in dispute, and the only relevant issue really IS the words "Under God"?

 

[opus_dei]

OT to begin: how do you break up quotes in a post? just add the "quote" tag? as well with the quotes from two folks (very dumb here). sorry for the delay, i had to cobble this together whilst at work...i digress....

nasreddin brings up an interesting point. keep in mind that i'm not a lawyer but have been following the case quite religiously (sorry). that in mind, a couple of things:

the first question is whether or not the pledge falls under the tripart lemon test or whether it falls under one of the exceptions noted by justice o'connor in lynch v. donnelley or the rationale of marsh v. chambers that could be immediately extended to the newdow case via lynch. those two SCOTUS cases are pretty much the litums tests for these cases as they both carved instances in which religion was specifically accomadated by the gov't.

to begin we we can both agree that the 3rd part of the LT does not apply. so, let's kick that one away. the other two parts of the LT have been problematic for SCOTUS and may estab. cases have completely ignored it when the opinions were crafted.

but onto the meat and potatoes:

seeking to prove that the legislation that inserted "under God" had the primary effection of advancing religion is hard to prove. How can it be proven the inclusion of the words "Under God," has had the primary effect of advancing religion? Has it led to an influx of converts to a particular religion after reciting the pledge?

the argument that this is a state's endorsment of faith in a single surpreme diety is, of course, valid. however, there are instances (marsh v. chambers) when the state is totally within constitutional bounds to acknowledge and call upon "divine aid" the phrase "under God" is rather ambiguous, does not establish a national religion and does not establish a preference for a specific religion.

in addition, to extend the "marsh" logic, in lynch o'connor in her concurrence wrote:

.....government declaration of Thanksgiving as a public holiday, printing of "In God We Trust" on coins, and opening court sessions with "God save the United States and this honorable court." Those government acknowledgments of religion serve, in the only ways reasonably possible in our culture, the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society. For that reason, and because of their history and ubiquity, those practices are not understood as conveying government approval of particular religious beliefs. The display of the crèche likewise serves a secular purpose--celebration of a public holiday with traditional symbols. It cannot fairly be understood to convey a message of government endorsement of religion...

note, that during the pledge....what do students pledge "alliegance" to? a nation, not a diety. it is certainly possible that the pledge can be construed as nothing more than a pledge to this nation, a hope in the future of this country, an act of patriotism, which it most certainly is, as opposed to an expression in religious belief. it can be argued, i'd submit, that the "pressure" that athiest groups feel is not terribly relevant because the point of the pledge is not to voice support to a "diety" in any way shape or form.

to determine whether or not the pledge violates the first part of lemon, you'd have to look at the congressional record surrounding the act. indeed, there have been several instances where district courts have stated that examples like the pledge and national motto no longer have any potentially entangling theological significance which speaks directly to prong 2 of lemon.

further, as to the "eisenhower" contention, there was a case in 1991 where "extra" commentary on the use of the pledge in school was deemed irrelevant due to the fact that the primary purpose of the pledge was to install "patriotic values," something that the courts have always recognized as the right of the states. the decision on sherman v. community consolidated school district 21 of wheeling was upheld by the 7th circuit on appeal.

importantly, (full text of the ruling, section IV, http://www.belcherfoundation.org/sherman.htm) is instructive, particuarly because it has not been overturned by SCOTUS. moreover, far more effective than i could ever argue it clearly outlines which hurdles a case to remove the words "under God" from the pledge must overcome. while it only has local enforcement, a case could be made that the ideas contained herein are relevant to the case today:



When it (SCOTUS) decided Engel v. Vitale, the first of the school-prayer cases, the Court recognized this tradition and distinguished ceremonial references to God from supplications for divine assistance: "There is of course nothing in the decision reached here that is inconsistent with the fact that school children and others are officially encouraged to express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer's professions of faith in a Supreme Being, or with the fact that there are many manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise.

continuing, the opinion states:

Justice Brennan, among the most stalwart of separationists, expressed similar thoughts when concurring in Schempp, 374 U.S. at 303-04, 83 S.Ct. at 1614:

[W]e have simply interwoven the motto [In God We Trust] so deeply into the fabric of our civil polity that its present use may well not present that type of involvement which the First Amendment prohibits. This general principle might also serve to insulate the various patriotic exercises and activities used in the public schools and elsewhere which, whatever may have been their origins, no longer have a religious purpose or meaning. The reference to divinity in the revised pledge of allegiance, for example, may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded "under God." Thus reciting the pledge may be no more of a religious exercise than the reading aloud of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which contains an allusion to the same historical fact.

Further:

This court adopted such an approach when observing in ACLU v. St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265, 271 (7th Cir. 1986), that both "In God We Trust" and Christmas trees are secular, having lost their original religious significance.

In a concurring opinion on the 7th circuit, judge manion states:

There is no need, however, to apply either alternative. The Pledge of Allegiance with all of its intended meaning does not effectuate an establishment of religion. If legislative prayer based upon the Judeo-Christian tradition is permissible under Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983), and a Christmas nativity scene erected by a city government is permissible under Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984), then certainly the less specific reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance cannot amount to an establishment of religion. We need not drain the meaning from the reference to reach this conclusion.

-----

it seems to me that all of this exact literal "it mentions God, it's in a public school, therefore it violates the establishment clause" analysis that we've all seem to have been partaking it is particuarly irrelevant. so to are the "eisenhower" comments as, on balance, it would have have to be conclusively demonstrated that the primary aim of the pledge was to push religion specifically and not patriotism. unfortuantely, the congressional record is weak on that claim and one cannot ASSUME that was the purpose without compelling evidence. courts have backed this up and isolated statements, whether in context or not, are not enough to overturn.

comments?

 

[reverend B]

i feel that the scotus punked out. they did not have the courage to make the constitutional decision and they didn't have the audacity to make the unconstitutional choice, so they got lucky and were able to duck it by legal means. it will come up again, and constitutionally they will have no choice.
if the mom and dad have joint custody and the dad doesn't have the legal right to speak for the child, who does? does the mother have more rights to the child in a joint custody scenario? based on what logic?
as much as we christians like it when there is any connection at all between our faith and the u.s. government, if we maintain our intellectual integrity we know there is no legal basis for the conjoining of the two. we should celebrate this, because it is the integrity of this truth that ultimately protects our right to worship the way we choose. you must deal with the reality that by supporting the mingling of the two you will become the target of the same mingling somewhere down the line, when the power balance shifts and some group that doesn't like what we believe gets the influence to truly persecute us. the government not professing God is not persecution. it is making religion a passive issue to the state. if the state became active in suppressing our faith, they would be equally out of line. not having a representative of the state leading kids in prayer or the "godly" pledge is not persecution. it is disengagement, and that is the essence of what the first amendment is saying about religion and the state. they should not be engaged.
THIS IS WHAT GIVES US THE FREEDOM TO WORSHIP HOW WE LIKE, BROTHERS AND SISTERS!
in my opinion, this is a sad day for american jurisprudence, for the current scotus proved itself to have no courage to face what may be an unpopular truth about our cotus, and that is their job. they must uphold the constitution, even when the rest of the country is ready to abandon it.

 

[Arwen Undomiel]

Hey, I'm a Christian and I have to say the atheists here are absolutely correct. It's not about individuals dismissing or accepting God, or about taking God out of our nation completely. It's a matter of discriminating, officially, between people who believe in God and people who don't by use of the pledge. No matter what religion you are, that's not in line with the American spirit.

Oh, it is very much in line with the "American spirit". It's the spirit and the intent of our founding fathers.

 

[Larry]

What part of the fact that we have a contstitution with a bill of rights do you not understand? The US is a constitutional representaive republic where rights protect the minority from oppression by the majority.

The Constitution is an ever changing document, based on what the people want. Furthermore, no one's rights are being denied and no one is being oppressed with the words, "Under God" in the pledge.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Larry]

Except justices are appointed precisely to avoid any populist politics that might arise. When we elect judges, we get chaos. Case in point: Roy Moore ran for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, and won, essentially on the platform "I'll hang the Ten Commandments in my courtroom."

Right. And the Judicial branch of government is not supposed to make laws. They are supposed to make their rulings based on the Constitution. They have no power to change the Constitution. The central point is the Constitution, which was designed for change, by the people, through the Legislative and Executive branches of government.

So, your rant on judges has no bearing on, nor negates my earlier remarks.

 

[crystalpc]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040614_760.html


Thankfully there are still a few good judges left in this country.

I knew this would happen the man had no dog in the fight. The daughter does not live with him, is a member of Calvary Temple and didn't mind saying under God. .He was a crumb who wanted to keep our judicial system weighed down, and cost the taxpayers money. He ought to be made to pay the government back for wasting our time.

 

[renegade pariah]

I can understand that atheists want God removed from the pledge, and I can understand those who say that children should not be indoctrinated with a pledge they cannot even understand, but I really have a hard time understanding a view of life and the universe that just exists in such intricate harmony without a divine creative force.

 

[hyperborean]

i feel that the scotus punked out. they did not have the courage to make the constitutional decision and they didn't have the audacity to make the unconstitutional choice, so they got lucky and were able to duck it by legal means. it will come up again, and constitutionally they will have no choice..

I agree with you. Those words were easily added and can be easily removed. Newdow's argument should actually win. Someone else will will do it eventualy.