Pledge of Allegiance

Ozarker · Jul 1, 2002

"Ok, an interesting twist, but I think it just moves the problem elsewhere. For the sake of discussion let's accept this view. Isn't the pledge then saying that the people of the United States are "under god"."

Yes, it moves the problem elsewhere. It move it completely away from being a law or an establishment of any religion. Therefor, it can't possibly be a violation of the Constitution.

"Well the webster's dictionary does not say "higher power", it says.

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe,......

I think Jefferson said something similar to that in the Declaration of Independence. The existence of the Creator was the justification used to declare independence and form this country. So the statement "under God" is historically accurate even if one doesn't believe that God exists.

........the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." I think it is safe to say that "under god" has religious meaning."

No, it is not safe to say that at all. No more so than the sun or the earth have religious meaning and both the sun and the earth have also been principal objects of faith and worship. Religion is the organized rituals used to worship. God is nothing more than the object of that worship. But there are many who reject religion and still believe in God.

"Well my quick search on the internet turned up this. Former Chief Justice Burger said in Lemon vs. Kurtzman that with regards to the establishment clause (the religion part of the first amendment) that a law (statute) must have some conditions.

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion"

Note he didn't say "a" religion (like Christianity) it is religion at all.

And Justice O'Conner said "The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition...[by] endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." She, of course, was put on the bench by Ronald Reagan.

Not sure what your point is with these two references. Since the Pledge isn't to the government, it isn't a statute and doesn't establish a religion, there is no "entanglement" to deal with.

roysallis · Jul 2, 2002

Attest William Jackson Secretary

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of
America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our
Names,.....................
The U.S. Constitution does have a reference to God. The above is the last paragraph of our Constitution. Please note the day it was signed.

Golfgar4 · Jul 2, 2002

Just heard on the radio (Paul Harvey) that Judge Goodman, the Judge that declared the Pledge unconstitutional, said today that everyone who is complaining about his decision is "mindless".

Interesting observation from an "intelligent" jurist, no?

Charlie_Iliff · Jul 2, 2002

"everyone who is complaining about his decision is "mindless". 
If he had time, it would be good if Judge Goodman could read this thread, and the parallel thread "Only in SF." I suspect he would withdraw his accusation, or at least stay it, as he did with the decision.
TBN has shown the astonishing ability to mount a discussion of a topic combining the two things we are always taught to avoid if we wish to conduct civil and polite discourse: religion and politics. That is not true of everyone reacting to the Pledge decision, however, and to give Judge Goodman a bit of a break, I suspect he was responding to the death threats that he and the Plaintiff have received from those styling themselves as Christians defending the faith and the country.
Kudos to the TBN participants in this discussion and thanks for the various points of view eloquently expressed.

MossRoad · Jul 2, 2002

Remember my comments in the other thread about not discussing religion, politics or money at the dinner table? That's why I don't post around 5-7 pm.... I'm eating /w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif

dmccarty · Jul 2, 2002

Charlie,

"TBN has shown the astonishing ability to mount a discussion of a topic combining the
two things we are always taught to avoid if we wish to conduct civil and polite discourse:
religion and politics."

AMEN! Can I say Amen? LOL!!!! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

I've been reading through the threads in question and a couple
of things have amazed me.
1-The Humor. Muhammad threw in a good one in Spanish.
2-The Intelligent Discusions. I lost count of the number of threads in
this topic. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
3-The POLITE Discussions.
4-Everytime I wanted to say something, someone said exactly what
I was going to Pontificate. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Since this is hopefully my last and only comment on this thread, I hope
everyone has a Happy Fourth Of July. The fouth is what this entire
conversation is all about...... /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Have a safe and fun Indy Day!
Dan McCarty

wroughtn_harv · Jul 2, 2002

3-The POLITE Discussions.

Evening Dan.

I have to agree. I think maybe we should comtemplate the power of tractors on this one./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Seriously I think it all goes back to respect for the other person speaking. Even if they are taking a position that's completely contrary to your own self acknowledged good sense.

One of the big reasons these discussions are so successful is we're looking at the other speaker multidimensionally. We don't see them as just a liberal ninny or a conservative whiner. We see them as a tractor person or someone with a good personality and a place like we'd like to have with tools we can appreciate.

That precludes the name calling I do believe. And I think Mohammed ought to be congradulated for showing restraint and wisdom in his moderating with moderation in a moderate way.

paccorti · Jul 2, 2002

Agreed RanchMan,

My only point was that people who look at this every day (and are on the supreme ct, are lawyers, are presumably respected in their fields, etc) said... You are absolutely right, they definetly do not have a corner on wisdom. I expect there are justices that would support an alternate position.

Actually this whole discussion has been refreshing in many respects. I actually READ parts of the Constitution and studied some court opinions. I've learned a lot. And despite our disagreement, I respect all of you and I count myself fortunate to be a citizen of such a wonderful country.

Peter

paccorti · Jul 2, 2002

Ozarker,

I think Jefferson said something similar to that in the Declaration of Independence. The existence of the Creator was the justification used to declare independence and form this country. So the statement "under God" is historically accurate even if one doesn't believe that God exists.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. The Declaration of Independence predates the Constitution. "Under god" is historically accurate with regards to what? I don't deny the religious tone of the Declaration.

No, it is not safe to say that at all. No more so than the sun or the earth have religious meaning and both the sun and the earth have also been principal objects of faith and worship. Religion is the organized rituals used to worship. God is nothing more than the object of that worship. But there are many who reject religion and still believe in God.

I don't agree with this. "Under god" has no religious meaning? At all? Websters again:

Religious
1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty

If "under god" is not a religious statement (a belief in a supernatural power) than what is it? The fact that the sun and the moon are worshipped adds nothing here. The pledge makes no refernce to the earth. If it did, "one nation, under earth..." would you be ok with it? I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.

Not sure what your point is with these two references. Since the Pledge isn't to the government, it isn't a statute and doesn't establish a religion, there is no "entanglement" to deal with.

Seriously, I'm not a lawyer. So I'm kinda outta my element here. If I'm wrong please educate me about the kinds of laws, statutes, bills whatever congress passes. But it seems that the pledge is a statute.

In the 9th circuit courts opinion, they reference the 1954 act as 68 Stat. 249 (1954) (“1954 Act”). Later, in their opinion the court makes this reference.

Because the words that amended
the Pledge were enacted into law by statute, the district court
may not direct Congress to delete those words any more than
it may order the President to take such action.

So I think my quotes from Burger and O'Conner are relevant. As Ranchman pointed out, other justices may have a different view of the establisment clause and I'm wholly sympathetic to that argument. Do you know for a fact that the 1954 act (amending the pledge) is NOT a statute... is not a law? If I'm wrong let me know so I don't continue to make a fool of myself.

For those still listening there is a article on the village voice <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0227/hentoff.php>http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0227/hentoff.php</A> about a case that involved the original pledge in a 1943 case. The link is pro 9th circuit but in the beginning it talks about the children of Jehovah's Witnesses who would not say the pledge and the ruling the supreme court made.

Peter

Ozarker · Jul 3, 2002

I'm not sure where you are going with this. The Declaration of Independence predates the Constitution. "Under god" is historically accurate with regards to what? I don't deny the religious tone of the Declaration.

They Declaration sets the reasons and justification for Breaking from England and forming this country. If you don't deny the religious tone then you can't possibly deny that this was a nation formed under God. That doesn't mean you have to believe in God. But you must accept the historical facts.

Yes, it predates the Constitution. Things were done in order. But the Constitution is connected back to the Declaration in a number of ways the most important being the Preamble. It declares that the Constitution was written to secure the blessings of liberty. That liberty was defined in the Declaration. It also enumerates the rights bestowed on man by the Creator. Rights that the 9th amendment tells us are retained by the people. And finally, the founders declared the connection to God by the final passage in the Constitution under which they all signed their names.

I don't agree with this. "Under god" has no religious meaning? At all? Websters again:

Religious
1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty

What webster says is that God is the object of many religions. So was the sun, the earth, etc, etc. Do you also think that a shoe is sexual? Yet, shoes seem to be the object of sexual desire for some. And the right heels on the right legs can certainly be attractive.

If "under god" is not a religious statement (a belief in a supernatural power) than what is it? The fact that the sun and the moon are worshipped adds nothing here. The pledge makes no reference to the earth. If it did, "one nation, under earth..." would you be ok with it? I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.

One nation under the Sun would make sense............ Is that a religious statement?

Seriously, I'm not a lawyer. So I'm kinda outta my element here. If I'm wrong please educate me about the kinds of laws, statutes, bills whatever congress passes. But it seems that the pledge is a statute.

A statute is a law. The pledge is not a law.

In the 9th circuit courts opinion, they reference the 1954 act as 68 Stat. 249 (1954) (“1954 Act”). Later, in their opinion the court makes this reference.

Because the words that amended the Pledge were enacted into law by statute, the district court may not direct Congress to delete those words any more than it may order the President to take such action.

So I think my quotes from Burger and O'Conner are relevant. As Ranchman pointed out, other justices may have a different view of the establisment clause and I'm wholly sympathetic to that argument. Do you know for a fact that the 1954 act (amending the pledge) is NOT a statute... is not a law? If I'm wrong let me know so I don't continue to make a fool of myself.

The 1954 act was a statute but the 9th circuit didn't attack that statute. They declared the Pledge unconstitutional. The Pledge is not a statute.

Berger and O'Connell are irrelevant to this discussion because there is no government/religious entanglement. The words "under God" does not establish an official religion and the Pledge is not a statute establishing a religion. There is no more religious entanglement there than there is in making Christmas, the celebration of the birth of Jesus, a federal holiday. It is no more of an entanglement than tax exempt status for church owned property. No more of an entanglement than the House Chaplain. No more of an entanglement than the military Chaplain Corp.

The founders said that the Government could not establish a religion by law. They did not say that government was secular and anti-religious. They did not say that there couldn't even be the appearance of religion. And they, the first Congress with many of the founders as members, hired a House Chaplain paid for with federal funds. How any judge can say that the founders intended an absolute separation is completely beyond comprehension. The evidence says otherwise. The government has been entangled with religion from day one.