"1. How does the pledge establish a state religion? How does it have any legal force to establish a national system of beliefs, especially when no one is forced to say it?"

While the currently optional nature of the pledge certainly softens the power of the "establishment" argument (and it's worth noting, by the way, that this is one of the reasons that the pledge is now optional instead of mandatory in most school systems), it has been mandatory even in the recent past. The phrase "under God" was intended by its authors to promote Christianity, and inserted into the pledge -- which was mandatory at the time -- specifically to endorse that religion. This kind of religious promotion is considered by the courts to be a form of establishment, as demonstrated by ample legal precedent.

"2. Your system of logic is based on a different fundamental truth than mine is. I can understand the rationale for your arguments, but you don't seem to understand mine."

What's odd is that I'd say exactly the same thing about you; I was under the impression that, while I understood the rationale for YOUR arguments, you were completely in the dark about mine.

"3. You are misinterpreting the first amendment. You say that intent is more important than definition when it comes to the pledge, but then you base your definition of 'establishment' and court interpretations, not on the intent behind the law."

That's because I'm not a strict constitutionalist. I am, in fact, a liberal, and believe that the Supreme Court has not only the right but the duty to re-interpret the Constitution to reflect the evolution of society.

"Now you're basing an argument on a subjective interpretation of 'under.' This argument has no logical foundation."

Doesn't it? Out of interest, what definition of the word "under" in the phrase "under God" would NOT have the meaning that I've suggested? Are you arguing that, perhaps, the phrase is meant to imply that God is floating somewhere in the sky above Kansas?

"No. If the law is unfair, then it should be struck down. However, you cannot prove to me that the pledge in its current state is unfair, because your entire argument is based on definitions of words."

The difficulty we're having is two-fold. For one thing, I'm not as dismissive of definitions as you are. If we're arguing about what is, after all, just two words, the intended meanings of those two words should be very relevant; I'm surprised and confused that you don't agree. Moreover, you've tried to defend the phrase "under God" using the claim that removing it would just be a way of promoting atheism -- but then, when I broaden the hypothetical, admit that you'd never consider the phrase to be "unfair" in the first place. (In other words, you're simply assuming that atheists and others who oppose the phrase "under God" are just being petty, and are unreasonably unwilling to consider their point of view.)

"Now it's my turn to ask you: What exactly are my standards, in your opinion?"

"What's odd is that I'd say exactly the same thing about you."
That really is odd. I understand you but feel you don't understand me, and you understand me but feel I don't understand you. We're kind of talking past each other because of our very different beliefs. I suppose I'll just have to convert you to my religion so we can understand each other . . .

"That's because I'm not a strict constitutionalist."
I guess that just goes back to the whole "we have very different beliefs" thing and "it's up to the court to decide" thing. It all depends on how conservative or liberal the Supreme Court is.

"Out of interest, what definition of the word 'under' in the phrase 'under God' would NOT have the meaning that I've suggested?"
Try the entry for "under" at www.dictionary.com.. I think definitions 6-10 and 13-14 could all be used (some better than others, of course), but only a couple imply subservience. Once again, it depends on how the court wants to define it. I'm not necessarily dismissive of definitions; I just believe that you can't base a logical argument on something as open to interpretation as definitions (at least not as long as we don't agree on those definitions).

Do I think atheists are being petty? At least a little bit. The majority of the country define God differently than I do. Do I feel as though the pledge is trying to force me to conform with mainstream Protestant beliefs? No. Of course, my beliefs have much more in common with mainstream Protestantism than yours do, so that's not a logical argument. I just say that to try to help you understand where I'm coming from.

"I think you're afraid that the nation is under attack by an areligious minority . . ."
Yes, I do. You've got that part right. However, I'm not worried about the heritage of the country as much as am worried about the overall moral state of the country. Though I still think this is one of the most (or maybe THE most) moral country around, I think we're starting to slip. I think it's getting to the point where political correctness is taking over and traditional religious values are being pushed aside out of fear of offending.

However, I do emotionally understand why someone would object to the pledge--I just don't believe the objections are all that valid. Similarly, you don't think my emotional objections are all that valid. Watch closely, because I'm about to put my foot in my mouth big-time: Does "under God" promote Christianity? Yes, because of the strong Christian culture in America and the intent of the authors of the phrase. But that's still pretty subjective. The words only have the power to convey whatever meaning you put into them. If you wanted to define "God" as whatever ultimate truth or reality you believe in, you could do it. You don't strictly interpret the Constitution, so why should you have to strictly interpret the pledge? You choose to interpret the phrase in a restrictive and offensive way. With a liberal interpretation of "under God," I think you could be fine living with it so long as it doesn't establish the U.S. as a Christian state (which I still don't think it does, but that relies on my definition of "establish," which is different from yours).

Now here's the real question (well, ONE of the real questions): were they right to put it in the phrase in the first place? Maybe not. The entire current problem wouldn't even exist if they hadn't changed it. I don't think it was really wrong to put it in, but I think the fact that there's such a debate over it shows that it comes too close to establishment for at least some people. The authors of the Bill of Rights didn't draw firm lines saying "this side is establishment, and this side isn't," so some people see "under God" as going to far, while others don't. However, I still believe that removing the phrase now would push the line too far in the wrong direction (at least, my opinion of the wrong direction).

I hope all that clarified what I'm trying to say.

While I'm rambling on, I'd just like to apologize for all the sarcastic and rude remarks I've made in the course of this discussion. I get a little too emotional when arguing, so you haven't seen the best side of me.

In summary, it's all in the hands of the courts to decide if it's to stay or go. We can't achieve anything here as long as we define everything so differently. I'll just keep praying that my side wins, and you can keep doing whatever atheists do.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 09, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 11, 2002).]

Stupid typos. . . . I can't rest until I've fixed them all.

"The pledge was amended subsequently by the substitution of the words “the flag of the United States of America” for the phrase “my flag.” The newly worded pledge was adopted officially on Flag Day, June 14, 1924. By joint resolution of Congress the pledge was further amended in 1954 by the addition of the words “under God.” "

This means that congress and the Eisenhower adminstration changed the pledge. And, however unfair you might want to call it Jon, Tom is technically correct. It does violate the first amendment. You might be thinking why, but I'll save you some time to tell you. Since you used a dictionary to look up the word God, then use the same one to look up the word establish:
"An arranged order or system, especially a legal code or country motto."

I think the pledge qualifies as a country motto don't you? Given the fact that we were required to say it as children, that means it is an establishment. But what kind of establishment is it? Well to answer that, we must find out WHAT it establishes. It establishes that we promise our loyalty(pledge allegiance) to our flag and country which are both under God. If the Eisenhower adminstration and congress esablished the pledge, and it establishes that our country is under God, then by transitive logic, Eisenhower and congress established that our country is under God and that violates the first amendment. I may not like it because of my christian beliefs, but this is true and I can't defy our constitution because after all, the bible says follow the laws of the land so long as they don't interfere with your faith.

"2. esp. The ‘establishing’ by law (a church, religion, form of worship). (See ESTABLISH v. 7.) a. In early use, the settling or ordering in a particular manner, the regulating and upholding of the constitution and ordinances of the church recognized by the state. b. In 17th-18th c. occasionally the granting of legal status to (other religious bodies than that connected with the state). c. Now usually, the conferring on a particular religious body the position of a state church."

"ESTABLISH v. 7:
7. From 16th c. often used with reference to ecclesiastical ceremonies or organization, and to the recognized national church or its religion; in early use chiefly pass. in sense 2 (esp. in phrase by law established, i.e. ‘prescribed or settled by law’), but sometimes with mixture of senses 3-5. Hence in recent use: To place (a church or a religious body) in the position of a national or state church."

Put together C from "establishment" with definition 7 of "establish," and it becomes clear that the pledge does not establish a religion, because no particular religious body has been given the position of a state church. Tom's argument that "under God" violates the first amendment only works if one uses a very strict and limiting definition of "God" and very loose definition of "establishment." This would violate both the intent of the authors of the first amendment (to prevent a state church), and the intent of the authors of the "under God" phrase (to promote, not establish, Christianity and faith in general).

PS: Attacking someone's misuse of words is not attacking the person. It IS attacking their arguments.

And when did I say you're not supposed to strictly follow the Constitution? I seem to remember defending strict interpretation of it and opposing Tom's liberal interpretation. If I advocated liberal interpretation, please show me where I did so.

I think the government has caused the pledge to be recognized and accepted don't you? If you don't, too bad for you because that is a straight fact. This is going nowhere so I will not reply to any more posts. If you really can't bear to argue with me anymore, email me at nickmayo@attbi.com ok? I can't say I like the fact that they're taking it out but you don't understand, they are offended at the "under God" and we don't need it in there. Isn't enough that YOU and I believe that our nation is under God instead of saying it in our pledge? We should act as if our nation is under God, not just state it in a pledge.

I believe that it is unjust for any democratic civil government to foster one set of religious beliefs over another. I am convinced that this sentiment was what inspired the framers of the Bill of Rights in writing the first amendment. Even if it was not, I still consider it unjust for the government to foster a particular religious society or belief.

Do you disagree with this sentiment? If not, can you explain to me how it can be considered just for the majority to create laws which foster the majority religious sentiment at the expense of those held by a minority however small?

If you do agree with this sentiment, then the only relevant question is whether the pledge of allegiance fosters a particular religious point of view over others.

It is undeniable that some individuals in the US consider the "under god" phrase in the pledge of allegiance to be an important expression of their religious sentiments while others (both theists and athiests) consider it contrary to their religious sentiments. Even if reciting the pledge is not required, by endorsing the pledge as an official expression of patriotism the government is in effect fostering the idea that one religious view is more patriotic than others. By allowing time at public schools and other government sponsored events to be dedicated to recitation of the pledge, the government gives an advantage to those who consider the wording of this pledge an appropriate expression of their patriotism while in effect labeling those who can not in good conscience support the wording of the pledge as "unpatriotic". In my opinion, that is unjust.

I know many individuals who find the wording of the pledge offensive to their spiritual believes who none the less have a fervent devotion to this country.

Including the phrase "under god" in the pledge of allegiance is as offensive to all those who find it inappropriate to equate religious sentiment with patriotism as adding the phrase "without god" would be to you.

Explain to me how it is just for the government to endorse the religious views of one group in the pledge and not those of the other.

I understand pledging allegiance to the flag is a symbolic act. I also understand that in religions where people pray or meditate to statues and icons, that they are not praying to the statue they are praying to the higher power represented by the symbol. Never the less, this is an act specifically proscribed in the 10 commands which are generally revered through out the Judeo-Christian world. Look up the word allegiance. Ponder the definition. As I understand it, when I pledge allegiance to the flag, I am accepting the flag as my lord. Tell me you can not under stand how someone might find that to be breaking the commandment not to worship graven images? Explain to me how pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth could not be seen in this way?

"2. The relation or duties of a liege-man to his liege-lord; the tie or obligation of a subject to his sovereign, or government."

That doesn't mean you worship the flag or the government as your God. Somebody said earlier that it's commanded to serve one's country, but I don't know where in the Bible that is. If anyone knows, please supply the reference.

As said before, the purpose of the first amendment was to prevent the establishment of a national church (as in "America is officially Catholic," something like that). And since when is it unjust for a democracy to state that the vast majority acknowledge the presence of a supreme being? This is a democracy, meaning a government of the people. The people have expressed that they are mostly of the Judeo-Christian system of religion. How is that unjust? The only "injustice" anyone has received is being offended, and that's hardly an injustice.

The pledge most certainly does not foster a particular religious point of view over others. "God," even in its strictest Judeo-Christian sense, still encompasses a gigantic system of beliefs. The phrase "under God" also does nothing to say that Judeo-Christian beliefs are better than any other; it is merely a statement of the dominant faiths of the people.

That said, it's perfectly just for the government to state the beliefs of the majority. Please show me where in the Constition or amendments it states that if one view is presented by the government, all views must be presented. This is a democracy, not a communism.

PS: You have no idea how amusing I find it that I've been attacked by Christians and atheists alike.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 12, 2002).]

First, on the optional nature of the pledge.. Here is a story about a student PADDLED for standing silently, with fist raised, in protest of the pledge (protest being protected speech). This is one about a student who refused to stand, and was punished with detention.

Here is another case of discipline against a student.

---
The US had NO PLEDGE for 120 years; these years are also the same years that conservatives always harken back to as the "Golden Age" of the USA.

The pledge was a poem by a Socialist Christian, which was then given to a leftist magazine publisher, that he might use it to sell flags to schools. The original never mentions God, in fact, it was definitely socialistic in tone. It was modified slightly, before becoming the official motto of the USA. Then, for 40-50 years, students would pledge allegiance, Nazi-style (literally), and no one had problems, except the Jehovah's Witnesses, who were punished for refusing it. Of course, that meddlesome group, the USSC, in 1943 said you couldn't force the religious to pledge (funny, now it's the atheists/agnostics who want this). Then, in a period of Commie paranoia, the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, started adding it. The politicians, siezing on this opportunity, added it federally.

---
I am a Christian, who is offended by the addition of the phrase to the pledge. I don't believe that God is steering this country, merely some of its inhabitants. I believe that patriots are patriots because of their acts for the state, not because of their metaphysics. It is unnecessary to have that line, and offensive to the memory of the many atheist/agnostic patriots who have given their lives for this country.

By removing the two words from the pledge, you allow the public to formulate their own reasons why this country is great; this certainly does NOT preclude the idea that it is a nation under god that makes it so (though I would not agree, I think god has some interesting things to say to some people). Like CT said, the opposite of the "under God" phrase would be "under no God". Omission of both phrases supports neither.

Only the insecure of faith need to codify their belief, in order to have a crutch in their weak moments.

God doesn't care about nations (remember "Render unto Caesar.."?), He cares about individuals believeing and acting in a Christian way.

-Bok

Like I said before, removing "under God" doesn't literally establish atheism, but it furthers the idea of the separation of church and state, which was unintended by the founding fathers and certainly seems atheistic to me. It will push the definition of the first amendment further in the direction of liberalism, making mention of God even more taboo.

"Only the insecure of faith need to codify their belief, in order to have a crutch in their weak moments."

Exodus 20:4-5 read

quote:

---

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them."

---

I recognize that many members of modern Judeo-Christian churches do not interpret this commandment literally or else they view it as anachronism no longer relevant. My interpretation is however hardly as twisted as you imply and has in fact been espoused for millenia by many Jewish and Christian (and Islamic) factions. My objective in making this point, was not actually to pursuade you that pledging allegiance to the flag is a sin but to point out to you that it is not only athiests who find the wording of the pledge offensive.

The words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance are reminiscent of the wording used to establish the devine right of kings and to many people imply the US government is endorsed by God. That implication is offensive not only to many athiests but also to many religious people.

You completely ignored my more serious post. Removing "under god" from the pledge is not the same as inserting "without god", it is in effect a neutral statement. Leaving the "under god" in the pledge implies that those individuals who worship a god that they perceive as "over" this nation are more patriotic than those who do not. This implication fosters one religious point of view above others and is therefore unjust.

"That implication is offensive not only to many athiests but also to many religious people."

As I've said repeatedly before, you have no rights protecting you from being offended. I'd be offended if the phrase were removed, but that's completely irrelevant.

As for the rest of that post, please refer to everything else I've posted on this subject. I think you'll find I've already answered your arguments.

The fact that the majority likes "under God" is VERY relevant. This is a democracy. The government's responsibility is to serve the people. The people wrote a Constitution that they decided to live by. That Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state church. The pledge does not establish a state church. I've already said all that before in previous posts. And anyway, can you even define "fair" in a way that everyone can agree on? Europeans seem to think it's fair to have national churches. How would it be unfair in America? (Not that I'm advocating it; I'm just showing that standards of fairness vary greatly.)

Bokonon: First off, the topic here is whether the phrase "under God" should be left in the pledge, not preaching religious doctrineor accusing others of being weak.

Secondly, look up "codify." It means to reduce something (usually laws) to a general system or code. Since the Ten Commandments were replaced by Jesus' teachings (specifically the Sermon on the Mount, and more specifically the two great commandments he gives: to love God and love your neighbor), let's look at that. Everything boils down to loving. That's a codification of beliefs. Are you saying that I'm weak or that I'm not striving to be better if I live by that rule and try to love everyone?

Bok, no matter how secure your faith is, you still and always will need God and Jesus as a crutch. You should read more of what Paul wrote. Everybody is insecure of faith. Even Jesus said if any one of us has faith the size of a mustard seed(we're talking teeny), then we could move mountains. So, tell me who is not insecure in faith(besides Jesus).

That was what I was pointing out.

I'm not saying you are weak although my opinion (and it is solely my opinion), that some how feeling that the pledge is bad if returned to a form more accurate to its original form, then I'd say either you are rather weak in faith, or you have so little faith in the viability in the Christian faith. If you think keeping the modified pledge is going to keep people Christian, then we haven't done a good job educating these wavering Christians, and perhaps we should look for something more meaningful to bring people into the fold, rather than a superficial pledge that is not Christian canon by any means.

In your response to Rabbit, I find it interestingly that you take the Bible as both literal (graven = carved/sculpted) and figurative (allegiance doesn't always mean lord/servant), in order to keep your argument consistent. Picking and choosing semantics to suit your needs is easy to do.

quote:

---

Like I said before, removing "under God" doesn't literally establish atheism, but it furthers the idea of the separation of church and state, which was unintended by the founding fathers ...

---

Hmmm. But what about Thomas Jefferson's clarification in the letter to the Danbury Baptists? Or James Madison's memoranda, Webster's introduction to the Blue-Backed Speller, Jefferson's letter to the Attorney General, and the general text of the debate of the Constitutional Convention, etc.?

The intent to separate religion from government, as well as a distate for public declarations of religiosity, seems pretty well-documented among many of the founding fathers. I'm not sure I know what you mean. Why do you think that this was not their general intent?

quote:

---

"one nation, under god, pro-abortion, in favor of socialized health care"

---

... traffic-scofflawing, premarital-sex-having, believers in divorce ...

Here's your statement:

quote:

---

Yes, I do. You've got that part right. However, I'm not worried about the heritage of the country as much as am worried about the overall moral state of the country. Though I still think this is one of the most (or maybe the most) moral country around, I think we're starting to slip. I think it's getting to the point where political correctness is taking over and traditional religious values are being pushed aside out of fear of offending.

---

This shows that you feel the pledge is some moral/religious crutch, who's mere existence staves off, at least a little, complete moral implosion.

If you didn't feel this way, you wouldn't care about the pledge at all.

I didn't mean the crutch statement to be so antagonistic, as in some extra-special sin. But it seems to me to be wrong, in light of the history of the pledge, to be strongly defending the pledge for a moral/religious purpose.

-Bok

EDIT: I would just like to boint out that the application of "traditional values" has had no better or worse track record, societally than "politically correct" applications (of course, politically correct includes anti-slavery, women voting, but also the Prohibition; all these were argued from a position not unlike current "political correctness", and similar resentment existed against the proponents). Political correctness may be a new term, but in reality it's an age-old idea.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I defined "allegiance." Since one sense of allegiance is "obligation to a country," that's clearly the more literal definition. Calling the government my lord is more figurative. I see nothing inconsistent with my definitions here.

ClaudiaTherese: I haven't read all of those, but it is my understanding that the founding fathers wanted to specifically prevent the establishment of a state church and to generally keep religion out of politics. It's debatable whether the pledge constitutes politics. And even then, there's no law against religion being involved in politics, only in the legal establishment of a religion.

Tom: I never suggested it's okay to expect people to adhere to any pledge. In fact, I've stated a few times that requiring anyone to say the pledge would violate free speech. I'll give my allegiance to the government if they deserve my allegiance, and I think the same goes for anyone. And anyway, even though we know the majority's not always right, whose morals are we all going to accept? Mine? Yours? We kind of have to accept the majority's morals. Of course, that's why we elect people who are allegedly smarter and more moral than we are.

Bokonon: Let me clarify that statement that you quoted. I don't think the pledge is propping up the nation's morals. I don't think our morals will collapse without the pledge. However, I think the crusade to remove all references to religion or deity from government is an indicator of declining morals.

What is the problem with the government remaining silent on this issue?

Since the pledge doesn't violate the first amendment, taking it out is unnecessary. I think it could start a trend that would lead to violations of the first amendment going the other direction--persecution of religion (of course, that's not likely to happen in the near future, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about it). It would also expand the powers of the Supreme Court to reinterpret the Constitution and judge the constitutionality of laws (which powers were assumed, not given in the Constitution). I believe that the Supreme Court does not always act in the most moral way--if they can use the fourth amendment to "prove" that abortions are constitutional, what else can they do? I think that covers your questions, Bokonon. (And apology accepted.)

"Do you believe morality is synonymous with religion?"

Of course not. I'm not calling you immoral because you're an atheist. But for the reasons stated above, I think that removing "under God" is immoral.

I kind of agree with phoenix646 that the pledge probably shouldn't have been changed in the first place; in fact, I find the idea of requiring everyone to pledge allegiance (which used to be the case) to be socialistic. Maybe adding "under God" helped to distinguish us from the Communists, which I think was a good thing, but I'm not sure it was worth all the problems it's caused since then. However, I do agree that my beliefs won't be harmed if it's taken out, and conversely, the beliefs of those opposed to it shouldn't be harmed if it's left in. But like I said, I'm not just worried about my moral state.

We do not live in a democracy Jon Boy, we live in a constitutional democracy. The significant difference is that we have agreed that there are certain rights, among them the free exercise of religion, which the majority can not choose to eliminate or reduce.

I believe that is an abuse of power for a civil government to foster one religious system over another. Since it's inception, the first amendment has been widely assumed to protect against such abuse. If this was not the intent of the founding fathers, it should have been.

You have stated that the first amendment is merely a prohibition against establishment of an official state religion and nothing more. By this do you mean that it is acceptable (either under the constitution or your personal ethical code) for the government to take any action that might promote a particular religious belief so long as it stops short of actually making an official US religion? Nothing in the following list would actually legally establish an official religion. Do you they would all be constitution? If not, where would you draw the line and how do you justify drawing that line.

• The US government adopts a policy that only Christians can hold civil service jobs.
• A state decides that only Baptists will be allowed to teach in the public schools.
• A state decides that athiests will not be allowed to teach in the public schools.
• A public school fires a teacher because she joins Wicca.
• The US government declares that athiests can not be given a security clearance.
• A public school provides a class room for a Catholic priest to teach a class but will not provide a class room for an Muslim Imam.
• A school provides an opportunity and microphone for a student to voice a prayer at an official school function with the restriction that they may not mention the name of Jesus, Jehovah or Allah in the prayer.
• Congress passes a resolution declaring the US to be a christian nation.
• Congress passes a resolution declaring the US to be a God fearing nation.
• The government offers tax credits to citizens who are members of a qualified church.
• The government provides a grant to churches that teach the high spiritual value of wilderness.
• The government provides a grant to churches that teach respect for human life.
• The government provides a grant to churches that help the poor.
• The government funds a media campaign to improve the image of Judaism.
• The legislature passes a resolution recognizing that christian churches promote good citizenship. (But does not offer the same support to other churches).
• The government endorses a campaign equating church attendance with patriotism.
• The government endorses a campaign equating faith in God with good citizenship and patriotism.

  Where would you draw the line?

"I believe that is an abuse of power for a civil government to foster one religious system over another."

The key words here are "I believe." What you believe has no bearing on the laws of the land. I've already explained what the first amendment literally means (and if you're going to use literal definitions, you had better be consistent), so I won't explain again.

"If this was not the intent of the founding fathers, it should have been."

It's too bad the founding fathers didn't have you on hand to tell them what to do. If that's what their intent should have been, then they should have said it in the Constitution.

I have NOT stated that the first amendment is nothing more than a prohibition against the establishment of a state religion. Reread my previous posts. I have stated that the first amendment also prevents religious discrimination.

As for your list, I would draw the line at anything that violated the Constitution and its amendments. Most (if not all) of those violate the first, ninth, or fourteenth amendments.

quote:

---

I've already explained what the first amendment literally means (and if you're going to use literal definitions, you had better be consistent), so I won't explain again.

---

I so no reason that literally interpreting the Bible requires one to literally interpret the constitution. Why do you think one should be consistent between these two. What is more it was you who insisted that the literal interpretation of grave images limited it only to things carved from stone? I was argueing that the scripture should be extened to imply all symbols made by human hands.

quote:

---

It's too bad the founding fathers didn't have you on hand to tell them what to do. If that's what their intent should have been, then they should have said it in the Constitution.

---

You are right, it doesn't matter what I believe the founding fathers meant. It also doesn't matter what you believe the founding fathers meant. In fact it doesn't really matter what the founding fathers wrote. The founding fathers established a way to resolve such disputes -- they relegated it to the Supreme Court. The founding fathers knew that controversies would arise over their intent and instead of writing thousands of pages to clarify their intent, they relegated that the responsibility to the Supreme Court. By definition, the constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. So by the constitution itself, it is not the precise wording of the constitution that matters either, it is the opinion of the Supreme Court that matters. The opinion of the Supreme Court has since the adoption of the Bill of Rights been that the first amendment prohibited government endorsement of religion. End of argument.

Beyond that, I believe that the responsibility of any decent government should not be limited to doing what people wrote over 200 year ago but should include doing what is just. It is unjust for the government to foster a religious society. Do you disagree with that? If so, how do you justify it? I have read many statements by the founding fathers and think that was their intent. If you insist, I can find and post their statements. You state repeatedly that this was not their intent but have yet to present any evidence to support your statement.

But in truth, I don't see that it really matters whether the founding fathers wanted to build a strong wall of separation between church and state or not. What matters is whether or not it is just for the government to foster one religion at the expense of others. I can think of no compelling ethical reason to do what a bunch of guys who lived over 200 centuries ago thought we should. Ethics demand that we pursue fairness and justice and protect the natural rights of our citizens. Intent is irrelevant.

Also, having read the 9th and 14th amendments I'm not sure how anything on the list I posted violates either of those amendments.

"The founding fathers established a way to resolve such disputes -- they relegated it to the Supreme Court."

Really? I see a sentence in Article III, Section 2 which reads: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority." That's cases UNDER the Constitution. I don't see anything saying they can judge the Constitution itself. The powers of judicial review are not found in the Constitution; rather, they were the creation of some supreme court justice in the past (I forget which, and it's late, so I'm not going to look it up right now). End of argument.

"In fact it doesn't really matter what the founding fathers wrote."

Well, it sort of does matter, because what they wrote is the supreme law of the land.

"I believe that the responsibility of any decent government should not be limited to doing what people wrote over 200 year ago but should include doing what is just."

I asked Tom before, but maybe you didn't read it: Whose standard of "just" are we going to use? Yours? The issue here is not one of justness, but of legality. Your ideals of justness and fairness are completely irrelevant.

"Please tell me where you would draw the line and why?"

In other words, laws should be reviewed based on how they uphold the intent of the freedoms established in the Constitution, NOT in how well they literally fulfill them.

In other words, not being required to quarter soldiers in your house should ALSO mean that you can't be required to quarter soldiers in your shed. It's a simple extension.

quote:

---

ClaudiaTherese: I haven't read all of those, but it is my understanding that the founding fathers wanted to specifically prevent the establishment of a state church and to generally keep religion out of politics.

---

So, if you were to learn (based on accurate historical documents) that the intent of the founding fathers was different than you had been led to believe, what would this mean to you?

However, even though I allow for some simple extensions, I still see far too much stretching and twisting of intent and literal meaning in order to "prove" that the phrase "under God" in the pledge is unconstitutional. You have to say that the first amendment refers to all government statements, mottos, etc., not just laws. Then you have to define "establishment" in very broad, vague terms. But you also have to be very limiting in how you define "God" and in how you view the intents of the authors of the phrase. It just seems a little self-contradictory that you give such great weight to the words and motives of a non-binding pledge but such little weight to the supreme law of the land.

Note: I would agree that tax rebates in exchange for conversion would violate the first amendment. A tax rebate is a law, and that law concerns religion. Even though it's not true establishment, one could easily argue that it infringes on the free practice of those who aren't of whatever religion the tax rebate targets.

I think the relevant quote here is "Thou Shalt have no other Gods Before Me."

As long as your allegiance to God comes before your allegiance to Country, then I don't see a contradiction. You are not worshipping the country, you are merely agreeing to obey the laws and defend the country from its enemies. Possibly being a constructive member of society is also part of this deal, but That is very different from the worship of a deity.

so basically my argument has two opposite premises.

1.) The connotation of the "allegiance" is more important than its denotation, and the connotation does not imply worship.

2.) If you feel that "allegiance" denotation is more important, then so long as God comes first, it doesn't matter whether you have allegiance to your country.

First off, I'll let you know my opinion:

The 1954 LAW written by congress which added the words "under God" to the pledge, was absolutely and unquestionably unconstitutional.

Now, if the pledge was something like "This land is your land" by Woody Guthrie, which is a popular song, and demonstrates a patriotic attitude, but which isn't endorsed in law by the government, it could include any words anyone wanted it to. But the pledge was established by law to be an officially endorsed recitation.

Now, if you've been listening to the legal pundits in the media who've been prophesizing the overturn of the 9th district ruling, the case boils down to 2 possibilites:

1 The phrase "under God" isn't religious.

2. The phrase is a "de minimus" violation of the constitution, and therefore should remain, because it isn't causing any problems.

Well, as has been shown here with the cases of children being disciplined for refusing to recite the pledge, it is obviously causing problems. And frankly, the idea that a law is illegal, but it's ok anyway, undermines the concept of law entirely. But I have another case that I think is relevant.

In 1987, then vice president and presidential candidate George Bush spoke to a group of reporters at Chicago's Ohare airport.

Asked what he would do to win the atheist vote, Old George replied: "I don't know as how atheists can be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God"

Now, this phrase doesn't exist anywhere else in our law, so how did Bush reach the conclusion that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens? And the consequences? Should I apply for a green card? Do I risk deportation? In fact, this is the same kind of reasoning Hitler used to show that Jews weren't germans. I find it genuinely scary that the President of the United States could be so ignorant of the law, and use this ignorance to suggest stripping 14% of the american population of its citizenship.

The other issue, which I also find very important, is that the old phrase "One nation Indivisible" was the most important, and became especially poignant after September 11, when we suddenly realized how little all our petty differences really mean.

1. The pledge is not a law. The fact that it was established by Congress does not make it a law. Laws are binding and are enforced (yes, I know--some kids are forced to say the pledge; that clearly IS illegal). If the pledge is law, then anything else established by Congress is a law and thus is binding. For example, what if I express the opinion that the robin makes a better national bird than the eagle? If the establishment of the eagle as national bird were law--and as such, binding upon citizens--then my opinion would be illegal. Obviously, this is a somewhat silly example, but it still illustrates the point. If the pledge is a law, then you should probably focus your attention on your rights of free speech first.

2. The fact that the pledge causes problems doesn't make it illegal. Spam email causes problems, but it's still protected speech.

3. What George Bush said is completely irrelevant. Bill Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski." Do his words supersede fact?

3. Look up the word "unquestionably."

You yourself admited (more or less) that the reason you feel so strongly about keeping "under God" in the pledge is because of a general concern about moral decline in the country. I must conclude therefore that you believe that keeping "under God" in the pledge fosters religiousity or at least morality.

Since the wording of pledge of allegiance was established by law, it is an example of government fostering a particular religious idea. In doing so, it over steps the just power of government and violates the most common interpretation of the 1st amendment.

Clearly you see no problem with that. What I want to know, is how the government establishing the pledge of allegiance (including the under god phrase) differs from the items in the list that I posted earlier and which you have tacitly dismissed as irrelevant. The final one "government endorsing a campaign equating faith in God with patritism and good citizenship" pretty well describes the "under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

The list was intended to make a clear logical point. Many of the items on the list would be viewed by most americans as egregious violations of the first amendment. Others might be seen as acceptable to many. if you find some acceptable and other unacceptable, please explain your reasoning. It is privotal to the debate at hand. If you can find a clear distinction between the type of this laws which justifies some while implying that the others are violate the 1st amendment, then you have a case. If the difference is only in the magnitude of government intrusion into religious life, then I would argue that no clear line can be drawn and thus all should be considered unconstitutional.

". . . . liberty and justice for all, born and unborn."

" . . . equality, liberty and justice for all"

If you (or any one else) wants to continue saying "one nation under god", it is your right to do so.

I can't see any logical connection other than the fact that conservatives seem unable to argue any point with out ultimately bringing in Bill Clinton's moral defects.