Regarding the question of whether belief in God is equated with patriotism, refer back to my first post.

The President of the United States said that he "didn't think atheists could be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

All this flag waving and "God bless America" stuff isn't trivial. It's why "godless commies" were investigated by the "committee of unamerican activities" and, as Chris pointed out, it's why "under God" was added in the first place.

I have often wondered how frequently "hate crimes" are acted against atheists. I was beat up as a kid for my atheism. (but it didn't have anything to do with patriotism) As you pointed out, if you aren't on the recieving end, you might not notice it. But it's everywhere.

I am bewildered by the opinion that "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the establishment of religion" is INTERPRETED to mean merely that congress shall not establish a state religion. First, Jon Boy argues against the SCOTUS interpreting the constitution, and then wetchik argues that all the 1st means is that congress shall not establish a state religion. If that's what they meant to say, then why didn't they just say it?

The word establishment means "the act of establishing or condition of being established" (American Heritage). The 1954 law established the words "under god" in the pledge. How on earth anybody can think that's in accordance with the constitution, is beyond me.

Congress made a law. That's not in question. And that law establishes the words "under god" in an officially sanctioned pledge. It doesn't matter whether the "pledge" is unconstitutional, the LAW is unconstitutional.

Wetchik, Micheal Newdow is a hero to most atheists. He didn't start this, congress did. In fact, Red Skelton's famous comment about "I hope they don't call the pledge a prayer, so they can't say it in school" only indicates that theists knew it was questionable language, back in the 1960's. For us, this thing has been festering for too long. In my opinion, Micheal Newdow did the right thing.

quote:

---

You are comparing something like this to black discrimination and womens suffrage?

---

quote:

---

You were right when you said it was wrong to put "under God" in 1954, but to take it out now would only mean one thing: Atheists and agnostics want to get "brainwashing" out of our schools.

---

quote:

---

You're saying something is a right if you (or others) fight or die for it. So basically, if I attack someone with a gun and I kill him, then I had the right to do so because I was willing to fight for it. I think you're confusing the words "right" and "freedom."

---

quote:

---

Anyway, we're drifting completely off the subject, so let's save that discussion for another day.

---

quote:

---

"Does the pledge violate the Constitution?
In my opinion, no."

Then what are you even arguing for? If you say it's constitutional but morally wrong, then you should be trying to convince me why your morals are right, from which it would follow that we need to further amend the Constitution.

---

quote:

---

"I must wonder how binding it was."

It's not binding at all. It's just a pledge.

---

"First, Jon Boy argues against the SCOTUS interpreting the constitution."

No, I argued against them changing its meaning through their interpretation. Maybe I wasn't entirely clear. If they can judge the constitutionality of laws, then they have to interpret what the Constitution says in order to decide if the law is in accordance.

"If that's what they meant to say, then why didn't they just say it?"

That IS what it says. Congress shall not make a law that deals with the establishment of religion. How is that unclear?

"That law establishes the words 'under god' in an officially sanctioned pledge."

You're misusing the word "establish." Remember that when used with religion, "establishment" means something more specific.

Chris:

"I tend to see humans as a mammal with a bigger brain, with no more 'inherent' rights than any other creature."

I really don't see how that goes together with your belief in ideals, but I really don't want to get into that.

And I'm really not trying to say, "It's constitutional, so you should just accept it." I'm saying that I sincerely don't believe it's wrong, and I believe the Constitution backs me up.

"That part was sarcasm, based on my belief that the collective mind of the US at that time was impaired."

I suspected it was sarcasm, but I treated it as a serious statement because I wasn't quite sure. I think the collective mind of the U.S. is impaired right now. I suppose history will prove which of us was right.

I don't believe I have insinuated at any point that the Pledge is law, and I'm a bit confused where that popped up.

My point was, and is, that for the first 50 years of its existence the Pledge could be said, with pride and without omitting any words, by any American. The last 50 years it could not. So far I've seen no reason why this should be considered right.

Regarding the tediousness of arguing over what words mean, that's precisely why the SCOTUS "interprets" the constitution. You and I look at the same words, and we see different meanings.

The justices are supposed to be well educated enough in legal history and the convention of legal language to be able to determine what the law means in the context in question. That's what interpreting means. The history of the 1st includes many references by the authors of the constitution that make this issue more clear than the circular arguments going on here. The 9th district ruling was not made for political expediency, that's for sure.

Chris,

I think the thread is muddled enough, that our wires are getting crossed. I am arguing that the 1954 law that established the words "under God" as part of the pledge is unconstitutional. If you're getting accused of arguing that the pledge is unconstitutional, it's probably because someone is not addressing their responses to me.

Jon Boy:

"That IS what it says. Congress shall not make a law that deals with the establishment of religion. How is that unclear?"

It's not. Go back and look at my original post, where I said that the arguments for overturning the 9th district ruling were based on the idea that "under god" is not religious lauguage. If God isn't a religious concept, then adding "under God" isn't a violation, if it is, then Congress made a law that deals with the establishment of religion. Therefore, it's unconstitutional.

'That law establishes the words 'under god' in an officially sanctioned pledge.'

You're misusing the word 'establish.' Remember that when used with religion, 'establishment' means something more specific."

I'm using the dictionary definition, My dictionary doesn't mention religion at all.

Establishment: 1. the act of establishing or condition of being established 2. A business or firm including it's members, staff and possessions. 3 an exclusive or powerful group in control of society or a field of activity.

Establish: 1. To make firm or secure 2 To settle securely in a position. 3. To cause to be recognized or accepted. 4. To found or create.

To set up; found. See Synonyms at found1.
To bring about; generate: establish goodwill in the neighborhood.

To place or settle in a secure position or condition; install: They established me in my own business.
To make firm or secure.
To cause to be recognized and accepted: a discovery that established his reputation.
To introduce and put (a law, for example) into force.
To prove the validity or truth of: The defense attorneys established the innocence of the accused.
To make a state institution of (a church).

Establishment(noun)[only a noun, can't be a verb]
es·tab·lish·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stblsh-mnt)
n.

The condition or fact of being established.
Something established, as:
An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
An established church.
A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
often Establishment An established social order, as:
A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.

I'm not at all sure that this is true, Wetchik. Your logic would mean that the national motto could be "America: Land for Christians Only" and it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, I thought I'd pointed out earlier in this thread -- and you had already accepted -- that the pledge IS law. The Pledge of Allegiance HAS been signed into law. Really. Legislative branch and everything. Presidential signature. It's a law.

I'm surprised you would argue this, Jon. If the national motto were "American: Land for Christians Only," but no other laws were passed to prevent non-Christians from worshipping their pagan deities, how would that abridge the free exercise of religion for non-Christians?

What Tom mentions there is *exactly* the issue. A national motto that says, "America, for christians only" but has no laws that prohibit non christians from living here is a very good analogy for a pledge that says "one nation under god" but doesn't require that the sayers of the pledge actually worship a god.

Wetchik,
Your dictionary says "can't be a noun"? baloney.
I gave you my reference, American Heritage.
Here's another:
Websters unabridged. Establishment 1. The ACT of establishing etc.
Yes. Websters talks about establishing state religions under "establishmentarianism" as well as some references in establishment, but they are examples of the meaning. The example: "the establishment of a state church" could just as easily have been "the establishment of a state postal service"

In either case, it's a verb, as described by Webster's first definition, "The ACT of establishing"

Verb: any of class of words functioning to express existence, action, or occurrence. (American Heritage)

I guess you would say "run" is not a verb, because you can say "I had a good run today" And no, I couldn't say "I'm going to RUN you" either. Does that mean run isn't a verb?

The constitution isn't talking about religion that has been established, it is talking about whether congress can establish religion. The 1st prohibits congress from acting to establish religion.

Glenn: I think Wetchik is saying that "establish" isn't a noun, and he's right. Some verbs like "run" are also nouns. "Run" is an intransitive verb, so that's why you can't say "I'm going to run you."

"Can you honestly say that the 1954 law inserting 'under God' into the Pledge did not 'establish' 'under God' as part of the Pledge?"

A motto is a brief statement made to express a principle, goal or ideal. A pledge is guarantee of allegiance by a solemn binding promise. In my mind it would actually be WORSE to recite the pledge of allegiance, which is like a verbal contract with the government, stating that it was under a deity I did not believe existed or had any affiliation with the government than it would be to simply live in a country that had a maxim attached to it giving the rest of the world the impression that I'm something I know that I'm not.

One is simply influencing the opinions of those who hear it whereas the other is a heartfelt expression of how YOU feel.

Tom's example is actually the lesser of two evils, and in my mind makes the point perfectly.

We're not talking about evils here. We're talking about whether the pledge is legal in its current state.

"No more dodging, Jon."

Tom: What's this now? Jon Boy won't play your games, so you're trying to pin down someone else?

Since the first amendment states that congress cannot make a law that benefits an etablishment of religion, and your theoretical motto would benefit Christianity, then I would say no. I see your point. Your theoretical motto, if it was required to recite it like the pledge is now, would be a violation. The fact that there are recitation requirements on the pledge now is a violation. But the actual words of the pledge are not. I fail to see how the phrase "under God" benefits Christianity over other religions in this country. I hope this answers your question. Do you want to know why I even have this position? It's because of the reason why this is even a legal issue. It is an attack on Christianity. If it is removed, that is what everyone will think. Give me a reason you want it removed besides calling "under God" brainwashing or an all out attack on all forms of religion in our country. You want to hear an interesting fact? Guess where all of our country's morals came from? When the Constitution was being written, Continental Congress was using the Bible as a cross-reference. So, if you do remove "In God We Trust" off of our money and remove the phrase in the pledge, it will have done little to remove all influences of religion in out country. I think that is your motive for doing this. Ok, I'll stop, I got way off into a tangent sorry.

Wetchik's support of the Pledge seems much more fragile than yours, and based largely on -- of all things -- dictionary definitions. Obviously, that kind of Constitutional interpretation is so narrow as to be useless, and I believe a demonstration of its uselessness is in order.

By arguing that a national motto cannot, BY DEFINITION, violate the Bill of Rights (due to its lack of general enforcement and "establishment"), Wetchik implies that the content of the motto is absolutely irrelevant to its constitutionality. Therefore, a phrase which would be blatantly unconstitutional in another legislative act -- like "America: For Christians Only" -- would be acceptable as a motto, since a motto cannot constitute establishment or infringement.

Even the phrase "America: Only Rich White Landowners Can Vote" would be constitutional, because -- while untrue and in opposition to the spirit of the Constitution itself -- it would not be legally binding and thus neither an establishment nor an infringement.

Your reaction to this argument is apparently to dismiss it altogether as a "side issue" irrelevant to the discussion. From what I understand of your posts, your position seems to be that "America: For Christians Only" is BLATANTLY offensive, and thus infringement -- but "under God" is NOT, for some reason, and is thus constitutional. I find this a little incoherent, to be honest, as infringement has nothing to do with blatant offense. If "under God" is constitutional only -- as you and Wetchik have argued -- because the Pledge does not count as "establishment," surely "America: For Christians Only" passes the exact same standard, as it ALSO -- by Wetchik's own dictionary definitions -- is not "establishment."

---------

Okay, I wrote all that while Wetchik was posting a flurry of new information. Here's my reply:

Your response -- that a motto counts as "establishment" if it's designed to promote a specific religion -- is PRECISELY the logic used by the Federal Circuit Court when it ruled to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge. Ample documentation was provided, as I've said before on this thread, that the motivation behind the inclusion of this phrase was the SPECIFIC promotion of Christianity. Moreover, the defense of the phrase even today often takes the form of Christian support; you'll notice that members of non-Judeo-Christian religions are suspiciously rare in the pro-pledge camp. The Circuit Court found that, given one of the specific meanings of a capitalized "God" in our society and the specific intent of the framers, the phrase "under God" WAS clearly intended to promote Christianity. By your own admission, and by the same logic used by the court, this constituted "establishment."

"Guess where all of our country's morals came from? When the Constitution was being written, Continental Congress was using the Bible as a cross-reference."

They actually used SEVERAL texts as cross-references, but I'll certainly concede that the Founding Fathers were familiar with the Bible and generally accepting of its codes of behavior. Given that the vast majority of the moral codes provided in the Bible predate the Bible by literally thousands of years, however, I think this kind of logic is more than a little dodgy. Moreover, this argument specifically consists of the "America was founded as a Christian nation, no matter what the Constitution says, so you're attacking the foundation of the country if you want to change that" claim which is, at its heart, not only flawed but also potentially harmful.

I can't help but note that both you and Jon Boy oppose the removal of "under God" because you worry that it would constitute a "victory" for atheists seeking to expunge God from government altogether; give 'em an inch on a reasonable argument, the logic seems to be, and who knows how far those atheists will go?

This is a perfect example of a slippery slope fallacy -- and, moreover, a very simplistic and somewhat vilified portrayal of non-Christians in this country.

Here, again, you're wrong. At the moment, I live in downstate Illinois -- and I specifically picked that phrase because, in an argument I recently had with a very Baptist shopkeeper, she suggested that we change our national motto to PRECISELY that phrase.

Why? Because America was founded on Christian principles, because America will remain strong only as long as its people are strong in Christ, and because it hurts the souls of the good Christians in this country to have to associate with people who are hurling themselves head-first into Hell. We should kick out all the non-Christians, or at least make sure they can't vote; phrases like "under God" and "In God We Trust" keep people reminded of how important God is, she argued, and keep all the hell-bound in their place.

She pointed out that most of the country feels the way she does; after all, everyone she voted for on the local ticket won, as did her state and congressional reps (but not governor) -- and, after all, the country's got a born-again President (the son of another good Christian) who knows and loves God. And we'll be a great country as long as he still does.

In fact, she pointed out, the best thing the country could do is put Christ in charge; after all, with all the non-Christians gone, how could anything bad happen to God's own country?

Lest you think I'm exaggerating, I want to reiterate that these were her EXACT opinions. And they're not rare down here, either. It's not some weird, wacko minority. A LOT of people throughout the Midwest feel this way, and a lot of politicians feel compelled to pander to them -- even if they don't feel so devout themselves. (Consider the ridiculously unanimous vote to condemn the Circuit Court's decision on the Pledge, which is completely unprecedented in history; Congress never saw fit to unanimously condemn ANY judicial decision in HISTORY, even the obviously bad ones like the Dred Scott case -- but they DID condemn this one, because to not appear to be a Christian zealot in this country is the kiss of death, politically.)

-------

BTW, I don't agree that the Pledge is constitutional; I just agree that by only the dictionary definitions you've provided, the Pledge would seem to be constitutional -- regardless of its content. Luckily, I'm not quite so narrow in my interpretation of the Constitution.

I never claimed they were original. I only claimed they were logical. And as for the validity of your point, we could make up hypothetical situations that could be used to logically argue that just about everything is illegal.

"From what I understand of your posts, your position seems to be that 'America: For Christians Only' is BLATANTLY offensive, and thus infringement -- but 'under God' is NOT, for some reason, and is thus constitutional.

I never said that constitutionality was based on offensiveness, and I never said that "under God" offends no one. I've repeatedly stated that being offended is completely irrelevant. I do believe that "under God" does not constitute the establishment of religion. I believe that a motto like "For Christians Only" would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

"I can't help but note that both you and Jon Boy oppose the removal of 'under God' because you worry that it would constitute a 'victory' for atheists seeking to expunge God from government altogether."

I also oppose it because I believe the Supreme Court has assumed far more power than they ever should have had, and I believe it is leading to abuse.

Wetchik said: "It seems you believe that the constitution is the country's authoritive inanimate dictator."

Actually, I would say (somewhat jokingly, of course) that you believe that the Supreme Court is the country's authoritive dictator. Obviously, the court's opinion of the Constitution is authoritative. Also, court rulings can only be overturned by further court rulings, so this power is unchecked. The court can change the original meaning of the Constitution however they like and use that to strike down or allow things that wouldn't have been struck down or allowed in the past. If the first amendment is really that vague or inapplicable in modern times, then we need further amendment.

Court rulings can be overturned by amending the constitution. Don't forget that.

I know I'm going to get an argument from Jon Boy here, but the fact is that the SCOTUS has found that teacher led prayer in public schools violates the 1st, because it coerces students to pray. I know of three such cases, and only one was brought by an atheist. The other two (bringing a clergyman in to speak at a graduation and providing a microphone for students to say a prayer before a football game) were brought by religious minorities in their given communities.

The SCOTUS' argument is that the school is government agency, and that leading a prayer establishes a religious environment that the students are forced to participate in.

Now, my particular feeling on these rulings is that they are questionable, for a couple of reasons: One, school isn't congress. That's basic wording. two, it violates the teacher's freedom to practice his/her religion, especially when, as in christianity, prostyletizing is considered a requirement.

But the pledge is much more clear cut. You refuse to answer whether the law established "under god" as part of the pledge, because you want your meaning of establishment to be the only meaning possible. Not only is this not the case, but it's not the primary meaning listed in my two dictionaries, and it's not the meaning used by the SCOTUS. Likewise, there is no religious requirement to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

History is against you. Unfortunately, politics is with you. Now which argument do you think they'll use, de minimus, or ceremonial deism?

Glenn: I realize that a new amendment would negate previous court rulings. However, don't you think it would be more logical to remove ambiguity from the Constitution and THEN let the court make its rulings?

I did answer whether the law "established" "under God" as part of the pledge. Look at the last paragraph of my post at 4:19 PM on November 22. You're trying to use the word "establish" to mean two different things: putting something into law and making a state institution of a church. Whether it's the primary definition doesn't matter--it's whether it's the most FITTING definition.

You're correct. That's entirely what I'm trying to do.

The original pledge is defintitely constitutional. I still would say that "America: Land for Christians only" violates the first amendment because it would make non-Christians feel coerced to be Christians. If you read my previous post, then you would know that I believe it is oppressive and immoral(even though it might be constitutional.)

Tom, please keep the implied insults to yourself please.