[THX-1138]

The dispute over the Pledge of Allegiance in this country has baffled me, since it should be a rather easy thing to understand. Clearly, the current Pledge is unconstitutional, and yet, the President, every member of the US Senate, and every member of the US House (with the exception of Mike Honda and maybe one other person) feel that it isn't. I will now demonstrate that the pledge is indeed unconstitutional.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof;"

This, the separation of church and state, is our standard for determing such things. Now let's break it down into two parts which will serve as litmus tests. These two parts will be the establishment clause and the prohibition clause.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
2. or prohibit the free exercise thereof;

Now let us put the Pledge to these litmus tests. The phrase, "under God," was added to the Pledge via a law passed by Congress and signed by President Eisenhower. The phrase "under God" clearly gives respect to a religious figure or idea, thus Congress has violated the establishment clause. Though it does pass the prohibition litmus, however, since it must pass both, the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Now, let us remove the phrase "under God" and test it. By not having a mention of God in the pledge, it no longer violates the establishment clause. Now, does it violate the prohibition clause? No, it does not because one (school children, for instance) can still recite the Pledge with the phrase "under God," however, this time it is voluntary. The precedent in this regard is the issue of school prayer. When school-sponsored prayer was abolished, it did not make praying in school illegal, but simply made it voluntary. Thus, no one should be bitching and moaning about the Pledge or school prayer being banned. Your kids can still pray in school, they can still recite the Pledge, however they wish to. And if they can do so voluntarily, why would anyone want to have these things school-sponsored? The only two possibilities are that they are ignorant of the situation regarding the issue, or that they wish to force their beliefs, via the government, onto others.

The argument I have presented here is irrefutable. The Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

[Der Freiheitsucher]

Let's start by the sad fact that nothing in law is irrefutable. Your argument far from hermetic.

The whole discussion about the Pledge of Allegiance is a matter of interpretation. While you see it as a breech of the first amendment, it is incredibly easy not to.

National and international jurisprudence have established a way of thinking (which is based on conservative law interpretation) regarding national legislation favouring one religion over an other. Your country has a 27% protestant majority. Now, the Supreme Court is the legitimate interpreter of the Constitution. They can interpret this, and you¿d have to accept "under God" as a general God for every citizen - ranging from the Christian God to Allah to whatever deity you choose. By "God" you understand all gods, not the Christian or Catholic God. If you see it this way, there is no unconstitutional bit. The way you interpreted the first amendment is seen as an example of judicial activism, and the current Supreme Court dislikes it very much.

Many countries have already gone by this stage and problem, and the interpretation I showed you is very common. The idea is to "harmonize" every single law with the Constitution, trying to interpret them all as harmonious and working for the same principle. You simply have to have a very lax approach to the literal meaning of the legislation/constitution/whatever. The Pledge of Allegiance isn't favouring any religion or prohibiting the free exercise of any other.

From another perspective we can appeal to another common type of interpretation which is based on looking at the "will of the legislator". In this case, you could say that the point of adding the first amendment to the Bill of Rights was to create the Wall of Separation between the Church and State. Even from the liberal point of view, the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't break the Constitution. You can even see on that famous letter of Thomas Jefferson to congress, where he evaluates the first amendment, he refers to it as the concept of wall of separation. If you understand the first amendment as a way to guarantee that Church and State will not be merged, then the Pledge of Allegiance isn't unconstitutional. The point of the first amendment is being complied with from this point of view.

Here's the extract from that famous letter:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State

Even if I agree with the idea you're trying to convey, your argument is far from irrefutable, especially from a strictly legal standpoint.

[THX-1138]

They can interpret this, and you¿d have to accept "under God" as a general God for every citizen - ranging from the Christian God to Allah to whatever deity you choose. By "God" you understand all gods, not the Christian or Catholic God. If you see it this way, there is no unconstitutional bit.

Do these scenarios promote or "respect an establishment of" religion?

Government promoting religion over secularism? Yes. A reference to God is promoting the idea of a supernatural being, thus violating the establishment clause.

Government promoting one religion over another? Yes. The phrase "under God" promotes religion over secularism, patriarchal theism over matriarchal theism, dualistic religion over monistic (or pantheistic) religion, monotheism over polytheism, and so on. This is clearly respecting an or rather multiple establishments of religion.

And the prohibition clause prohibits the government from promoting secularism over religion. For example, if the Pledge were to read, "under no God," it would be in violation of the prohibition clause, thus being unconstitutional.

[Korimyr the Rat]

People care about this?

Seriously; the religious man is unharmed by taking the Pledge without referring to God, and the irreligious man is unharmed by taking the Pledge with it. If it weren't for the fact that certain irrational and intolerant zealots insist upon making an issue of it, noone would give the taking of the Pledge a second thought.

Even still, this issue would be simply resolved if everyone involved would just shut the fuck up and allow people to say the Pledge the way they prefer; perhaps then we'd have more time to spend on thinking about the rest of the Pledge: "indivisible and with justice for all".

[THX-1138]

Who is 'harmed' is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not it is constitutional, which it clearly isn't.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Who is 'harmed' is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not it is constitutional...

Why?

It is my understanding that the purpose of the Constitution itself was to avoid the abuses of previous Western governments-- and the societal damage caused by them. It is not sacrosanct.

If no harm is being done, I repeat, why do you care?

[THX-1138]

Because when the government violates the constitution, it needs to be enforced. You can't pick and choose which unconstitutional laws are to be corrected.

[wonder cow]

The phrase "under God" clearly gives respect to a religious figure or idea

Here is the fun part. What determines whether or not this violates the standard of separation of church and state is what the courts say about it. Until a court rules (and it is upheld) that it meets the threshold you claim, then it is not unconstitutional. Once they do, we can look back and say, "Wow, how stupid of us to not realize that was unconstitutional".

This is all a very funny little area to discuss, because how do we totally devoid ourselves of our religious heritage, which is significant in our country, when it comes to all aspects of our governance?

I agree it is a contradiction to on the one hand say "under God" and "in God we trust" and on the other hand proclaim the necessity for separation of Chruch and State (which, byw, I support and believe is an absolute must for any Democracy to survive) .

But these minor inconsistencies are of no real consequence.

If we insist on a purists view of all our laws and principals, then we would be running in circles continuously over nothing. We would become so bureaucratic as to paralyze ourselves.

So let's pick our battles wisely. The battle over forced prayer in public schools was one worth fighting for and it appears that the sensible side of that argument has won.

You can't pick and choose which unconstitutional laws are to be corrected.

Sure you can. Our nation has been doing it for well over 200 years.

[THX-1138]

This is all a very funny little area to discuss, because how do we totally devoid ourselves of our religious heritage, which is significant in our country, when it comes to all aspects of our governance?

This is irrelevant. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the country decides that we should pay respect that to our "religious heritage," then they can amend the Constitution, but until then, the Constitution must be abided by.

THX-1138 Wrote:
You can't pick and choose which unconstitutional laws are to be corrected.

Sure you can. Our nation has been doing it for well over 200 years.

That doesn't make it right, nor does this statement address the question the question of whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional, which it clearly isn't, as I have demonstrated.

[Apollos]

The phrase "under God" clearly gives respect to a religious figure or idea, thus Congress has violated the establishment clause.

Allow me to clear some of the post-modern deconstructionism out of this argument and suddenly this will all be clear to you. The primary principle of conceptual interpretation (known as the normal, literal, or originalist method) is to interpret all documents based on the intent of their author(s). It is clear from their papers and writings that the authors of the establishment clause meant denomination when they said religion. The writers of the document obviously did not intend this type of censorship of religious ideas, considering the fact that at that time the public schools did far more. In fact, the catholic school movement in this country started because catholics thought the public schools were too protestant!

Another point of some import. Does this statement in the pledge even constitute respect for an established religion?

If I were to say to you "many of the founding fathers were Christians", would I be violating the establishment clause? No, of course not. Now, the meaning of the words "under God" in the pledge should be understood, "one nation, founded on Christian principles" (an undeniable historical fact).

[THX-1138]

The writers of the document obviously did not intend this type of censorship of religious ideas

As I have already demonstrated, there is no censorship involved. Children, as well as any citizen can still say "under God" in the Pledge. The only difference is that it is voluntary. Censorship only comes into play if the prohibition clause is violated.

considering the fact that at that time the public schools did far more. In fact, the catholic school movement in this country started because catholics thought the public schools were too protestant!

This is because the Separation of Church & State did not apply to the states and municipalities at the time. After the ratification of the 14th amendment, it became nationlized as a result of the Equal Protection clause.

Another point of some import. Does this statement in the pledge even constitute respect for an established religion?

As I have already stated, the phrase "under God," gives respect to religion over secularism, patriarchal theism over matriarchal theism, dualistic religion over monistic religion, monotheism over polytheism, and so on. It clearly gives respect to multiple establishments of religion.

If I were to say to you "many of the founding fathers were Christians", would I be violating the establishment clause? No, of course not.

That's because you're not the government. The separation only applies to the government; "Congress [and the states and municipalities due to the Equal Protection clause] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

"one nation, founded on Christian principles" (an undeniable historical fact).

"many of the founding fathers were Christians"

These statements are debatable. Most of the major Founding Fathers (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, and the like) were in fact deists, not Christians. Adams is the only one who clearly was a Christian with Hamilton's affiliation debatable. In fact, John Adams the only obvious Christian of the significant Founding Father's disagrees with your assessment...

[b]"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." - John Adams, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, November 4th, 1796[b]

And finally, why can't you just admit that the current Pledge is in violation of the Constitution? And why can't you admit that the best case scenario, regardless of one's opinion of the Constitution, is to have to no promotion of religion over secularism, one religion over another, or secularism over religion? After all, if there was a law that said that saying "under God" while reciting the Pledge was illegal you would be in an uproar, yet under the law it is no different than what we have now since the establishment clause is being violated, just as the prohibition clause would be violated in that scenario. The two clauses are equal, neither has precedence over the other.

[Apollos]

These statements are debatable. Most of the major Founding Fathers (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, and the like) were in fact deists, not Christians.

Common misconception. Of the men you listed only Jefferson is thought to have been deist by respectable historians.

Anyway, the government could say "many of the founding fathers were Christians" without violating the establishment clause. This is because it is true. It is not a religious idea, it is a historical fact. The same goes with the words under God in the pledge. They state the fact that this nation was built on very Christian central ideas. Adams was a twit for including that statement in his treaty, and he is in disagreement with the rest of early American historical literature.

[THX-1138]

I would strongly suggest that you re-educate yourself on American history, though the Founders did belong to Churches, most of them were deists, not Christians.

The same goes with the words under God in the pledge. They state the fact that this nation was built on very Christian central ideas.

The Pledge is an affirmation of loyalty, thus by including the phrase "under God" you are not acknowledging an historical fact (which it isn't to begin with), but are instead are assigning loyalty to said God, thus violating the establishment clause.

Furthermore, you have not addressed my previous counter arguments.

And again, I ask you, why are you futilely attempting to save this piece of legislation that is clearly wrong, both constitutionally and ethically?

[Der Freiheitsucher]

And again, I ask you, why are you futilely attempting to save this piece of legislation that is clearly wrong, both constitutionally and ethically?

You haven't "demonstrated" nor "proven" anything. You keep repeating the same lines over and over without reading what everyone is telling you. Take these for example:

]Do these scenarios promote or "respect an establishment of" religion?

No. Referencing to God doesn't respect any establishment.

]A reference to God is promoting the idea of a supernatural being, thus violating the establishment clause.

1. A reference to God is not promoting the idea of a supernatural being.
2. If a reference to God meant promoting the idea of a supernatural being, then that wouldn't necesarilly violate the first amendment, as I have already stated.

]The phrase "under God" promotes religion over secularism, patriarchal theism over matriarchal theism, dualistic religion over monistic (or pantheistic) religion, monotheism over polytheism, and so on.

You are just simply non-sequitur in everything you write. I don't know where you got all this from. "God" can be a girl, a guy, it can be a congregation of deities, it can be a rock. It can be anything. I have already stated this but you repeat it, so I'll just assume you're not reading.

And the prohibition clause prohibits the government from promoting secularism over religion.

The point of the first amendment is to create a wall of separation between Church and State. Is that being violated in any way? Again, I have already said all this but you don't address it at all. Instead, you naively ask why we are making futile attempts to defend it - while it seems you don't even understand the first amendment.

Furthermore, you have not addressed my previous counter arguments.

You haven't addressed anything.

[THX-1138]

Yes I have. Quit trying to overcomplicate the issue. This issue is as simple as a math equation.

Reread what I posted at the beginning...

Put the Pledge to these litmus tests. The phrase, "under God," was added to the Pledge via a law passed by Congress and signed by President Eisenhower. The phrase "under God" clearly gives respect to a religious figure or idea, thus Congress has violated the establishment clause. Though it does pass the prohibition litmus, however, since it must pass both, the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Now, let us remove the phrase "under God" and test it. By not having a mention of God in the pledge, it no longer violates the establishment clause. Now, does it violate the prohibition clause? No, it does not because one (school children, for instance) can still recite the Pledge with the phrase "under God," however, this time it is voluntary. The precedent in this regard is the issue of school prayer. When school-sponsored prayer was abolished, it did not make praying in school illegal, but simply made it voluntary.

[Der Freiheitsucher]

This issue is as simple as a math equation.

Haha. That is your first and biggest mistake. You laymen don't stand inside the law field to think about law, but instead think it is black and white as seen from outside. The purpose of this forum is to debate law in its academia.

Quit trying to overcomplicate the issue.

Just because you can't address it at all doesn't mean it's complicated. Just because you thought you were providing irrefutable arguments (as silly as that sounds) and then you realised it had other points of view it doesn't mean it is "over-complicated". Unless you make a serious attempt at debating, you can gladly count on my absence in this thread.

Reread what I posted at the beginning

... Re-read what I replied.

[THX-1138]

Is that being violated in any way?

Yes, the government is promoting the idea of a God and that is in violation of the separation.

This is all that matters. The relevance of what is meant by "under God" is non existent. Every other thing you bring into the discussion is not relevant to the issue at hand, and that is does the Pledge of Allegiance violate the separation (ie. the establishment and/or prohibition clauses)? The answer is yes, clearly it does.

[Der Freiheitsucher]

Yes, the government is promoting the idea of a God and that is in violation of the separation.

The wall of separation is meant to be a separation between Church and State. How is the pledge merging these two in any way? If you paid attention, you'd see that the mention of God doesn't even relate to a church. The church has nothing to do with this.

Every other thing you bring into the discussion is not relevant to the issue at hand

Heh. No wonder you thought you were providing irrefutable arguments.

The relevance of what is meant by "under God" is non existent

Why are you over-wording? Did you just want to say "It is irrelevant"? If you meant that, then what on earth are you talking about? What is meant by it is absolutely relevant. It is the core issue.

I just realised you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

[THX-1138]

How is the pledge merging these two in any way? If you paid attention, you'd see that the mention of God doesn't even relate to a church. The church has nothing to do with this.

It is merging the two by having a oath of allegiance with a reference to God read out aloud by school children. As I said before, if the pledge read under no god, you would look at it differently, yet it is no different.

[Der Freiheitsucher]

It is merging the two by having a oath of allegiance with a reference to God

To a God.

TO A GOD.

It is COMPLETELY unrelated to the church.

if the pledge read under no god, you would look at it differently

Typical circumstancial ad-hominem.

1. I am absolutely and militantly atheist.
2. I think the Pledge is unconstitutional, but certainly not for the reasons you say nor the way you express it.
3. What I think about it is irrelevant.