- 09 Dec 2005 18:09
#769580
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.
"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.