Under God?

[conserv.pat15]

How so? These little one liners of yours are getting old and adding nothing to the debate.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

This means that Congress can not pass a law that establishes a state religion. For example... Congress can not pass a law that says (insert name of a religion here) is now our countries religion.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

This means that Congress can not pass a law that establishes a state religion. For example... Congress can not pass a law that says (insert name of a religion here) is now our countries religion.

It means far more than that, it means they can pass no law that even regards/respects/involves anything like establishment of religion. If merely this was a ban on a state religion they would have left out the word, "respecting."

Congress can do nothing that in any way involves giving any kind of acknowledgment to any religious system at all. Though they often violate this sadly.

 

[Engimo]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

This means that Congress can not pass a law that establishes a state religion. For example... Congress can not pass a law that says (insert name of a religion here) is now our countries religion.

You know, if you actually read that sentence, you'll realize that you're wrong. "Respecting an establishment of religion" does not mean that we only cannot create a state religion, it means that we cannot base our laws on religion or excessively include religion in our government. Ever hear of the Lemon Test?

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

 

[Stace]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

This means that Congress can not pass a law that establishes a state religion. For example... Congress can not pass a law that says (insert name of a religion here) is now our countries religion.

Well, for a long time, it was mandatory to recite the Pledge....making it mandatory for people to acknowlege the monotheistic God.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well, for a long time, it was mandatory to recite the Pledge....making it mandatory for people to acknowlege the monotheistic God.

lol when was it ever mandatory? When was it a crime not to recite the pledge?

 

[Stace]

lol when was it ever mandatory? When was it a crime not to recite the pledge?

Well, I don't know where you went to school, but when I was a young'n, it was mandatory for us to recite it....unless we wanted to get in trouble, anyway.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It means far more than that, it means they can pass no law that even regards/respects/involves anything like establishment of religion. If merely this was a ban on a state religion they would have left out the word, "respecting."

Congress can do nothing that in any way involves giving any kind of acknowledgment to any religious system at all. Though they often violate this sadly.

Ya right the establishment clause was and never has been a wall between church and state the establishment of religion entails a state church; such as, the Church of England in which it was, at that time, the only legal religion which could be practiced in England so that the British crown could fill its treasury with the money taken in church dues. The establishment clause was never intended to keep all things Christian out of the public square which is demonstratable that one of the earliest traditions of Congress is to open each session with a prayer. The fact of the matter is that the wall between church and state was not erected by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution it was erected by an anti-Catholic Judge attempting to keep federal money from supporting Catholic educational institutions. The wall was not a noble feet intended to stop the persecution of peoples of different religions it was an act by a protestant judge to oppress peoples of the Catholic faith.

Your lack of historical knowledge on this subject is laughable...

and you claim that you were a poli sci major? You must not have studied.

 

[tryreading]

This poll question was worded poorly. I voted yes because I do think that you should be able to say 'under god' in the pledge if you want to. That's freedom of speech, baby. Conversely, I definitely don't think anyone should be forced to say 'under god' if they don't want to, either.

You can recite the 'Under God' version of the Pledge. Anybody can. I can. You can right now, if you want to. Anybody who says otherwise is creating an issue that doesn't exist.

But school children can't be forced to say it, and can't be led in reciting it by a government employee in a government building. Who would want to force this on a captive audience of kids anyway?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well, I don't know where you went to school, but when I was a young'n, it was mandatory for us to recite it....unless we wanted to get in trouble, anyway.

it was never mandatory at all. Was there a law put in place that made it illegal for you not to say the pledge of allegiance?

If there wasn't then it wasn't mandatory.

 

[jfuh]

Ya right the establishment clause was and never has been a wall between church and state the establishment of religion entails a state church; such as, the Church of England in which it was, at that time, the only legal religion which could be practiced in England so that the British crown could fill its treasury with the money taken in church dues. The establishment clause was never intended to keep all things Christian out of the public square which is demonstratable that one of the earliest traditions of Congress is to open each session with a prayer. The fact of the matter is that the wall between church and state was not erected by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution it was erected by an anti-Catholic Judge attempting to keep federal money from supporting Catholic educational institutions. The wall was not a noble feet intended to stop the persecution of peoples of different religions it was an act by a protestant judge to oppress peoples of the Catholic faith.

Your lack of historical knowledge on this subject is laughable...

and you claim that you were a poli sci major? You must not have studied.

Care to name these maverick judges whom noted of a "wall of seperation between church and state"?

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Yet in 1954 they passed a law adding in the words “under God” to the pledge of allegiance. What kind of crack are you smoking to make you think that the phrase “under God” is NOT respecting an establishment of religion? What secular legislative purpose does this serve, other than to coddle the superstitious and make them feel warm and fuzzy towards conservative candidates when its time to vote?

 

[Mikkel]

You can recite the 'Under God' version of the Pledge. Anybody can. I can. You can right now, if you want to. Anybody who says otherwise is creating an issue that doesn't exist.

But school children can't be forced to say it, and can't be led in reciting it by a government employee in a government building. Who would want to force this on a captive audience of kids anyway?

That's exactly what I said. :2razz:

 

[Stinger]

Absolutely.
And this is one of the many things we cannot allow the atheists to change.

But it was OK for Christians to change it so it would say that excluding those who do not believe in Christian god?

 

[Stinger]

90% of the U.S. population believes in a god in one form or another.

But not the Chrisitian god that the pledge acknowledges and respects.

The original intent of the first amendment wasn't the seperation of church and state in the first place it was to stop the forced worship of a single religion IE the Church of England which Britian ordered to be the official religion of the Colonies and which they ordered the citizenry to pay dues to.

No it doesn't say "a religion" is just says "religion" any religion at all.

I'm like Jefferson while I don't myself prescribe to the divinity of Christ I realize the important role which religion plays in effecting the morality of the citizenry of our Republic.

Then you should also recognize the dangers of mixing political power with the power of faith. Christians have ample opportunity to engage in their religious ceremonies without having to force it on the rest of us or having government respect it.

Let's make the pledge what it originally was, a pledge to our country and not anyone's particular religious faith.

 

[Kandahar]

Jefferson and Madison were not the only founding fathers as I recall and Jefferson still knew full well the importance that religion played for the morality of the citizenry that's why he volunteered as a minister at his church which he attended regurally.

You're avoiding the point. You cited Jefferson's words when he clearly would have disagreed with you. And what Jefferson did in his private time has no relevance to the fact that he obviously was against mixing church and state.

 

[RightinNYC]

You know, if you actually read that sentence, you'll realize that you're wrong. "Respecting an establishment of religion" does not mean that we only cannot create a state religion, it means that we cannot base our laws on religion or excessively include religion in our government. Ever hear of the Lemon Test?

The court's been moving away from Lemon for the past 30 years. Justice O'Connor was the one leading away from Lemon and in the direction of whatever the next test will be. It'll be interesting to see where it falls.

 

[Engimo]

The court's been moving away from Lemon for the past 30 years. Justice O'Connor was the one leading away from Lemon and in the direction of whatever the next test will be. It'll be interesting to see where it falls.

I sure hope not. It seems like a very reasonable test to me that maintains the secular-ness of the government. With what would it be replaced?

 

[jfuh]

I sure hope not. It seems like a very reasonable test to me that maintains the secular-ness of the government. With what would it be replaced?

Bush Inc.'s Theocracy. Evangelicals leading the way.

 

[RightinNYC]

I sure hope not. It seems like a very reasonable test to me that maintains the secular-ness of the government. With what would it be replaced?

Lemon came down in 1971 offering a 3 prong test and was lasted in waning effectiveness through Aguilar v. Felton in 1985. No significant establishment clause cases came up again until 1997, with Agostini v. Felton, effectively the same case. The difference in 12 years?

Blackmun was replaced by Breyer
White was replaced by Ginsburg
Brennan was replaced by Souter
Marshall was replaced by Thomas
Powell was replaced by Kennedy
Burger was replaced by Scalia

Now, instead of a (very weak) 5 v 4 in Aguilar, the balance shifts by one vote and becomes 5 v 4 the other way in Agostini. The death knell for Lemon is 3 years later, in Mitchell v. Helms.

The difference is how the majority defines the test. In Lemon it was

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

In Agostini, the majority noted that that Lemon did not offer a complete enough balancing test.

In Mitchell the new test (courtesy of Thomas) becomes "Secular, neutral, and nonideological"

Big difference. Now, "entanglement" and all the trouble that phrase brings is eliminated, and the standard has been shifted. O'Connor and Thomas were rewriting the test, but now who knows what will happen. Either way, rest assured, it wont be a theocracy.

 

[Engimo]

Lemon came down in 1971 offering a 3 prong test and was lasted in waning effectiveness through Aguilar v. Felton in 1985. No significant establishment clause cases came up again until 1997, with Agostini v. Felton, effectively the same case. The difference in 12 years?

Blackmun was replaced by Breyer
White was replaced by Ginsburg
Brennan was replaced by Souter
Marshall was replaced by Thomas
Powell was replaced by Kennedy
Burger was replaced by Scalia

Now, instead of a (very weak) 5 v 4 in Aguilar, the balance shifts by one vote and becomes 5 v 4 the other way in Agostini. The death knell for Lemon is 3 years later, in Mitchell v. Helms.

The difference is how the majority defines the test. In Lemon it was

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

In Agostini, the majority noted that that Lemon did not offer a complete enough balancing test.

In Mitchell the new test (courtesy of Thomas) becomes "Secular, neutral, and nonideological"

Big difference. Now, "entanglement" and all the trouble that phrase brings is eliminated, and the standard has been shifted. O'Connor and Thomas were rewriting the test, but now who knows what will happen. Either way, rest assured, it wont be a theocracy.

Ahh. So it's more of a rewording for clarity than a real fundamental change in what the test is saying? Fine with me - especially if it helps clear up ambiguity surrounding the constitutionality of laws.

 

[RightinNYC]

Ahh. So it's more of a rewording for clarity than a real fundamental change in what the test is saying? Fine with me - especially if it helps clear up ambiguity surrounding the constitutionality of laws.

It has some pretty significant implications though. For example, a proposed statute that would, say, allow kids of any faith (or no faith at all) to leave school at some point to attend mass, temple, or have time to relax, would have been clearly unconstitutional via Entanglement because of the intent of the legislature. But now, that law is Secular, Neutral, and Nonideological.

Under current law, that's good to go. The interpretation or substitution of a single word can have a huge impact on the court.

The word "penumbra" is single handedly responsible for Abortion Rights, for example.

 

[Stinger]

It clearly respects establishment of monotheism as the state approved system. In fact this was the entire reason it was added in the 1950's. To have Americans acknowledge the God of the Ahl al-Kitaab on a daily basis.

Which is why it should be removed but don't hold your breath.

 

[Synch]

Kids aren't forced to say it, I don't and never have. So they should be able to of course, they have a freedom of speech.

 

[tryreading]

Kids aren't forced to say it, I don't and never have. So they should be able to of course, they have a freedom of speech.

Kids can say it anytime they want, even in school, as long as they don't disrupt class. This is a non-issue.

The issue is, with the 'under God' included they can't be led in its recital by a government employee in a public building.

 

[Synch]

The issue is, with the 'under God' included they can't be led in its recital by a government employee in a public building.

Regardless of they are led or not, as long as they are not coerced into saying such matters, it is their choice. If a government official tries to lead those at a reasonable age in a public building into suicide, I would have no problem with that. Only those too stupid will follow will die, which is natural selection.