Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional

[josphII]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Now, without getting into the validity of the poll argument, would someone like to tell me how the Congress is being cowardly and not doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is supporting the wishes of their constituency?

It takes courage to stand up for what is right despite it's unpopularity.

Don't I know it. If a 150 million voters say something is right, is it right? Congress is there to do our bidding, not tell us what is right and wrong.

thats not necessarily true otherwise women may never have won the right to vote and slavery may still be legal

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Now, without getting into the validity of the poll argument, would someone like to tell me how the Congress is being cowardly and not doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is supporting the wishes of their constituency?

It takes courage to stand up for what is right despite it's unpopularity.

Another possibility is that the members of Congress think that the decision is wrong and that they are standing up for what is right.

 

[Red Dawn]

Another possibility is that the members of Congress think that the decision is wrong and that they are standing up for what is right.

Hmm.. Ahahahaha..Yeah right Even if it was right that's not the reason they are speaking up as they are. You give those swine too much credit. Comeone we are talking about Diane Fienstien, Trent Lott, Robert Byrd, Barney Frank and Tom Daschale!!!

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: josphIIthats not necessarily true otherwise women may never have won the right to vote and slavery may still be legal

Who's approval is necessary to amend the Constitution? Right, Congress's.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Another possibility is that the members of Congress think that the decision is wrong and that they are standing up for what is right.

Hmm.. Ahahahaha..Yeah right

Extreme cynicism and irrational hatred do not an argument or a fact make.

 

[Athanasius]

As I said in my 11:42 a.m. post, the inclusion of the phrase "under God" is regrettable because of its dubious historical motives. But Congress approved it in 1954 and therefore it is a legislative issue, not a judicial one.

That is, it is a legislative issue and not a judicial one unless what Congress did in 1954 was unconstitutional.

Now here we get into philosophy of law. One can examine Congress' motives and try to derive from those motives that they were thinking in an unconstitutional fashion. In my opinion, they were. But to me what they thought is regretable but not an issue of law. So, one has to look at what they did and try to discern whether the action was unconstitutional. Do we want any branch of the government judging us based on what we think?

I think one is hard pressed to say that "under God" is an unconstitutionally defensible statement when it comes from any government agency.

Unless that can be clearly demonstrated, the issue remains a legislative one, not a judicial one. Congress established it (though I don't think they should have). It is not a state establishment of religion, no one is forced to say it, it is not unconstitutional, and the judiciary never should have intervened and legislated from the bench.

Congress established it in 1954. If it is to be undone, Congress should undo it. Given the 99-0 rebuke of the District Court by the Senate, I think it unlikely that Congress will think the issue worth addressing at this time.

 

[silent tone]

The reason why the constitution has a clause for the separation of Church and state is because the writers of the constitution didn't want the country to have an official religion. The writers of the constitution were trying to avoid the situation in Britain where the king could force a religion on the people.

And now some people are trying to go one step further to avoid the situation of the past 50 years and prevent the government from endorsing religion at all.

How does saying "under God" represent the state supporting a single religion? Almost every single religion believes in a single God or supreme force. Lots of people who aren't even in a religion believe in some sort of supreme force. The statement "under God" represents the beliefs of almost everyone in America. As a result of this, the statement does not support a single religion and is constitutional.

So as long as the majority of people are happy, we can ignore the rights of the minority and ostricize them. Why can't we just remove it to prevent offending anyone?

If the use of the word God is unconstitutional, why does our currency have reference to God, why does the Supreme Court start with an invocation to God, and why does so many buildings in the capital have references to God? The interpretation that there can be no reference to a God is wrong because the founders never wrote the constitution to exclude a reference to God in government.

True, the ammendment only refers to congress making a law to respect a religion. But a reference to God validates a belief system. Why should the governments reference God, when they don't reference astrological icons? Why don't government documents reference the belief in extraterrestrial aliens? None of these are currently assertable as fact, but only God has the priveledge of being referenced by government.

 

[Speedy3D!]

There are much bigger problems in this world. People need to lighten up, life's too short to whine and complain over stuff like this.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Athanasius
As I said in my 11:42 a.m. post, the inclusion of the phrase "under God" is regrettable because of its dubious historical motives. But Congress approved it in 1954 and therefore it is a legislative issue, not a judicial one.

That is, it is a legislative issue and not a judicial one unless what Congress did in 1954 was unconstitutional.

Now here we get into philosophy of law. One can examine Congress' motives and try to derive from those motives that they were thinking in an unconstitutional fashion. In my opinion, they were. But to me what they thought is regretable but not an issue of law. So, one has to look at what they did and try to discern whether the action was unconstitutional. Do we want any branch of the government judging us based on what we think?

I think one is hard pressed to say that "under God" is an unconstitutionally defensible statement when it comes from any government agency.

Unless that can be clearly demonstrated, the issue remains a legislative one, not a judicial one. Congress established it (though I don't think they should have). It is not a state establishment of religion, no one is forced to say it, it is not unconstitutional, and the judiciary never should have intervened and legislated from the bench.

Congress established it in 1954. If it is to be undone, Congress should undo it. Given the 99-0 rebuke of the District Court by the Senate, I think it unlikely that Congress will think the issue worth addressing at this time.

OK, you brought me back into this thread.

I don't think - by any stretch of the imagination you can imagine EARLY CHRISTIANS debating what Caesar did was right or wrong in the political arena. They were decidedly UNpolitical and heeded Jesus' injunction to be "no part of the world" quite literally.

In fact, they were quite willing to die for their beliefs to not pledge allegence at all to Caesar - nevermind whether Rome was "one nation under god/caesar".

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: istallion
And now some people are trying to go one step further to avoid the situation of the past 50 years and prevent the government from endorsing religion at all.

Why is this only an issue now after 50 years? In all that time the people have not expressed a will to change things. Courts have also held that the use of God in the Pledge, the Motto, etc. cannot in itself be considered establishment of religion.

So as long as the majority of people are happy, we can ignore the rights of the minority and ostricize them. Why can't we just remove it to prevent offending anyone?

You do not have a right not to be offended. You have a right not to be coerced to adopt a certain religion by the state and a right to have the state not interfere with the practice of your religion. If nobody is compelled to say the Pledge, their rights are not being violated. The girl's father argued that simply hearing "under God" from the mouth of her public school teacher violated the first amendment. That is ridiculous. And, as it turns out, the girl herself likes saying "under God."

True, the ammendment only refers to congress making a law to respect a religion. But a reference to God validates a belief system. Why should the governments reference God, when they don't reference astrological icons? Why don't government documents reference the belief in extraterrestrial aliens? None of these are currently assertable as fact, but only God has the priveledge of being referenced by government.

This is absurd. Besides, one could argue strictly that since atheism is not a religion, it deserves no First Amendment protection.

The dissenting judge opined that even if "under God" is a constitutional violation, its actual effect on the free exercise of religion is so insignificant and its tendency to promote religious belief over the past 50 years has been so nearly nonexistent that it falls under the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex , "the law does not concern itself with trifles."

 

[UltraQuiet]

I would be curious about peoples reactions to this:

Say you had a public school system that did not schedule anything for Wednesday. No homework, no extracurricular activities, no meetings, no nothing.
Their reason- "Wednesday night is church night"
Whaddya think of that?

Dave

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Speedy3D!
There are much bigger problems in this world. People need to lighten up, life's too short to whine and complain over stuff like this.

So why are you here? It IS a big issue because no politician is willing to discuss the real big issues, like the war.

 

[Red Dawn]

As I said in my 11:42 a.m. post, the inclusion of the phrase "under God" is regrettable because of its dubious historical motives. But Congress approved it in 1954 and therefore it is a legislative issue, not a judicial one.

Finally a counter argument that makes sense

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: ScipionixThe girl's father argued that simply hearing "under God" from the mouth of her public school teacher violated the first amendment. That is ridiculous. And, as it turns out, the girl herself likes saying "under God."

Whether or not the girl likes saying "under God" would only be relevant to a question of standing on this case. The fact that she does like saying it gives credence to the father's belief that his daughter is being indoctrinated in religion. Therefore, this fact supports his case for standing.

As I said in my 11:42 a.m. post, the inclusion of the phrase "under God" is regrettable because of its dubious historical motives. But Congress approved it in 1954 and therefore it is a legislative issue, not a judicial one.

That is, it is a legislative issue and not a judicial one unless what Congress did in 1954 was unconstitutional.

Very true.

Now here we get into philosophy of law. One can examine Congress' motives and try to derive from those motives that they were thinking in an unconstitutional fashion. In my opinion, they were. But to me what they thought is regretable but not an issue of law. So, one has to look at what they did and try to discern whether the action was unconstitutional. Do we want any branch of the government judging us based on what we think?

I think one is hard pressed to say that "under God" is an unconstitutionally defensible statement when it comes from any government agency.

Unless that can be clearly demonstrated, the issue remains a legislative one, not a judicial one. Congress established it (though I don't think they should have). It is not a state establishment of religion, no one is forced to say it, it is not unconstitutional, and the judiciary never should have intervened and legislated from the bench.

I believe you are siding with the dissenting judge in this case.

Every piece of legislation is subject to judicial scrutiny, as established by Marbury vs. Madison(1803). The Ninth Circuit judged it unconstitutional, so in nine states, it is. Regardless of whether it is overturned later, right now it is unconstitutional in nine states, so obviously the court disagrees with your opinion that the POA is not unconstitutional.

I agree that the judiciary does have a strong tendency to legislate from the bench, but in this case, I disagree. This IS a case where interpretation of the First Amendment applies, and therefore the judiciary has the right to decide on this case.

I will say that after sifting through this thread, I have picked up some interesting arguments. But could everybody please keep the ad hominem attacks and insults to a minimum? I don't want to waste my time wading through that crap, just to get to the RATIONAL arguments.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Athanasius
As I said in my 11:42 a.m. post, the inclusion of the phrase "under God" is regrettable because of its dubious historical motives. But Congress approved it in 1954 and therefore it is a legislative issue, not a judicial one.

No, it is a judicial issue because the courts are the appropriate forum to interpret the the laws enacted by the legislative branch of government and the precise meaning of the words of the Constitution as applied to any questions raised by those laws or arising from citizens' challenges to the way in which those laws are applied.

 

[Athanasius]

OK, you brought me back into this thread.

I don't think - by any stretch of the imagination you can imagine EARLY CHRISTIANS debating what Caesar did was right or wrong in the political arena. They were decidedly UNpolitical and heeded Jesus' injunction to be "no part of the world" quite literally.

In fact, they were quite willing to die for their beliefs to not pledge allegence at all to Caesar - nevermind whether Rome was "one nation under god/caesar".

Granted. Whatever Congress or the Judiciary or the executive Branch does, I will live out the core tnenets of my faith. I do not put much faith in government one way or the other.

But this is not the same government as was in existence back then. In this government, rule is ultimately the responsibility of "We the People." Since I have citizenship in this country, that includes me. "Let those who rule do so with all diligence." Certainly Paul did not ignore his Roman citizenship or fail to press the Roman government to abide by its own laws and structure (Acts 16:22-40, 22:22-29). In fact, he appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court of that day (Acts 26:32). Paul was a citizen of Rome and exercised the responsibilities and rights of that citizenship. He was informed about the secular laws of his day and called the government to task when he felt they were not honoring their own system.

Christian citizens in America should do the same. Paul did not abdicate his citizenship. Neither should we. Besides the example of Paul, we have the early Apologists who wrote things like, "A Plea for the Christians," calling the Roman Government to stop its unjust persecution of believers.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: tk149
Whether or not the girl likes saying "under God" would only be relevant to a question of standing on this case. The fact that she does like saying it gives credence to the father's belief that his daughter is being indoctrinated in religion. Therefore, this fact supports his case for standing.

Yes, I understand standing, and the fact that he has to make such a tenuous argument to claim standing to sue is really telling.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Harvey No, it is a judicial issue because the courts are the appropriate forum to interpret the the laws enacted by the legislative branch of government and the precise meaning of the words of the Constitution as applied to any questions raised by those laws or arising from citizens' challenges to the way in which those laws are applied.

Wrong. The legislature and the executive have as much power and responsibility to interpret and enforce the Constitution as the judiciary. That they often relinquish this duty to the courts does not mean that they do not have it. The judiciary is not the sole guardian of the Constitution. It only has the power to offer declaratory and injunctive relief and awards for damages to parties injured by laws and regulations that facially violate the Constitution. The judiciary itself has no power to instruct the other branches to do anything.

 

[ToBeMe]

I think it unlikely that Congress will think the issue worth addressing at this time.

Funny, the news has been talking about the fact that they ARE addressing the issue right now! Both the House & Senate are attempting to come up with a resolution to overturn/overule the 9th decsion and the Senate in full took extra time this morning to recite the Pledge of allegence WITH the words "under God" emphasized...............

LOL! I still don't give a rats behind either way, but, the one thing I DO think is that this being an election year, congress WILL address this and quickly simply because a lot of people are mad about it............don't know why exactly..........not like it's going to change their lives or influence their kids, but...............they are pissed!

 

[BreakApart]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say separation of Church and State... It says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, "

This means they may NOT establish a state sponsored religion-which we don't have!. That's all it says, it has nothing to do with a separation at all. Your mixing up a quote by (1) individual which is completely separate from anything to do with the Constitution, with what?s really in the Constitution. Sad when Americans don't even know what's actually in the document.

AmusedOne said: "then why do we find no mention whatsoever of Jesus, Christ, Christian or Bible in America's founding documents? --not in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution of the United States. In fact, the Constitution does not even make a single reference to any "god."

Why do you feel the need to lie in order to press your argument?
Quoted directly from the Constitution: "Year of our Lord" It's at the bottom where all the signatures are silly boy. Clearly this mention of "our Lord" in the same document you "claim" outlines the separation of church a state is either a contradiction or you fabricated this entire separation argument. Hmmm very interesting...
Quoted from Declaration of Independence: "endowed by their Creator" also quoted: "divine Providence"
Opps, what's this more mentions of religion in historical documents, seems your wrong again. :rollseyes:


Ramsnake: Perhaps get ALL the facts before making these comments about "this guy only protecting his daughter"
The FACT is this same guy has attempted for YEARS to get "In God we Trust" removed from our money, he filed these suits in Florida over and over...and failed. So, this guy is now using his daughter as a pawn in his attempt to pass this agenda, plain and simple. Sick if you ask me....


AmusedOne said: "it goes 180 degrees from their wish to separate the church from the state"
See above you are only spreading FUD... sad, really sad.

How pathetic people have to fabricate words into the Constitution in order to spread this FUD...
Well, always nice to swing by OT to see the FUD being spread, just never quits. lol....

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: BreakApart
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say separation of Church and State... It says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, "

This means they may NOT establish a state sponsored religion-which we don't have!. That's all it says, it has nothing to do with a separation at all. Your mixing up a quote by (1) individual which is completely separate from anything to do with the Constitution, with what?s really in the Constitution. Sad when Americans don't even know what's actually in the document.

AmusedOne said: "then why do we find no mention whatsoever of Jesus, Christ, Christian or Bible in America's founding documents? --not in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution of the United States. In fact, the Constitution does not even make a single reference to any "god."

Why do you feel the need to lie in order to press your argument?
Quoted directly from the Constitution: "Year of our Lord" It's at the bottom where all the signatures are silly boy. Clearly this mention of "our Lord" in the same document you "claim" outlines the separation of church a state is either a contradiction or you fabricated this entire separation argument. Hmmm very interesting...
Quoted from Declaration of Independence: "endowed by their Creator" also quoted: "divine Providence"
Opps, what's this more mentions of religion in historical documents, seems your wrong again. :rollseyes:


Ramsnake: Perhaps get ALL the facts before making these comments about "this guy only protecting his daughter"
The FACT is this same guy has attempted for YEARS to get "In God we Trust" removed from our money, he filed these suits in Florida over and over...and failed. So, this guy is now using his daughter as a pawn in his attempt to pass this agenda, plain and simple. Sick if you ask me....


AmusedOne said: "it goes 180 degrees from their wish to separate the church from the state"
See above you are only spreading FUD... sad, really sad.

How pathetic people have to fabricate words into the Constitution in order to spread this FUD...
Well, always nice to swing by OT to see the FUD being spread, just never quits. lol....

I would say that with this level of contribution, you should swing by far less often...

 

[Red Dawn]

So BreakApart, you believe there shouldn't be a seperation of Church and State? Do you guys believe in your Mythology so much that it should be forced on us who don't believe in what we consider 100% Hooey?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
In reality this doesn't really matter to me one way or another. I just like these type of threads. They are so much better than threads like "Why Don't Girls Like me" and " Bruce Lee or Coke?"

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll file that under "Who Cares?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pat Robertson does. Tune in to the 700 Club for his precise opinion.

Hahaha.. He's the best weapon those who are for the ruling could have. Him and Jerry Falwell.

Yeah really though. If Pat Robertson and Falwell would STFU there wouldn't be any problems with even a chance of this ruling standing.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So BreakApart, you believe there shouldn't be a seperation of Church and State? Do you guys believe in your Mythology so much that it should be forced on us who don't believe in what we consider 100% Hooey?

After reading your posts for a while, I find it hard to believe that you do NOT have an agenda to force your beliefs on others. You certainly are quick to say that everyone else's beliefs are nonsense.

 

[apoppin]

Christian citizens in America should do the same. Paul did not abdicate his citizenship. Neither should we. Besides the example of Paul, we have the early Apologists who wrote things like, "A Plea for the Christians," calling the Roman Government to stop its unjust persecution of believers.

I am not suggesting that Christians abdicate their citizenship. However, Christians are not affected by whether "under God" remains in the Pledge or not. It is not "persecution" of Christianity if it is removed. We already know the reason it was added - it was a political reason.