mug222 said:
This to me seems like such a simply resolved topic that I am amazed that it can honestly be challenged. I am doubly amazed by the action of the Senate this afternoon (voting 99-0 to challenge the ruling.) I truly believe that this will soon be viewed as a major source of humiliation for Congress. What a laughable action.
Humiliation? Wouldn't that imply that, well, the vast majority of Americans agree with you rather than Congrees and the White House?
Surely, you must admit that your stand on this issue - particularly the notion that this issue is "simply resolved" against the "under God" clause - is in the extreme minority. That (alone) doesn't make your opinion wrong, but it does mean that you should take the opposing view more seriously.
Federal law now allows (requires?) the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance on a nationwide basis. The only reason that the case was decided in California was because the first plaintiff that had the courage to step forward was from California. Although this ruling only directly affects the immediate school district, we both know that it is national law that is being challenged.
Really? I've checked several online news stories, and none of them mention a federal law requiring or allowing the pledge (as if it would take a federal law to
allow it). The
AP did not mention it, though it had a few interesting notes:
The 9th Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state. Those are the only states directly affected by the ruling. (This implies that a federal law is not involved.)
...
The nation's high court has never squarely addressed the issue, [Harvard scholar Laurence] Tribe said. The court has said schools can require teachers to lead the pledge but ruled students cannot be punished for refusing to recite it.
In other school-related religious cases, the high court has said that schools cannot post the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.
(Perhaps most importanly...)
And in March, a federal appeals court ruled that Ohio's motto, "With God, all things are possible," is constitutional and is not an endorsement of Christianity even though it quotes the words of Jesus.
Reuters says nothing of such a law - the closest it comes is stating that
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 1954 Act of the U.S Congress that added "under God" to the pledge.
CNN also had no mention of the law, though they do mention this:
The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
Ike said all that as he signed it - this doesn't imply that the act itself mandated the recitation of the pledge. (In fact, if that had been the case, CNN would have probably reported the fact.)
And Fox News reveals an interesting timeline concerning the history of the pledge:
In 1942, soon after America entered World War II, Congress officially endorsed the Pledge of Allegiance and instituted the current hand-over-heart gesture. One year later, however, the Supreme Court ruled that schoolchildren could not be forced to recite the Pledge.
In 1954, under pressure from the Knights of Columbus and other religious groups, Congress officially added the words "under God" to the Pledge...
This flies in the face of your assertion about current federal law, but it also indicates that schoolchildren could not be coerced into reciting the pledge folowing a 1943 Supreme Court decision - a decade before "under God" even came up.
Who are you to interpret--purely, as you say above, from a phrase in the First Amendment--that it was written to prevent an equivalent of the Church of England? It doesn't matter how you would like the phrase interpreted, as it prohibits any and all connection between Church and State. How is this difficult to understand?
Your assertion that Amendment I "prohibits any and all connection between Church and State" is JUST as much an interpretation as my interpretation.
Who am I to interpret? Well, who are you to do the same?
The amendment does not mention "any and all connections," nor does it explicitly mention "separation between Chruch and State." Those phrases are interpretations.
Honestly, the amendment (like most of the Constitution) is not entirely clear, and it must be interpreted. I believe that the best way to interpret the "fuzzy" clauses is to try to ascertain the Founders' intent - to try to determine what they meant when they wrote it.
The best way to do
that is to look at the other documents they wrote. The Founders invoke the name of God so often in other documents (the Declaration of Independence, state documents, etc.), that it seems unlikely that their intent was the complete removal of the name of God from all government.
In fact, a little searching online has led to President George Washington's
proclamation that led to our celebration of Thanksgiving, a proclamation made just over five months after taking office (April 30, 1789):
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and
Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me " to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness: "
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be...
The first Congress - many of whom were responsible for the Bill of Rights or closely associated with those who were - requested Washington to proclaim Thanksgiving "by acknowledging... Almighty God." Surely they didn't have things like this in mind when they worked to ratify the Bill of Rights two years later (in 1791).
In fact, President Washington - one of the MOST conservative presidents in U.S. history (in that he was very careful to avoid EVER overstepping the bounds of the U.S. Constitution) continued to invoke God in his official annual addresses to Congress after the ratification of the Bill of Rights:
- In 1793, Washington informed Congress: "I humbly implore that Being on whose will the fate of nations depends to crown with success our mutual endeavors for the general happiness."
- In 1794, he mentioned "the gracious indulgence of Heaven by which the American people became a nation."
- In 1795, he invited Congress to "to join with me in profound gratitude to the Author of all Good for the numerous and extraordinary blessings we enjoy."
- And in his final message to Congress in 1796, Washington mentioned the "Ruler of the Universe."
If the writers of the Bill of Rights intended such a strict interpretation of Amendment I, Washington either disregarded the interpretion absolutely, or he had no clue whatsoever - and both conclusions are highly dubious.
God, by the way, is certainly representative of Church: saying "under God" is no different from "under Vishnu." The only difference is that we were not founded by Hindi forefathers, we were founded by Christians. "God" is church. The pledge of allegiance is state. They have no official place together. (Although, Bama, I would certainly not mind if you continue to add the words 'under God' to reaffirm God's place above the U.S. The official line of the U.S. , however, cannot possibly include that term.)
I disagree that "God" is equivalent to Vishnu (or, as the court added, Jesus or Zeus) in that the term is vague enough to encompass many more religions. I also disagree that "God is representative of Church," since one can worship God without every joining any church.
Basically, I believe the following: God is an entity outside of any specific religion or church. "Religion" is an organized system of beliefs about God. The "church" is a body that practiced a specific religion. The First Amendment certainly says something about churches ("an establishment of religion"), and it might say something about religion (if you ignore or interpret differently the word "establishment").
It does not follow that the First Amendment says anything about "God."
Unfortunately Bubba, your entire last major point--to a large extent--is a throwaway. I don't give a damn that Washington or Adams or Jefferson believed in God (and I will repeat that even they did not include the phrase "under God"...it was only under threat from those 'godless Commies' in 1954.) I do not care that many presidents illegally ignored that clause of the first amendment--their inability to follow the constitution does not absolve us if we do the same.
You're absolutely right that the personal beliefs of the Founding Fathers is quite irrelevant, but I am asking you to look at their public actions, literally their words and deeds as officials within the government.
If these Founding Fathers professed the belief in the Creator
from within their posts, then it means they never intended such a strict interpretation of the First Amendment.
I'm well aware of this, which is why that phrase must be removed from new bills. I accept that the cost of replacing the entire circulation with legal, 'separated from Church' bills would be prohibitively high, so I would be satisfied with a gradual phasing-out of the current stock. 
Seriously, though, this does not support your point in the slightest--it merely provides another example of our government's inability to follow its own rules. The motto does not represent all Americans, it should not be found constitutional (from either a loose or strict construction), and it has no place in the U.S.
"It merely provides another example of our government's inability to follow its own rules."
Remember what the Founders did: they demanded a Bill of Rights before they would accept a Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation. They met and debated both the original Constitution and the amendments with a rigor rarely seen in politics, and they discussed the documents and their meaning in great detail (see also: The Federalist Papers).
Which is more likely: That the VERY people who wrote the rules broke them incessantly? Or that your interpretation of the rules is woefully incorrect?
"The motto does not represent all Americans, it should not be found constitutional (from either a loose or strict construction), and it has no place in the U.S."
First of all, no motto could represent all Americans. Look at some of the other phrases from the pledge: Some Southerners bitter about the American Civil War disagree with the word "indivisible." Communists and fascists - whose beliefs are protected by the First Amendment - probably don't really believe in liberty; and racists and chauvinists don't really subscribe to "liberty and justice for all." Yet, our government stands for all these things, and that is enough.
Second, the fact that "it should not be found constitutional," should not and DOES NOT follow from the fact that the motto may not represent everyone. We should NOT begin interpreting the Constitution to fit our whims; the document is what it is.
I remind you of a point I made earlier:
I think the term "unconstitutional" is used FAR too much - used by people who both disagree with some law or act (such as capital punishment) and want to use the court system to change the status quo, thereby short-circuiting that troublesome little process of convincing Congress to write bills that the President will sign into law.
Implying a connection between "The motto does not represent all Americans," and "it should not be found constitutional" comes dangerously close to that practice.
Finally, even if it is the case that "it has no place in the U.S." it may have nothing to do with constitutionality. And if you want that motto to be unconstitutional, it seems to me that would require an actual change through a new amendment.
What exactly is the point of these examples? Believe me, I understand all too well that this is a religious nation, and I am disgusted by the sheer, arrogant hypocrisy of that religious nature seeping into our government--a government created by the descendents of the religiously-persecuted. How terribly perverse.
So I ask again--what is the point of bombarding me with examples of our religious culture? I have no problem with anyone practicing religion privately. I have no problem with the above songs, and in fact I enjoy many of their tunes . Please refer again to the first amendment to see why these songs are perfectly fine, except as official anthems of the government (see: Star Spangled Banner, below).
Furthermore (and I hope this is not the case) if the implication is that atheism has no place in our tradition and by extension no place in our society, I am taken aback.
(That religion is so completely intertwined with our society now simply serves as another display of secular Europe's superiority.)
The point of those specific examples, the patriotic songs, is to demonstrate how fully God's place in our nation's culture really is.
That certainly doesn't exclude atheism from the great melting pot, any more than the Second Amendment excludes people from debating banning guns altogether. All it simply means is that our government has the ability to invoke the name of God - as it has since the beginning - since God perhaps the only basis for the following claims: all men are created equal, they all possess certain inalienable rights, and that these facts are self-evident.
(I honestly know of no way to assert those absolute claims as an atheist.)
Oh, and secular Europe's so-called superiority is not a given. There's certainly no reason to digress from the current discussion, but I suggest you do one of two things with the claim: back down, or start backing it up.
Yes, this too should not be allowed by the constitution. It is, however, so much a part of our history and tradition that I don't mind it as our national anthem and would not challenge it, unlike an insignificant little 1954 addition intended as a threat to the Kremlin.
I wonder what particular problems exist with the 1954 addition: is it the fact that it's only (only!) half a century old, or is it that it is the result of the Soviet threat - a threat that was real (Kruschev: "We will bury you.") and that had forced atheism down its people's throats?
And I ask again, who the hell cares? Must we really be slave to the faults of our founding fathers? Have we advanced nowhere since 1776? Can we not finally follow through on the promise to separate Church and State?
Again, these "faults" seem to imply that their intent was not how you interpret the Constitution.
Maybe we have "advanced" since '76 (though I wouldn't call secularism an advance automatically), and maybe we should "follow through." But to do so does NOT mean we should interpret the Constitution to fit our whims; it means we should amend the Constitution.
I don't begrudge Lincoln's faith in God, and I frankly again don't see how an important but seemingly random historical speech supports your stance that "under God" should remain in our pledge of allegiance.
Well, it serves two purposes.
First, when asked what most people consider the seminal documents of American history, the Gettysburg Address ranks fairly highly on every list. To show that it too invokes God is yet more proof that the First Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means.
Secondly, it shows that the phrase "nation under God" predates the wicked 1950s by nearly a century.
Although I am not sold on the fact that "the Blessings of Liberty" must be interpreted religiously, all I can say to this is: Thank God Almighty for the Bill of Rights.
Amusing conclusion.
I know it's getting late, but I think my last point is among the most important: if the Almighty is invoked in the Constitution itself, it is very hard to suggest that the First Amendment demands a purely secular government.
Again, I assert that a "blessing" is a thing given. If the Founders did NOT imply that God Almighty was the giver of the blessings of liberty, than I must ask: who were they referring to?
.
