# First Circuit to Newdow: Pledge w/ "Under God" is Constitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755 "2010-11-15T17:30:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/241 "2010-11-18T16:57:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your logic hinges on the phrase being of some meaningful religious significance. It’s not. Then why do you consider the ruling a > [@](#): > > Victory for, inter alia, the Knights of Columbus, who were intervenors for the defense. Why would they care? Why do YOU care? > [@](#): > > When someone takes deliberate aim at removing even the most insignificant nod towards religion, one that has a strong basis in history, that is fairly described as an anti-religious attack. Is it fairly described as respect for the _Constitution_? Why or why not? Is the long record of official invocations of a deity just a long record of attacks on the Constitution, and does that history somehow validate them? Why or why not? > [@](#): > > So when we say “under God” now, we’re adverting to that history. But your attack on it is not premised on a view that the history is inaccurate or the view that we should not invoke history – it’s premised on the fact that you see it as religious. Since it’s not, that’s anti-religious. Your continued statement, no doubt complete with a pout and a stamp of your little foot, that “under God” is not religious at all has received far more patience here than it deserves. But, as you’ve pointed out, a gratuitous assertion may be gratuitously denied. All it takes now is for you to realize that your assertion is gratuitous, and becomes no less so with repetition. You’re in the position of defending attacks on the Constitution on the basis that they’re consistent with your religious beliefs. That may be tenable in church, but not in what you purport to wish to be a \*legal \*discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/242 "2010-11-18T17:04:36Z")
Of course it hinges on the phrase _under God_\* being of meaningful religious significance. The words were placed into the pledge for that very reason! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/243 "2010-11-18T17:18:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s not premised on the fact that he sees it as religious. It’s premised on the fact that it _is_ religious. > > You can’t have it both ways. Either it _is_ meaningless, and therefore serves no purpose at all, or it isn’t. Fallacy of the excluded middle. How about, “It’s meaningful in a historical and traditional context, but not in a religious one?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/244 "2010-11-18T17:19:48Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Of course it hinges on the phrase _under God_\* being of meaningful religious significance. The words were placed into the pledge for that very reason! But now they are of merely historical and traditional significance. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/245 "2010-11-18T17:21:14Z")
You know that is not the case. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/246 "2010-11-18T17:23:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How about, “It’s meaningful in a historical and traditional context, but not in a religious one?” Historical and traditional? From the 50s? It’s a Cold War-era relic. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/247 "2010-11-18T17:31:03Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Historical and traditional? From the 50s? It’s a Cold War-era relic. And this makes it ineligible to be historical and traditional how? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/248 "2010-11-18T17:36:23Z")
The bill’s origin and intent as a religious measure makes it ineligible. As you’ve been told a number of times already. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Hold\_Fast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58f4c7/32.png) [@Hold\_Fast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hold_Fast)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/249 "2010-11-18T17:41:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Personally, this isn’t a big deal for me, but I don’t see how it passes the second part of the Lemon test. It clearly advances religion over non-religion if the country is “under God”. It tells non-believers that our government thinks they are wrong. What?! Our government is indirectly telling people their entire belief system is wrong? How unconstitutional of them–oh..wait thats right, they didn’t care either when they ordered state funds to go to teaching kids that life came from run-off of rain and rocks, and not some biblical story…I guess then, we shouldn’t actually be so surprised. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/250 "2010-11-18T17:43:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And this makes it ineligible to be historical and traditional how? May as well sign my dad up to be historically significant too, he’s about that age. This isn’t something that was added as some kind of deep respect or patriotism for our country. It was added as a screw-you to the godless Commies and in doing so shifted us that much closer toward being a religious nation. Neither of these things is appropriate for the US now. Mere tradition shouldn’t bar a bad idea from being reconsidered. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/251 "2010-11-18T17:52:18Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > May as well sign my dad up to be historically significant too, he’s about that age. > > This isn’t something that was added as some kind of deep respect or patriotism for our country. It was added as a screw-you to the godless Commies and in doing so shifted us that much closer toward being a religious nation. Neither of these things is appropriate for the US now. Wait a second. I pointed out earlier that the same Congress that approved the text of the First Amendment (you know, the one with the no establishment of religion rule that we’re now discussing) at the same time approved the appointment of paid chaplains to offer prayers at the start of each Congressional day. Therefore, I reasoned, practices like that cannot possibly be held to violate the rule forbidding an “establishment” of religion. The general response was that “establish” means something different now. OK. So my response to THIS is that “under God” means something different now. At the time, sure, it was motivated by religion. But now it’s not. So if the intent and meaning of the “under God” legislators is so determinative, then the intent and meaning of the First Amendment legislators should also be. > [@](#): > > Mere tradition shouldn’t bar a bad idea from being reconsidered. And it doesn’t. Nothing is barring Congress from reconsidering the words of the Pledge. They can do that anytime they like. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/252 "2010-11-18T17:55:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I pointed out earlier that the same Congress that approved the text of the First Amendment (you know, the one with the no establishment of religion rule that we’re now discussing) at the same time approved the appointment of paid chaplains to offer prayers at the start of each Congressional day. Therefore, I reasoned, practices like that cannot possibly be held to violate the rule forbidding an “establishment” of religion. You reasoned incorrectly. That Congress demonstrated only its own hypocrisy (don’t be shocked), as did the one that inserted “under God” (don’t be shocked at that either). > [@](#): > > The general response was that “establish” means something different now. No, it wasn’t. See above. > [@](#): > > So my response to THIS is that “under God” means something different now. At the time, sure, it was motivated by religion. But now it’s not. Gratuitous assertion, once again. > [@](#): > > So if the intent and meaning of the “under God” legislators is so determinative, then the intent and meaning of the First Amendment legislators should also be. When did you first realize you’d lost? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/253 "2010-11-18T17:55:52Z")
Now I really want to get elected President so I can have a dog named God and claim the phrase actually refers to him. It’s a bullshit argument, but I don’t really care. I tend to side with Lewis Black on this. By the time you understand what the pledge means, you don’t have to say it any more. It’s not legally binding, so whatever. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/254 "2010-11-18T17:56:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The general response was that “establish” means something different now. > > OK. > > So my response to THIS is that “under God” means something different now. At the time, sure, it was motivated by religion. But now it’s not. For the record, Counselor, is it your opinion that the addition of “under God” to the Pledge was unconstitutional when done, but not now? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/255 "2010-11-18T17:59:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How about, “It’s meaningful in a historical and traditional context, but not in a religious one?” How about, “rubbish!”? The Bible is an important historic and literary work, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a religious book. In any event, I fail to see how something that was inserted fifty years ago just to needle the Commies has historical and traditional value. Indeed, the Pledge _traditionally_ does not include the words “under God”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/256 "2010-11-18T18:03:37Z")
> [@villa](#): > > For the record, Counselor, is it your opinion that the addition of “under God” to the Pledge was unconstitutional when done, but not now? Nope. At that time, the controlling authority was Everson v. Board of Education. The addition was perfectly permissible under that view. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/257 "2010-11-18T18:05:44Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > How about, “rubbish!”? The Bible is an important historic and literary work, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a religious book. Right. So the Bible can be taught in public school as an important historic and literary work, but not as a religious book. > [@](#): > > In any event, I fail to see how something that was inserted fifty years ago just to needle the Commies has historical and traditional value. Indeed, the Pledge _traditionally_ does not include the words “under God”. Sorry you fail to see it. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/258 "2010-11-18T18:11:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nope. At that time, the controlling authority was Everson v. Board of Education. The addition was perfectly permissible under that view. Under what you feel to be the correct interpretation of the First Amendment, was the addition of “Under God” unconstitutional at the time it was added? In other words were we to be presented with a situation of Justice **Bricker** , in the 1950s, on a court with 8 other justices pledged to vote with you regardless of your decision (those donkey pictures sure come in handy), with no consideration of the relevance of _stare decisis_, presuming such a case could have been brought given standing requirements, would you have struck or upheld the legislative action of adding “under God” to the Pledge, given that it had (as I think you have admitted) an explicitly religious pupose. I think I have covered the bases there. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/259 "2010-11-18T19:28:52Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > ``` > Bricker, if another poster is not going to particpate, you are better to ignore him than to emulate him. > > ``` > > There are multiple posters who are engaging you in a legitimate fashion; simply focus on those posts. > [@Bricker](#): > > Why is that? Why am I constrained in a different manner than he? He’s free to simply spew unsupported statements; why am I not? I’m responding to other posters correctly, but I fail to see why I should have to comply with the purpose of Great Debates and another poster is permitted to ignore them. > > I assume you have offered this guidance as a poster, not as a moderator, due to the absence of a “modding” tag or note. If your guidance is as a moderator, of course, I will comply. > > Of course, I’ll also ask that the rule be applied to **Der Trihs**. FYI, a [thread was opened in ATMB](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=586022) to discuss this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/260 "2010-11-18T19:39:44Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Under what you feel to be the correct interpretation of the First Amendment, was the addition of “Under God” unconstitutional at the time it was added? > > In other words were we to be presented with a situation of Justice **Bricker** , in the 1950s, on a court with 8 other justices pledged to vote with you regardless of your decision (those donkey pictures sure come in handy), with no consideration of the relevance of _stare decisis_, presuming such a case could have been brought given standing requirements, would you have struck or upheld the legislative action of adding “under God” to the Pledge, given that it had (as I think you have admitted) an explicitly religious pupose. > > I think I have covered the bases there. So I get to write, from scratch, the Establishment Clause jurisprudence? I have to figure out what “establish a religion” means in 1954, and to do that, since I have no case law to guide me, I look to what the word means. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” [Establish](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/establish) means “to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement; to put on a firm basis; to make firm or stable.” Notably it does not say, “Congress shall make no law mentioning religion.” And Congress has mentioned religious figures in other official acts, starting from the precise time the language was approved. The same Congress that passed this language approved paying congressional chaplains to offer prayers at their deliberative sessions. Indeed, thirteen years before that, the very birth of our nation was predicated on the concept that men are endowed by their Creator with certain rights. Article VII of the Constitution refers to "the Year of Our Lord 1787. Sixty years later, Congress added “In God We Trust” to American coinage. None of the these acts were thought inconsistent with the command that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” It cannot be, then, that the meaning of the command has changed so dramatically over the years. If paying the salaries of persons to offer prayer at the beginning of each legislative session does not offend the Constitutional command to not establish religion, it is impossible to imagine that amending the Pledge with “under God,” does so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755.md?page=14)