# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/81 "2010-11-16T02:28:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > All of that is my opinion, and utterly irrelevant. I’m confused as to what the purpose of this thread is. Generally threads on here are precisely matters of opinion, but given that our opinions are generally important to ourselves, we debate them. My guess is that perhaps you’re looking for a debate solely about the legalities of the matter, in which case, it would probably be better to state that outright. Otherwise, i’m not sure of the purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/82 "2010-11-16T02:58:27Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > I just find it upsetting that, as a non-believer, I am forced to either make a false pledge (that is, one that contains a phrase I believe to be incorrect) or refrain from pledging my allegiance to my country (which I would quite like to be able to do). Do what I used to do in school: “…and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation {silence}{silence} indivisible, with liberty, and justice, for all.” It sucked, but as a teenager, I knew I wasn’t going to win that battle, but my silence during the offensive part was a protestation that was better than nothing. If legislating “under god” into a pledge is not an advancement of religion, then there is absolutely no need for it. Including this declaration strongly implies that America is governed and protected by, and ultimately answerable solely to the god of Christianity, which is more than just wrong, it’s sick. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/83 "2010-11-16T03:01:04Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I’m confused as to what the purpose of this thread is. Generally threads on here are precisely matters of opinion, but given that our opinions are generally important to ourselves, we debate them. My guess is that perhaps you’re looking for a debate solely about the legalities of the matter, in which case, it would probably be better to state that outright. Otherwise, i’m not sure of the purpose. Gloating is a purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/84 "2010-11-16T03:10:52Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Oh, and we aren’t talking about “religious people”. We are talking only about Christians. This is an attempt to push Christianity _specifically_ on people. It was Christians who put it into the law, Christians who defend it, Christians who beat children for not pledging loyalty to their god. It’s not “under Shiva”, or Buddha, it’s under _God_. It’s not only Christians who worship “God.” Jews also worship “God.” And Muslims worship Allah, but Allah just means “God” in Arabic, or so I am told. Surely this is just an omission on your part because I think you’re too smart to honestly believe that it’s _only_ Christians who believe in “God.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/85 "2010-11-16T03:13:32Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > If legislating “under god” into a pledge is not an advancement of religion, then there is absolutely no need for it. Including this declaration strongly implies that America is governed and protected by, and ultimately answerable solely to the god of Christianity, which is more than just wrong, it’s sick. With the current crop of Republican legislators I think I will have to invest in an antacid company like the Bad Astronomer [recommends](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/11/10/energy-and-science-in-america-are-in-big-big-trouble/): [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/category/politics/](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/category/politics/) > [@](#): > > [Rep. John Shimkus (R) Uses the bible to discredit climate researchers, God will decide when the “earth will end”.] > > Did you catch the important bit there? God will decide when to end the Earth, not man. The obvious inference is that Congressman Shimkus thinks humans cannot destroy the Earth, or hurt its habitability. Terrific. > > This is the same guy who tried to argue that producing less CO2 would starve plants. > > The last thing this country — this world — needs, quite literally, is someone running the Energy and Commerce Committee who is this egregiously and willfully ignorant about global warming and the effects of carbon dioxide. Of course, tied for last place is Joe Barton. A third Republican, Fred Upton of Michigan, is also eying the top spot on the Committee, and I’m not sure he’s a whole lot better. Yep, that god will stop climate change; you will love his governance, you betcha. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/86 "2010-11-16T03:20:24Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > It’s not only Christians who worship “God.” Jews also worship “God.” And Muslims worship Allah, but Allah just means “God” in Arabic, or so I am told. Surely this is just an omission on your part because I think you’re too smart to honestly believe that it’s _only_ Christians who believe in “God.” And you are certainly too smart, **Argent** , to believe that any other faith than Christianity was considered when the proposal to add “under god” into the pledge was made, and lobbied for, strongly, numerous times, by various Christian organizations, before it was ultimately accepted, and I believe you know better than to propose otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/87 "2010-11-16T03:28:20Z")
I’m saying “God” can mean whatever you want it to mean when you say it. Freemasonry was founded by Christians, at least in its modern form. I took all my Masonic obligations in the name of God, and we invoke the name of “God” at the beginning and end of every Lodge meeting in our prayers in addition to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the “under God” part in it. And I do _not_ believe in the Christian conception of “God”, and I don’t have any problem with this. And there are others in the Lodge who also do not believe in the Christian conception of God or any other conventional organized conception of it, who have their own idea of what “God” is supposed to mean, and _they_ don’t have any problem with it. Just because the “God” in the Pledge was _originally_ put in there by Christians does not mean it cannot _now_ mean something to people other than Christians. Do you see what I am getting at here? Yes, it does exclude polytheists - however, it does not _solely_ apply to Christians, as **Der Trihs** stated as if it were some definitive and inarguable fact. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/88 "2010-11-16T06:57:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not really, no. There’s nothing Holy Writ about _Lemon_. The test it proposes is not obvious from the Constitution’s text. I don’t agree it fails, but if you believe the Supreme Court will uphold these decisions, then the Court has every right to modify Lemon as they see fit. > > If we’re going to sit here and argue that the Constitution means something other than what the Supreme Court says it does, then wait in line: I am aggrieved by Griswold, Roe, and Casey, all of which predate this case, so I am going to declare that they are actually wrong and unconstitutional. > > Not too useful, is it? Actually, it is way more useful than you give it credit for. If you turn around and say you view a law restricting first semester abortions as constitutional, I know what you mean - that you find _Casey_ to be wrongly decided based upon your interpretation of the constitution. Not all views of Supreme Court error are equal, however. Claiming the repeated decisions regarding income tax are erroneous sets you out as ignorant, or crazy. Claiming, however, you feel that there is no constitutional protection for abortion (when by your standard there clearly is), isn’t as crazy. I think it is mistaken, but there is a case to be made that the line of cases are flawed. Similarly, arguing that _Lemon_ is flawed isn’t a stupid argument in the way that the income tax one is. Of course the Court can modify _Lemon_. I wish they would. But even under _Lemon_ it is my opinion this law fails. Unfortunately I think it likely, given their history, the Court will misapply _Lemon_. Religon cases (like sex ones) screw them up. I am not sure how I should describe it other than, in my view, as an unconstitutional law. I’d argue that use of the term, while I accept not legally speaking precise, is the most common usage, and is plain to the overwhelming majority of readers. I think it was pretty clear I wasn’t stating that “this law will get struck by the Supreme Court” as opposed to “this law should get struck by the Supreme Court.” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/89 "2010-11-16T07:37:46Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > It’s not only Christians who worship “God.” Jews also worship “God.” And Muslims worship Allah, but Allah just means “God” in Arabic, or so I am told. Surely this is just an omission on your part because I think you’re too smart to honestly believe that it’s _only_ Christians who believe in “God.” Word games. It wasn’t Jews who wrote this law. And you know quite well the same people who think this law is a good idea and claim that it isn’t _really_ about Christianity would freak out if “one nation under Allah” was used instead. It isn’t anything more than an attempt to coerce people, especially children into swearing allegiance in the name of the Christian god. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/90 "2010-11-16T09:08:08Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I’m confused as to what the purpose of this thread is. Generally threads on here are precisely matters of opinion, but given that our opinions are generally important to ourselves, we debate them. My guess is that perhaps you’re looking for a debate solely about the legalities of the matter, in which case, it would probably be better to state that outright. Otherwise, i’m not sure of the purpose. It’s a legal decision. I labor under no illusions that those opposed to the Pledge will be converted by this decision. So, yes, I was thinking a debate on the legal merits of the decision is more fruitful than yet another round of exchanging unsupported opinions. We have another forum to indulge that pursuit. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/91 "2010-11-16T09:11:33Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I am not sure how I should describe it other than, in my view, as an unconstitutional law. I’d argue that use of the term, while I accept not legally speaking precise, is the most common usage, and is plain to the overwhelming majority of readers. I think it was pretty clear I wasn’t stating that “this law will get struck by the Supreme Court” as opposed to “this law should get struck by the Supreme Court.” I agree that your phrasing is generally understandable. I am simply suggesting that precision of meaning favors “This should be unconstitutional…” instead of “This is…” It’s three extra letters, but there is no shortage of letters at hand, is there? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/92 "2010-11-16T10:03:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So, yes, I was thinking a debate on the legal merits of the decision is more fruitful than yet another round of exchanging unsupported opinions. The legal merits are irrelevant. This is a political/religious decision, not a legal one. They want to push Christianity, so they are doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/93 "2010-11-16T11:24:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So, yes, I was thinking a debate on the legal merits of the decision is more fruitful than yet another round of exchanging unsupported opinions. Except that most of us aren’t qualified to make a legal argument, and when villa (who is qualified) did, you basically told him that since the court had already decided, his argument was irrelevant. You’ve crafted an OP that you can’t lose. Well done. Why not just put this thread in the pit, title it “Suck it atheists, I win”, and then ask a mod to close it. Although I guess that would deny you the fun of toying with your prey before putting it out of its misery. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/94 "2010-11-16T12:53:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s a legal decision. I labor under no illusions that those opposed to the Pledge will be converted by this decision. So, yes, I was thinking a debate on the legal merits of the decision is more fruitful than yet another round of exchanging unsupported opinions. We have another forum to indulge that pursuit. You say that you want a legal debate then you claim that, since the courts have decided, there is nothing to debate. What do you _really_ want? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/95 "2010-11-16T13:08:04Z")
I think the pledge with “Under God” fails all three prongs of the Lemon test. Spectacularly and unequivocally. One has to only look at the history behind it to see that. “…must have a secular legislative purpose”: It was proposed as a deterrent to “godless communism” by loudly proclaiming to the world that America was a God-fearing nation, “…its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion”: It was specifically proposed to advance religion at the expense of non-religion (atheistic communism), “…the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion’”: Inserting the name of a specific deity recognized by only one religious group at the exclusion of all others into a national pledge looks pretty entangled to me. To those who say that the word “God” is generic – if they had intended it to be so, they could have chosen another more general term, like “deity” or “supernatural being.” But they chose a term that is far from universal worldwide and is associated only with one religious group. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/96 "2010-11-16T13:17:33Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > I think the pledge with “Under God” fails all three prongs of the Lemon test. Spectacularly and unequivocally. > > One has to only look at the history behind it to see that. > > “…must have a secular legislative purpose”: It was proposed as a deterrent to “godless communism” by loudly proclaiming to the world that America was a God-fearing nation, > > “…its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion”: It was specifically proposed to advance religion at the expense of non-religion (atheistic communism), > > “…the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion’”: Inserting the name of a specific deity recognized by only one religious group at the exclusion of all others into a national pledge looks pretty entangled to me. > > To those who say that the word “God” is generic – if they had intended it to be so, they could have chosen another more general term, like “deity” or “supernatural being.” But they chose a term that is far from universal worldwide and is associated only with one religious group. And now **Bricker** , or one of his compatriots, will return and explain to you why that tree you’re looking at is not really a tree. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/97 "2010-11-16T13:25:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You say that you want a legal debate then you claim that, since the courts have decided, there is nothing to debate. > What do you _really_ want? Please try to pay attention. I’m not saying that since the courts have decided, there is nothing to debate. I’m saying that a debate that begins with an automatic gainsay of the court’s decision does not set a useful tone. “I think the court is mistaken, and here’s why:” is a very useful opening sentence, assuming it’s followed by an analysis of the court’s opinion contrasted against other prevailing legal authorities. “I think the court’s opinion is poor social policy,” is also fine, because then one may argue without those nasty confusing legal issues getting in the way at all. “No matter what the court says, this is unconstitutional,” on the other hand, is pure blindness. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/98 "2010-11-16T13:29:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Please try to pay attention. > > I’m not saying that since the courts have decided, there is nothing to debate. > > I’m saying that a debate that begins with an automatic gainsay of the court’s decision does not set a useful tone. > > “I think the court is mistaken, and here’s why:” is a very useful opening sentence, assuming it’s followed by an analysis of the court’s opinion contrasted against other prevailing legal authorities. “I think the court’s opinion is poor social policy,” is also fine, because then one may argue without those nasty confusing legal issues getting in the way at all. > > “No matter what the court says, this is unconstitutional,” on the other hand, is pure blindness. But when I asked as to what _you_ believe as to how the court decided, you said it didn’t matter and was beside the point. If you have a stand on a topic that _you_ started, it would be nice if you would state it, instead of hiding behind the skirts of the court system. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/99 "2010-11-16T13:39:14Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > I think the pledge with “Under God” fails all three prongs of the Lemon test. Spectacularly and unequivocally. > > One has to only look at the history behind it to see that. > > “…must have a secular legislative purpose”: It was proposed as a deterrent to “godless communism” by loudly proclaiming to the world that America was a God-fearing nation, > > “…its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion”: It was specifically proposed to advance religion at the expense of non-religion (atheistic communism), > > “…the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion’”: Inserting the name of a specific deity recognized by only one religious group at the exclusion of all others into a national pledge looks pretty entangled to me. See, this is irritating. “Looks pretty entangled to me,” is not a particularly compelling argument. Here, I shall refute it: “It DOESN’T look entangled to me!” That was easy. How about doing a bit of digging and seeing what kinds of things HAVE been found to be excessive entanglement? What kinds of things have not? Then you’d have a useful baseline to compare this with. HINT: in this case, the plaintiffs didn’t even argue that the third prong was at issue, because there is no case law supporting that position. The appeals court didn’t even consider the excessive entanglement prong of _Lemon_ because the guys bringing the lawsuit agreed they had no argument under it: > [@](#): > > As FFRF does not allege entanglement, the third prong is not at issue here. The other points you’ve made are similarly brilliant: “Must have a secular purpose.” Of course saying the Pledge has a secular purpose: to promote patriotism. The plaintiffs concede, as they must, and as you must, that the act requiring the Pledge has a secular purpose. They claimed that because Congress had a religious purpose in adding “under God,” to the Pledge the entire act must be considered in light of that. But that’s not what the Lemon test says, is it? No. The question is simple: does the act have a secular purpose? Yes. End of inquiry. “…its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.” Here is where the “under God” arguments should go. Unfortunately, you can’t just point at “under God,” and shriek, “Religion! Ack!! Religion!” as you would have us do. > [@](#): > > It takes more than the presence of words with religious content to have the effect of advancing religion, let alone to do so as a primary effect. Do you have actual argument, based on anything remotely in jurisprudence? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/100 "2010-11-16T14:04:57Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > And now **Bricker** , or one of his compatriots, will return and explain to you why that tree you’re looking at is not really a tree. According to the liberal way of thinking, if the Supreme Court says it’s not a tree, it’s not a tree. The difficulties are the usual ones - it is extremely hard to come up with a principle one can use to argue that ceremonial deism is un-Constitutional without cutting the ground out from under lots of other Supreme Court decisions. If you want to argue against this on textualist grounds, have at it - but be aware that ‘whatever you say can and will be used against you’, if not in a court of law, at least the next time we debate the role of the judiciary. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755.md?page=6)