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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
And it doesn’t. Nothing is barring Congress from reconsidering the words of the Pledge. They can do that anytime they like.
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).
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.
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”.
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.
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 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.