An “established religion” had a clearly defined meaning when the constitution was written. Anything beyond that is not supported by the text. If the framers had meant there to be a “wall of separation” between church and state, they could have said so. If we want to expand the restriction further, we can amend the constitution, which I would be strongly in favor of. I think the 1st amendment is much too weakly worded to keep religion out of the government, as opposed to the other way around.
We are not talking about the pledge as a whole, are we? Does the phrase “under God” promote religion-yes or no?
No it doesn’t.
Is there a difference in content introduced by adding the words “Under God”, something which was done within living memory, yes or no? If no, why bother to defend it? (Hint: You can give that one a try, Captain). If yes, how is the Establishment Clause not offended? The ruling’s flatly dismissing the possibility is unconvincing, however definitive.
Bricker, in what way exactly is this a “victory” for your organization, or for that matter for anyone else, as you equally flatly and unconvincingly assert? What is it that has been won?
They did. 
If not in those exact words, as your awareness of Christine O’Donnell must have informed you.
Then why was it inserted?
Does the pledge without “under god” promote loyalty to flag and country?
I’d really like to know what “Under God” means, then. 'Cause I see two words there: “Under” and “God”. It seems to me to be a very specific phrase.
Even amongst people at the time of the Bill of Rights, there was considerable debate over what the establishment clause allowed, so I don’t think the meaning was as clearly defined as you think. In any case,
Jefferson apparently thought they did:
He’s not saying that there should be a wall, but that the literal meaning of the words in the First Amendment mean there is such a wall. Of course others thought otherwise, but thats my point. Even amongst the people who were there at the writing of the thing, it wasn’t clear what constituted the Establishment of a church. Hence the need for the Lemon test, to clarify which interpretation the SCOTUS intends to take in future cases.
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).
It’s clear that this area of law is not changing any time soon, so for now I’ll just continue mumbling (or omitting) that particular part of the pledge, knowing that many of my fellow countrymen would consider me less of an American if they knew.
Companies are not being pressured externally, so I fail to see how there is any comparison.
By their own logic, they shouldn’t have a problem with it, and not for nothing, but those things ARE unconstitutional, so if they really care about flag and country, it does not make sense for them to have a problem with avoiding Constitutional violations.
Of course it does. As I mentioned earlier, it does it better than with the phrase. Which shows the lie in the argument that this is about patriotism rather than cramming religion down children’s throats. If people wanted to instill loyalty to flag and country, they would support the pledge without the words “under God” to be as inclusive as possible, and this instill love of flag and country into as many people as possible.
To distinguish us from other countries, like the Soviet Union, where the population didn’t believe in God?
Yes, it does.
Frankly, I don’t know why a nation whose entire reason for being is allegedly freedom makes so much of a fascist-style loyalty oath in the first place…
Populations don’t believe in God - individuals do.
Personally, as a Christian myself, I hate the entirety of the pledge, but that’s not really here nor there. I don’t really see how “under God” violates establishment. Our nation was founded by religious people, many of them Deists, so I don’t see it as referencing an idea that our nation is necessarily subservient to any god, muchless specifically the Christian God anymore than to argue that our rights “endowed by our Creator” somehow cease to exist if one doesn’t believe in a creator.
That is, our rights exist because we exist. To a religious person, we exist because we were created by the Creator, so it makes sense to say that he gave them to us, but even without believing in God, the concept that that entails still exists.
The reason I don’t see it violating the second part of the Lemon test is because the pledge is a pledge “to the flag… and to the nation for which it stands”, whether the nation is “under God” or not, whatever you decide it means, really doesn’t force anyone to believe or not believe in a creator. I see it, instead, as a reference to the idea that our nation was founded upon the idea of our inalienable rights. One could argue that it’s still a prayer of some sort, but only in that it’s nationalistic and I just don’t see anyone being anti-nationalist today that’s just… unpatriotic.
That said, while I don’t see a legal argument to take it out, at least in situations where it’s optional, as it is in this case; at the same time, though, I don’t think “under God” really had any good reason to be put in there in the first place, and I think a good argument can be made that in never should have been put in in the first place. But if we’re going to attack the pledge, I’d rather just see the whole thing go.
Edit:
This is why I hate it and why it should go away.
The phrase “under God” in the Pledge was specifically inserted to promote religion. When signing the law into effect that added it, President Eisenhower stated, “From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.” My source is http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm
This is clearly a bad decision by the court.
Even if it is, “daily proclaim[ing] in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty” isn’t necessarily a constitutionally prohibited establishment of religion.
Which only goes to show how the Court has eviscerated the concept of establishment though ceremonial deism bullshit.
What is unclear about “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” ?
The court blew it. Maybe the Supremes will overturn. Personally, I wish they’d chuck the whole pledge. Making kids parrot something each day just to make the hyper-patriots happy is just silly. If the most important issue in your life is making sure “Under God” stays in the pledge, you’ve got far too easy a life.