Wouldn’t the claimants in such a case as this have standing? They are being forced to say a pledge which has been altered to include god to no secular purpose.
If they don’t have standing then this really seems to be a catch 22.
You can challenge a law forcing you to say it. You cannot challenge the wording unless you can show the wording itself causes you specific harm. And that, under current interpretations of standing law, is next to impossible.
To me, that’s not nearly as scary as the idea that the nation or the nation’s law are supreme and demand my ultimate obedience.
I believe that you can indeed be justified in breaking the nation’s law if it violates a higher law, as do many other people, such as Henry David Thoreau. And to me, the best argument against taking the words “under God” out of the pledge is that I don’t want the state to be supreme, and I don’t want people pledging their ultimate and unqualified allegience to it.
That said, I don’t think a mention of God ought to be part of any official governmental statement. It really does seem unconstitutional to me. But I also don’t see why we need a “pledge of allegience” that has any sort of official, governmental status at all. If people must be compelled to say it (and why should they?), it ought to be their choice whether or not to include the words “under God.”
Scalia hypnotized White, Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy, and Souter?
Man, that guy’s good.
So basically your argument at every stage of this is, “The existing law sucks,” if it doesn’t support your peculiar view of how things should be?
Tell me, villa – is there any decision that you don’t agree with but are willing to call reasonable? Just so I can compare…
Yes, the instant plaintiffs have standing to complain about the Pledge, as it exists today.
They don’t have standing to complain about the 1954 act adding “under God” to the Pledge. They have to complain about the Pledge as a whole, because it’s the pledge as a whole that (supposedly) injures them.
Exactly correct.
No, it’s not disturbing, because there’s no religion “established” by the mere inclusion of the two words “under God” in the Pledge. I grant you that “established” has been twisted over the years to encompass much more than it should mean, but I don’t lose a moment’s sleep over “establish” being interpreted this way.
In short: The Court copped out by saying the pledge doesn’t really mean a deity when, obviously, it does. I say obviously because the people who are adamant about keeping the word in the [del]prayer[/del] pledge are those who most certainly consider the word to mean a particular (Christian) deity.
Atheists: “Hey, why don’t we get that ‘under God’ part removed from the Pledge, since it’s by no means inclusive of those of us who don’t believe in him?”
Theists: “There’s no need to- ‘God’ doesn’t refer specifically to, well, God. It’s just part of the Pledge, yaknow?”
Atheists: “Then there’s no real reason to keep it in there, right? I mean, if it’s not important to you because it doesn’t endorse your religion… and we feel it excludes us, then why not remove it?”
Theists: “Why are you persecuting us for our beliefs? Why do you hate God?”
Atheists: “??”
Of course there is; Christianity. That’s the point, that’s the reason it was put there. It’s an assertion that America is a Christian nation and that every American should pledge to Christianity. And it is meant as an insult to everyone who isn’t Christian.
Lightnin’: So true! Here’s more humor for you on the issue. Fairly often when I voice my stance on it, I’m accused of being an atheist.
You could actually say that with a straight face? That invoking God is not an act of religion? :D:D:D
No, of course that wasn’t with a straight face. It merely illustrates the lengths to which those of you who wish the government to support their particular faith have to go in order to rationalize it.
There is no heavier twisting of a word possible than to assert that “religion” does not include God. :rolleyes:
Der Trihs, your post would have been stronger if you’d said “monotheism” or even “theism” than “Christianity”, despite your accurate reminder of the origin of the 1954 law. The words are more offensive to atheists than to Muslims, as well as being more directly opposed to the Constitution.
No. In fact, the Supreme Court’s opinions discussing what “establishes religion” means have often mentioned the Pledge as an example of the use of the word “God” that does NOT establish religion.
Now, because this is Great DEBATES, I will provide a couple of cites for this claim.
You apparently won an immunity challenge, and as a result have a lifetime exemption from this requirement. That’s a shame, because in debate, a gratuitious assertiom cam be equally gratuitously denied, so theoretically I don’t even need to cite these claims. But I figure others may be interested.
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), has the Supreme Court saying that the Pledge is one of the allowable “reference[s] to our religious heritage,” both historical and contemporary, that form the context of Establishment Clause analysis.
In County of Allegheny v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), the Supreme Court also used the Pledge as a touchstone for finding the boundary line between constitutional and unconstitutional governmental references to God or religion. “[The Pledge is] consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief.” (emphasis added)
That’s because they are blatantly corrupt. A pack of liars.
Is this your idea of debate?
I can do it:
No, you’re utterly wrong. Period.
No, it’s my way of pointing out that your citing the Supreme Court is irrelevant to me because I don’t trust them to interpret the law honestly. They are going to rule in favor of putting God in the pledge, of putting Bush in the White House, of equating money with free speech regardless of what the law says. I don’t even need to know the law to know how they will decide on such issues, because those are decisions made according to their religious and political convictions, not according to the law.
They are corrupt. And unworthy of respect.
No, you’re utterly wrong. Period.
Your problem is not that I don’t understand textualism; it is that I do understand its opposite.
For those who believe that the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says, the above is a meaningless statement.
The Supreme Court is the sole interpreter of the Constitution. They have interpreted ceremonial deism as not being an establishment of religion. Ergo, it is not. Full stop.
If you would like to use some other principle, like textualism, to argue that the Supreme Court is wrong, well and good. But unless that principle applies to all other Supreme Court decisions, then you are engaging in exactly the sort of ends-oriented reasoning that you claim to abhor.
Regards,
Shodan
The ‘under God’ part is interesting as it acknowledges that God is in control and has ruling authority over this nation, and no matter how far we stray it’s OK as He is in control.
It is very possible that the phrase ‘under God’ was placed there by God, and therefore is above the courts ability to remove it.
The phrase also allows many people to take the pledge, as many people would not pledge to a flag and country, but will if that country acknowledges that they are ‘under God’, meaning that your pledge is secondary to your service to God, and therefore the pledge is basically meaningless for someone serving God (which is another form of separation of church and state). By requiring the pledge without ‘under God’ you are violating separation of church and state by forcing state to be above one’s commitment to God.
Actually it doesn’t say that, just that there is one God, or a ‘Oneness’ to God that is over all. Scriptures, both OT and NT mention other gods.
There are no words.