The Act of Settlement, 1701 provides that only Protestant descendants of the Electress Sophia are eligible for the throne. Upon inheriting the Crown, the monarch is required to “join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established.”
So, to become King, Charles must remain an Anglican.
regarding the importance of framers’ intent…
i understand the points that have been made, and the idea that the law is the law and should always be the law. my point is this: when endeavoring to determine the framers’ intent, we essentially treat them as gods, infallible and all-knowing. what was it about those people that made them more knowledgeable in the ways of today’s government than anyone alive today? i do believe that society and its standards change, and the law should change with it, but at the same time, i hold that these were mere men, and there’s no reason to suspect that they could do any better than someone on the supreme court right now.
Actually, kids have a natural tendency to rebel at around ages 2-4. Then it’s up to the parents and teachers to stomp out that tendency and teach them to do as they’re told (as in “don’t stick the fork in the light socket” or “put away your toys when you’re done”).
By the time they get into elementary school, though, they’ve been conditioned to obey adults without much questioning. That only works until they hit puberty… 
In my experience it seems that most religious people are tolerant of other religious folk as long as they believe in some god, but on the other hand they seem to feel threatened when faced with someone who believes in no god but isn’t a murderer, thief, etc. Their justification for leaving the word “God” in the pledge of allegiance, courts, etc. is that “God” can be interpreted to be Jehovah, Allah, Zeus… anyone you want really. So they feel they’re already making enough concessions to believers of other religions, and atheists are usually either disrespected altogether or at least marginilized by the mass public as a small group of naysayers with no power to make a difference.
Jeremy Ulrey
If the reference to God has “lost through rote repetition any significant religious content”, why are some people so hell-bent on retaining it in the pledge? Of COURSE it has significant religious content. That’s the lamest argument I’ve heard so far. When will people wise up and realize how patently offensive this is to most non-believers?
We all “know” what the installer of the phrase meant.
Christianity.
But my concern is what it DOES; officially imply?
The answer is only “god”.
From my mouth, you will hear that term only equated to me.
If I asked you to name THE religion that had “god” in it, you would not be able to answer. Key word is “the”.
Hence, the phrase is completely legit under the constitution.
The only offense one could take from this phrase is via their own guess work and assumption - something that is NOT protected under the constitution.
The religious intent was that of christianity. They were christian. Of course that’s what the phrase meant to them.
It was added much later than them, but regardless…
The genious, of this phrase, is that it does not IMPLY christianity at all. It is open ended.
Like Metallica wrote “Fade to Black” - to them, it meant… getting all their shit stolen and being pissed.
Many thought it was about suicide.
The beauty of such open ended meanings like “under god”, or art, is that it is only defined by the interpreter - not the designer.
To the installers of “god” in this country… it was Jebus’ dad.
Fortunately, what is official is only this phrase - not their interpretation.
Constitutionally sound.
What about folks whose religions don’t have one god? About half of the world’s population have a faith that either involves multiple gods, or no gods (spirits, yes, but not omnipotent gods).
They would be “oppressed” by this.
However, we are talking about the legality of “under god”. It does not indicate a religion, and thus is legal.
My defense is not the fairness of the phrase, but the constitutional legality of it.
But it is making an assertion, not just about a single god, but even a particular theological idea (it’s a being whom this country is “under”). It is not the government’s business to be instructing its citizens what and how they will acknowledge a god: a practice that is most assuredly a religious matter.
Assertions are not illegal. Promoting a particular religion is.
It may be “unethical”, or “upsetting”.
But not illegal.
If “under god” is stricken; I just hope it is out of public preference than rather illegality.
I for one, do not prefer it.
I do agree, however, that it is not government’s business to dictate objectionable thought.
But is not “under god” more of a relic; or tradition?
Does it really dictate anything?
Really?
Say the government had a slogon…“Nobility is a virtue”.
Let’s then say that I believed nobility was null. I was a satanist. I believed selfishness was god.
I should then be… under your guidelines, able to successfully object my way into that phrase being stricken from any governmental script.
Perhaps I am not explaining myself correctly.
I appologize.
so, by your argument, if i define “murder” as, say, mowing the lawn, and i kill someone out of malice, i am not guilty of breaking a law that prohibits “murder”, because my definition is different from most people’s?
i don’t think so.
it is up to the court to decide the intent of the word usage and whether or not that violates the constitution. i personally don’t think they will use your definition of “god”. i don’t see how they could arrive at any conclusion other than the judeo-christian god, or at worst a monotheistic god of deism. either way, it promotes a form of religious worship over others.
if they don’t remove it, it will most likely be because of its “tradition” (which i personally believe is bullshit, but see here for precedent), or because the person suing did not have a right to bring the case before the court.
We don’t think of them as gods, and they didn’t think of themselves as gods, which is why they provided a way to amend the Constitution if they were wrong, and why we’ve amended the Constitution 27 times.
So we agree that they were just men, but as pointed out by Dewey, we don’t abide by the Constitution because the people that wrote the document were “gods,” but because the constitution was adopted after extensive debate and a lengthy democratic process. The decisions of an unelected judge do not have any such legitimacy.
**
You can define murder how ever you’d like.
It’s the legal definition that will get you in trouble or not.
The law, as you referred to it, would have a seperate definition than your own.
**
Either do I.
**
What has been my definition of god?
[quote]
**i don’t see how they could arrive at any conclusion other than the judeo-christian god, or at worst a monotheistic god of deism. either way, it promotes a form of religious worship over others.
[quote]
**
What the word meant to the designers of the phrase does not dictate the meaning to others.
It is not a “law” like murder. It is a declaration. Almost poetic.
A far cry from dictating legality; like your murder arguement.
I personally do not care whether it stays or go.
I only care that if it leaves, it is for the correct reasons.
And, yes, that would involve tradition - this phrase breaks no constitutional law.
It doesn’t say Allah, hence it’s not Islam.
It spells out the word God, hence it’s not Judaism.
God is capitalized, hence it’s not referring to any number of other gods.
Yep, looks like Christianity to me. Not a lot of guess work or assumptions required.
Oh, and the Knight’s of Columbus were the ones who originally adopted the idea, and lobbied to get it added, so if you want to get really specific, the God we’re pledging to is the Catholic God, which might not make the Jack Chicks of the world very happy.
A truly secular society not only removes legal sanctions from interfering in the religious affairs of others, but also social sanctions.
Do we want to be truly secular, or just play word games?
What exactly is nobility? Being better than other people because of who your parents were? If so, than a satanist would probably believe that nobility wasn’t a virtue, but if you are referring to noble as in rank than a satanist would agree that nobility IS a virtue. And satanists don’t believe selfishness is god, it’s simply an inherent part of being human. God to a satanist is typically themselves.