The Pledge of Allegiance, with reference to the modification of the little affirmation written by Francis Bellamy, enacted by Congress sometime before 1939, and modified by the “under God” phrase in 1954, is not unconstitutional and cannot be unconstitutional, any more than Congress’s stating by resolution that March is Official National Eat More Cottage Cheese Month is not and cannot be unconstitutional, and for the same reason – they express a sentiment and impose no duty or mandate on anyone.
And since SCOTUS decided in 1941 that the West Virginia State Board of Education could not compel the Barnette kid to recite the Pledge, any law, rule, regulation, formal policy, or other utterance which purports to compel or coerce anyone by rule of law or force of governmental authority to recite the Pledge is a violation of First Amendment rights.
Period.
That’s settled law in this country. It doesn’t mean that a parent, a clergyman, a Boy Scout leader, a private school teacher or administration, may not teach a child the Pledge, require of the child that he or she recite the Pledge, or whatever – what it says is that nobody may do so with the authority of government. Not George W. Bush, not the second grade teacher at Lower Moose Lake Elementary School, and nobody inbetween. Regardless of their reason. Nor may they coerce the child by placing him or her in a situation where he or she has the legal right to refuse but will face the ridicule or obloquy of others for doing so.
This seems to be the simplest concept that is the hardest one to get across to others that exists.
And, by the way, does it not seem a bit ironic to people that someone would want to use government power to compel or coerce someone to affirm their allegiance to “one nation…with liberty and justice for all”?
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
I did answer your Q- you just don’t like my answer.
QUOTE]
No, you haven’t.
You don’t acknowledge the choice to treat religion as a deeply personal issue, that is addressed at home, and is totally the responsibility of the parents, and has nothing to do with strangers.
What about that choice?
The question you have still not answered is this, again: why is it necessary for you to have such a personal, within-the-family issue be administrated by strangers, who are in the employment of the government?
Why do you want such private issues, private issues between you and your children, administered by strangers?
I do not consider a public acknowledgement of Deity to be the deeply personal issue you do- especially when in my version of what should be taught, that acknowledgement & the rest of the Pledge are totally voluntary. You however object to my proposal that “under God” be included as an option.
And I must admit a reason that I am loathe to remove “under God”- and the same reason some people seem to have who are determined to remove it- because it really ticks off the people on the other side.
To quote someone-or-other “The argument from we’ve always done it that way is as weak as they come. It does, however, trump the argument let’s change things for no particularly good reason.” I’m not criticizing you, just thought it was relevent.
Of course, I do think it should be removed. You did fine for hundreds of years without it, why do you need it now?
Hang on a second here… I’m not sure I’m parsing this properly. Are you saying that because schoolchildren aren’t legally required to recite it, there’s no conceivable way that the pledge could be unconstitutional? So, as long as it wasn’t required, it could read “I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag of the Christian United States of Christ, and to the Aryan republic for which it stands…”?
It seems to me obvious that a sufficiently religious pledge is unconstitutional and a totally nonreligious one isn’t. Somewhere there’s a line, and we’re discussing here (among other things) precisely where that line should be drawn. I assume we’re on the same playing field here, right?
The pledge itself is not and cannot be unconstitutional, just like the words “I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag of the Christian United States of Christ, and to the Aryan republic for which it stands…” are not unconstitutional . Actions related to the recitation of the pledge, such as compelling or coercing its recitation, are only unconstitutional if a government body is doing the coercing or compelling.
Could Congress Constitutionally pass a law declaring the Nicene Creed to be the “National Creed”, so long as they didn’t pass any laws forcing anyone to actually recite it?
What of an atheist (or, polytheist, or nontheist) teacher who objects to being required (by his employer, the government) to lead the pledge, including the “under God” statement?
So which is it - is it OK to use “in the year of our Lord” because it has been used that way for many years, or is it not OK to use “under God” in the Pledge even though it has been there for many years? Is there a time limit you are suggesting?
And while you are at it, could you explain why saying “our Lord” in the Constitution is just “a convention” and “NO argument”, whereas “under God” in the Pledge is something more? In other words, why aren’t atheists up in arms to have the words “our Lord” removed from the Constitution?
Seems to me that both “under God” and “our Lord” are both instances of the same sort of thing. If saying “under God” is such a ghastly injury to your civil rights, how come you haven’t noticed that you suffered the same injury every time someone mentions the Constitution?
FWIW, my solution to the Pledge issue is to mandate a one-second pause after “one nation” to allow those reciting it to include “under God” or leave it out, as they see fit. Those who don’t want to say it don’t have to; no one who wants to say it is prevented. Presto - problem solved.
There’s a huge difference between arguing that the Pledge is alright because you’ve done it all your life, and the convention of using AD.
No one is compelled to recite the Constitution. In addition, the use of “In the Year of our Lord” is hardly a substantive part of the Constitution. If you feel differently, you’re just being pedantic.
Dunno. You’d have to ask one. If I were to throw a wild guess out there, I’d say it’s because the use of it is on the signature page - where people can sign any way they damn well want.
You’re joking, right? If you can’t honestly see the difference, you’re deliberately being obstinent. And for the record, I have never said that “under God” is any sort of injury to my civil rights. It is a cause for undue intanglement (see Lemon v. Kurtzman) between the government and religion, as it is a daily recitation that takes place in every school house in the country. There is no such entanglement with “our Lord” in the Constitution (in addition to the fact that the Constitution, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional).
So then you completely agree with me, as your “proposal” would also remove “under God”. Was the rest of your post an attempt at trolling then?
No, actually I was asking on what basis you define the two words “under God” as “substantive” but “our Lord” are not. Just because? Or because you know about the one but have never heard about the other?
And exactly why is use of the “our Lord” not an entanglement? I was looking for your reasoning. I hardly think it’s fair to accuse me of being “deliberately obstinate” for not understanding your thinking if you won’t explain it. So far, you have made the assertion, and, when challenged, simply repeated the assertion with some impugning of my motives and a thinly veiled accusation of trolling.
Is your resistance to the use of “under God” in the Pledge but not to “our Lord” in the Constitution based on coherent principle, or is it simply because you didn’t know that “our Lord” was in the Constitution?
The difference is one of intent and of historical background. “Under God” was added less than 50 years ago for the expressed purpose of defining the country as Christian in response to the “godless Russians”. “In the Year of Our Lord” (or its latin anno domino) is an expression that reflects at least 500 years of convention that spans the globe, regardless of religion, culture, language or nationality.
4 U.S.C. 4 (as linked by MEBuckner on the previous page) is a specific piece of legislation specifically instituting “under God”. Article VII of the US Constitution is a signature page that has no substantive meaning to the federal government. I am not defining the words “under God” as anything. What I *am * defining is the intent and the consequences of the government enacting a piece of legislation that attempts to define the allegience of its citizens as Christian - an intent not present in the Constitution example.
Simply because the use of “our Lord” is not in a piece of legislation.
Fair enough.
Sorry, but since you are maintaining Position A while arguing against Position A, it’s hard to discern your motivation.
Not to speak for Munch, of course (and I don’t, myself, even see a problem with Under God being in the pledge), but I think it’s possible that a real difference does exist.
“In the Year of Our Lord XXXX” or “XXXX AD” is not generally construed to be a religious statement. Although the calender is based on religious dating, and there are other, both religious and secular, dating systems, the person who says, “It’s 2004” isn’t in any sense making a religious statement.
That argument is harder to make with “under God” in the pledge. Not only is “Under God” newer than “A.D.” (“under God” having been added in the 1950s, while the anno domini dating system began in the 7th century), when the founders used A.D., they were continuing in place an already existing dating system…they didn’t adopt a new dating system to “add God”, while the Congress in the 1950s added “under God” to a preexisting pledge that hadn’t had it. This suggests that Congress had a specific motive to include the phrase.
So, for those two reasons, you could say that “A.D.” is acceptable, while “under God” isn’t.
Just as an additional note, I don’t think you’re going to find many people who disagree that, historically, the US has had a Christian heritage. The US was largely settled and founded by European Christians (and, in the case of those founders, like Franklin, who were not themselves Christian, they were mostly from Christian families), and the majority of the population is, and has been, Christian. So, to some extent, Christian symbolism and Christian “cultural artifacts”, like our dating system, are inevitable.
So, the question becomes, to what extent are “under God”, or A.D., or a Christmas tree in a park, or whatever, cultural artifacts that just come from having a majority Christian population and a majority Christian mindset, and to what extent are they actual promotions of religion?
hijacking a bit- how long till the Egypto-Masonic iconography on the Great Seal & the $1 bill is fought as unConstitutional- the Eye of Horus/Great Architect/Providence- how can that be legal?
