# What's the argument that the Pledge and "In God We Trust" are Constitutionally okay? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253 "2010-03-12T16:47:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/21 "2010-03-12T19:48:56Z")
How many of the people here who have condemned the reasoning that created cerem,onial deism as “crap” believe that the reasonaing in _Roe v. Wade_ that said a first-trimester unborn child may be aborted because the state has little compelling interest; a second-trimester abortion must be justified by slightly higher concerns, and so forth? In other words, I’m trying to understand if you think it’s crap because you like the result, or crap because you think the legal or factual basis for the rule is thin. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/22 "2010-03-12T20:00:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How many of the people here who have condemned the reasoning that created cerem,onial deism as “crap” believe that the reasonaing in _Roe v. Wade_ that said a first-trimester unborn child may be aborted because the state has little compelling interest; a second-trimester abortion must be justified by slightly higher concerns, and so forth? > > In other words, I’m trying to understand if you think it’s crap because you like the result, or crap because you think the legal or factual basis for the rule is thin. I think both start with an end result in mind, and then do a lot of hand-waving to get there. But at least the “ceremonial deism” argument starts with some wording “establishment of religion” that has to be interpreted some way. The fact that it has come to mean “The Lemon Test” seems rather arbitrary. It tries to make as much of a “wall of separation” as is politically palatable. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/23 "2010-03-12T20:06:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In other words, I’m trying to understand if you think it’s crap because you like the result, or crap because you think the legal or factual basis for the rule is thin. You should first try to understand that your own view, that a fetus is a fully-fledged human with full rights starting at the moment of conception, is not an obvious fact but your own opinion. There are many other views of the humanity and rights of a fetus, and even of a newborn, in existence that you will not even acknowledge, much less “try to” understand. The search for a liberal-hypocrisy gotcha continues … ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/24 "2010-03-12T20:11:20Z")
Are you suggesting that there are arguments in which one’s stance on abortion is not directly relevant, or even important? You can’t be serious! ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/25 "2010-03-12T20:19:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How many of the people here who have condemned the reasoning that created cerem,onial deism as “crap” believe that the reasonaing in _Roe v. Wade_ that said a first-trimester unborn child may be aborted because the state has little compelling interest; a second-trimester abortion must be justified by slightly higher concerns, and so forth? > > In other words, I’m trying to understand if you think it’s crap because you like the result, or crap because you think the legal or factual basis for the rule is thin. My impression is that the people who are OK with _Roe v. Wade_ don’t claim to be originalists or textualists. Whereas many of the people who do claim to be o’s and t’s are fine with ceremonial deism even though changing the Pledge, for example, was an obvious attempt to establish some religion and reject those commies. Or, are you saying that Roe v. Wade supporters are reaping what they’ve sown, since there is a result that they don’t agree with due to a broken process where the Justices can make the law? In that case, I assume you’re firmly opposed to ceremonial deism and would work to have the God references struck from the currency and the Pledge. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/26 "2010-03-12T20:23:40Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > My impression is that the people who are OK with _Roe v. Wade_ don’t claim to be originalists or textualists. Whereas many of the people who do claim to be o’s and t’s are fine with ceremonial deism even though changing the Pledge, for example, was an obvious attempt to establish some religion and reject those commies. No, it was not an “obvious attempt to establish some religion”, if you look at the actual meaning of establishment of religion. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/27 "2010-03-12T20:31:06Z")
Not a \*particular \*religion necessarily, just “religion”. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/28 "2010-03-12T20:34:55Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The legal term is ceremonial deism, and it pretty much means “everybody does it, so it’s no big deal.” I think Constitutionally the pledge doesn’t qualify as ceremonial deism - meaning it fails what is called the Lemon Test, which is supposed to determine whether or not a practice is (in this case) advancing religion. For example, the fact that the “under God” was inserted into the pledge long after it was written as a response to the Soviet Union, was promoted by a reverend, and the fact that Eisenhower had a priest present when he signed the law adding the words to the pledge, indicate to me that the words are there to advance religion. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, it was not an “obvious attempt to establish some religion”, if you look at the actual meaning of establishment of religion. I was just using **Marley23** as my cite. If that information is incorrect, then I agree with you. If **Marley23** is correct, it seems like a pretty obvious attempt to establish religion, even if it’s only deism. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/29 "2010-03-12T20:37:42Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Not a \*particular \*religion necessarily, just “religion”. Yes, my wording was confusing. When I wrote “some”, it was meant to imply “a small amount”, as in “add in some yellow to that paint”. It wasn’t meant as “a particular, but unnamed” as in “well, there is _some_ extra color in that paint.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/30 "2010-03-12T20:38:26Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Not a \*particular \*religion necessarily, just “religion”. Again, depending on how one interprets “establishment” that may or may not be true. In the original sense, it’s not really possible to “establish” religion, only a particular religion. If one holds to the originalist interpretation, as referenced in the post by **RitterSport** , then it’s not an establishment. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/31 "2010-03-12T20:40:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Are you suggesting that there are arguments in which one’s stance on abortion is not directly relevant, or even important? You can’t be serious! One can favor abortion rights as a matter of social policy, and yet still acknowledge that the _Roe_ reasoning was highly suspect. This is an issue where I think it’ s enlightening to see how many of the people that are horrified with the court’s carving out ceremonial deism are perfectly content when the carving knife is used to their benefit. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/32 "2010-03-12T20:40:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I imagine because of fearing the precedent: if non-religious, utterly ceremonial mentions of God are found to violate the Establishment Clause, then hostility towards religion must be quite high and may lead to substantive undesirable results. Yeah, you imagine alright. :dubious::rolleyes: What, pray tell, do you imagine would be some of the “substantive undesirable results”? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/33 "2010-03-12T20:41:28Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > My impression is that the people who are OK with _Roe v. Wade_ don’t claim to be originalists or textualists. Whereas many of the people who do claim to be o’s and t’s are fine with ceremonial deism even though changing the Pledge, for example, was an obvious attempt to establish some religion and reject those commies. Well, insuring that the tongue of a Kohm would burn with fire if he dared say the words could constitute a “secular purpose”… ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/34 "2010-03-12T20:43:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > One can favor abortion rights as a matter of social policy, and yet still acknowledge that the _Roe_ reasoning was highly suspect. > > This is an issue where I think it’ s enlightening to see how many of the people that are horrified with the court’s carving out ceremonial deism are perfectly content when the carving knife is used to their benefit. This is an issue where I think it’s enlightening to see how some people can bring other issues into the debate and try and claim that there’s a connection between the two, in order to dilute the debate because the original topic of discussion can’t really be defended in any way. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/35 "2010-03-12T20:45:59Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I was just using **Marley23** as my cite. If that information is incorrect, then I agree with you. If **Marley23** is correct, it seems like a pretty obvious attempt to establish religion, even if it’s only deism. What is the “originalist” meaning of the term of art: “establish” or “establishment”? Oh, and what “law” are we talking about here that Congress made? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/36 "2010-03-12T20:53:30Z")
You left out “What is the ‘originalist’ meaning of the term of art: religion?” Here’s the relevant clause, for reference: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. The “laws” we’re talking about are the one that added the words “under God” to the Pledge and “In God We Trust” to US currency. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/37 "2010-03-12T20:55:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I imagine because of fearing the precedent: if non-religious, utterly ceremonial mentions of God are found to violate the Establishment Clause, then hostility towards religion must be quite high and may lead to substantive undesirable results. Well-poisoning, if not simple obtuseness. Recognition that a democratic government must be kept separate from religion is hardly “hostility towards religion”. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/38 "2010-03-12T21:00:31Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You left out “What is the ‘originalist’ meaning of the term of art: religion?” > > Here’s the relevant clause, for reference: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. I’m OK with including that. > [@](#): > > The “laws” we’re talking about are the one that added the words “under God” to the Pledge and “In God We Trust” to US currency. That’s a law? What is the legal penalty for “violating” that “law”? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/39 "2010-03-12T21:03:53Z")
We’ve already got one guy in this thread trying to confine the discussion to the strict letter of the law while ignoring/dismissing context and non-legal ramifications. We don’t need another. ---
**Author:** ![Phatlewt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a698b9/32.png) [@Phatlewt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phatlewt)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/40 "2010-03-12T21:04:44Z")
Just because a criminal penalty isn’t defined, that doesn’t mean it’s not a law. Don’t be absurd. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253.md?page=3)