# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/61 "2010-03-12T22:28:50Z")
What is this “ceremonial deism?” It’s a threat, and an insult, and meant to be so from the beginning. It’s a way of saying that if you aren’t a Christian you aren’t a real American. That’s the real reasoning behind putting God on the pledge and the money. Just as a judge putting the Ten Commandments on his robe or on the wall of a courtroom is a way of saying that if you aren’t a Christian, you’ll find no justice there; a way of saying he’ll be looking for an excuse to rule against you if you don’t toe his religious line. This is all about the hatred of Christians for anyone who is not Christian, especially athiests. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, it was not an “obvious attempt to establish some religion”, if you look at the actual meaning of establishment of religion. Of course it was. Everyone knows that “God”, in a context like this means the Christian God. Not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Islam. Christianity. Like the concept of “ceremonial deism”, the claim that “God” on the money or in the pledge refers to anything but Christianity is just an attempt to pretend the Constitution isn’t being violated. It was put there by Christians to push Christianity; not some other religion. “God”, as opposed to “the gods” is not some generic religious concept. It’s barely a step short of putting a cross on our money and claiming that isn’t a Christian symbol but a generic religious one. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/62 "2010-03-12T22:40:13Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I’ve been mystified by this since I was a kid. > > It _appears_ obvious to me that for government entities to proclaim that they trust in God, and for the Pledge (officially sanctioned by the government) to declare the nation is “under God,” is for the government to espouse religious belief. And it seems only slightly less obvious to me that for the government to espouse religious beliefs violates the constitution. > > Where does that (admittedly very broad) reasoning fail, though? > … > What’s the argument here? For the government to espouse religion does not violate the Constitution. For that to be true, the Constitution would need to say “The government shall not espouse religion” or words to that effect. [Here’s a copy to read](http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html) if you don’t believe me. As you can see it mentions religion only twice. Once, in Article VI, it says that there shall be no religious test for office; in other words, members of the government can practice whatever religion they want. The other time, in the First Amendment, says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Clearly that means anyone can practice the religion they want when and how they want; it makes no exception for government employees are anyone else. The reason for that amendment was that in England only members of the church of England could vote, hold office, reach certain military posts, etc… The authors of the Constitution wanted to ensure that there would never be a Church of the United States of America holding similar powers. But they would be completely baffled by the claim that the First Amendment prohibits the government from espousing religion. That idea wasn’t invented until generations later. And I agree with all those in this thread who say that “ceremonial deism” is garbage. ---
**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, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/63 "2010-03-12T22:46:44Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > You ignored my point - that the problem is that some instances of ceremonial deism are obviously and clearly explicitly Christian in both current interpretation and original intent. These smack into the more limited interpretations of the establisment clause _too_ - you can’t fudge and say that “under God” is for polythiests too. Heck, it’s complete hooey to say it applies to Hindus. There is no vagueness here: it’s Christian, and always was. Actually, no. If they were “obviously and clearly explicitly Christian”, they would mention Christ, and not “God”. I’ll give you that Hindus probably were not given much thought, but with no mention of “Christ” or “The Lord” or “Our Savior”, the term “God” is relatively broad. > [@](#): > > I hold it to be possible that different things can be in contradiction to the establisment clause in different ways and degrees - some protests require one to take a more general wall of separation approach (which I believe is perfectly appropriate). However, there are some clear and obvious instances of ceremonial deism that fall afoul of the more restrictive interpretations -_all_ more restrictive interpretations- as well. Putting the ten commandments on your federal courthouse and “in God we trust” on your federal currency being two clear examples. Well, it all comes down to what is meant by establishing religion. I’m not really trying to argue that one meaning is right and the other is wrong. I’m just pointing out that a strict, textualist or originalist reading of the Establishment Clause needn’t rule out either of those things. That was the original complaint made here: > [@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… ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/64 "2010-03-12T22:59:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Funny you should say “enshrined”, but the fact is, we don’t have “separation of church and state” in our constitution. I wish we did, but we don’t. “Separation of church and state” (technically “a wall of separation between church and state”) is a term used by President Thomas Jefferson in correspondence with the Danbury (CT) Baptist Church to describe the protections of citizens’ rights that are found there. The statement you made is equivalent to saying that “strict and intermediate scrutiny and rational basis tests are found nowhere in the Constitution” – technically a true statement, but, as **Bricker** recently noted, they are a useful mode of effectuating the principles that are actually in the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/65 "2010-03-12T23:09:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Actually, no. If they were “obviously and clearly explicitly Christian”, they would mention Christ, and not “God”. I’ll give you that Hindus probably were not given much thought, but with no mention of “Christ” or “The Lord” or “Our Savior”, the term “God” is relatively broad. This is absurd - you are arguing that the Christians do not, and would not, refer to their god as “God”. This is obviously and provably false. I can’t believe that you’re arguing it with a straight face. Are you listening to yourself? It’s not logically valid to conclude that if someone resorts to arguments that are completely and obviously ridiculous, then their position must be wrong. However if it _were_ valid to conclude that, you would have just proven my position for me. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, it all comes down to what is meant by establishing religion. I’m not really trying to argue that one meaning is right and the other is wrong. I’m just pointing out that a strict, textualist or originalist reading of the Establishment Clause needn’t rule out either of those things. That was the original complaint made here: I’m not that up with the different flavors of constitutional interpretation; I just know that there isn’t _ **any** _ way to interpret a direct and explicit statement of trust in God on the currency, or a direct and explicit statement of subservience to God in the pledge, as not being in condradiction to the establishment clause, without making the text literally completely meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Perciful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b38774/32.png) [@Perciful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Perciful)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/66 "2010-03-12T23:09:47Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > What is this “ceremonial deism?” It’s a threat, and an insult, and meant to be so from the beginning. It’s a way of saying that if you aren’t a Christian you aren’t a real American. That’s the real reasoning behind putting God on the pledge and the money. Just as a judge putting the Ten Commandments on his robe or on the wall of a courtroom is a way of saying that if you aren’t a Christian, you’ll find no justice there; a way of saying he’ll be looking for an excuse to rule against you if you don’t toe his religious line. This is all about the hatred of Christians for anyone who is not Christian, especially atheists. > Of course it was. Everyone knows that “God”, in a context like this means the Christian God. Not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Islam. Christianity. Like the concept of “ceremonial deism”, the claim that “God” on the money or in the pledge refers to anything but Christianity is just an attempt to pretend the Constitution isn’t being violated. It was put there by Christians to push Christianity; not some other religion. > > “God”, as opposed to “the gods” is not some generic religious concept. It’s barely a step short of putting a cross on our money and claiming that isn’t a Christian symbol but a generic religious one. God can be ‘anything’ greater then ourselves. The God concept is what kept our country strong until atheists took offense and now we have traded in our beloved, “In God We Trust” for the almighty dollar and went bust! The founding fathers were smart because they knew corruption comes from within so we needed a power from above. In another thread they talk about everything going downhill in the 80’s and that is the same time Madeline Murray O’Hair was doing her best to separate church and state. She won, we as a nation lost. The further we get from the Constitution the closer we get to our own demise. It will come from within if we don’t place our trust in a higher power that is incorruptible. If God was their standard why is money and greed now our standard? What got lost in the shuffle? Our freedom. ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/67 "2010-03-12T23:26:56Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > This is absurd - you are arguing that the Christians do not, and would not, refer to their god as “God”. No, I’m not arguing that, because that’s not what you said earlier. You said the use of “God” was clearly a Christian reference. It isn’t. > [@](#): > > I’m not that up with the different flavors of constitutional interpretation; I just know that there isn’t _ **any** _ way to interpret a direct and explicit statement of trust in God on the currency, or a direct and explicit statement of subservience to God in the pledge, as not being in condradiction to the establishment clause, without making the text literally completely meaningless. If you’re not “up with the different flavors of constitutional interpretation”, then you shouldn’t make broad statements about constitutional interpretation. It is not unreasonable to interpret that clause as meaning that Congress cannot make a law creating a state (ie, government funded) religion-- which is what many of the states did in the early years of our republic, and which was commonly forced upon the colonies by England. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/68 "2010-03-12T23:29:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, I’m not arguing that, because that’s not what you said earlier. You said the use of “God” was clearly a Christian reference. It isn’t. Yes, it is, without doubt. And this history leading up to the insertion of it in the pledge and on the dollar support this 100% - it wasn’t the deists or the muslims or the wiccans powering those movements. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > If you’re not “up with the different flavors of constitutional interpretation”, then you shouldn’t make broad statements about constitutional interpretation. I don’t have to be conversant with the different varieties of strawberry to recognize a lemon. ---
**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, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/69 "2010-03-12T23:34:09Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Yes, it is, without doubt. And this history leading up to the insertion of it in the pledge and on the dollar support this 100% - it wasn’t the deists or the muslims or the wiccans powering those movements. Well, that’s a different argument than you made earlier. But even still, it could just as well have been an attempt by Christians (who were clearly the majority in government) to give a nod to religion in the broadest way possible. An attempt to be inclusive of other religions, although clearly not inclusive of the non-religious. > [@](#): > > I don’t have to be conversant with the different varieties of strawberry to recognize a lemon. Bad analogy. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/70 "2010-03-12T23:43:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, that’s a different argument than you made earlier. But even still, it could just as well have been an attempt by Christians (who were clearly the majority in government) to give a nod to religion in the broadest way possible. An attempt to be inclusive of other religions, although clearly not inclusive of the non-religious. You seem strangely confident that you know more about what my argument is than I do, despite my having already had to correct you in it in post #60. Regardless I’m not sure it matters _what_ my prior argument was; you’re responding to my _current_ posts, right? And you’re now trying to argue that the Christans in the 50s were deliberately _not_ referring to their own god, but instead being deliberately and mindfully inclusive of non-christian religions, when they referred to their god by the proper name “God” like they always did when referring to Him exclusively. Convincing argument there. Might I also suggest that you argue that all the christians and priests who were pushing for the idea were actually Taoist monks, in disguise; that being similarly likely. Taoist monks from _Venus_. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Bad analogy. I liked it well enough. ---
**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, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/71 "2010-03-12T23:48:40Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > “Separation of church and state” (technically “a wall of separation between church and state”) is a term used by President Thomas Jefferson in correspondence with the Danbury (CT) Baptist Church to describe the protections of citizens’ rights that are found there. Yes, I know. And Jefferson famously played a key role in writing the DoI, he was in France when the the BoR was being proposed. And so, I don’t take his musing to have any more significance on the issue than any of the hundreds of legislators who had to actually vote on them. > [@](#): > > The statement you made is equivalent to saying that “strict and intermediate scrutiny and rational basis tests are found nowhere in the Constitution” – technically a true statement, but, as **Bricker** recently noted, they are a useful mode of effectuating the principles that are actually in the Constitution. Except when people claim, or imply, that either of those things are actually in the text of the constitution, then it is appropriate to bring up the fact that they aren’t. ---
**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/72 "2010-03-12T23:58:16Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > You seem strangely confident that you know more about what my argument is than I do, No, I’m simply at a disadvantage because I’m only aware of what you actually post, not what you think you are saying. > [@](#): > > Regardless I’m not sure it matters _what_ my prior argument was; you’re responding to my _current_ posts, right? Well, not if you keep moving the goal posts. > [@](#): > > And you’re now trying to argue that the Christans in the 50s were deliberately _not_ referring to their own god, but instead being deliberately and mindfully inclusive of non-christian religions, when they referred to their god by the proper name “God” like they always did when referring to Him exclusively. Convincing argument there. Might I also suggest that you argue that all the christians and priests who were pushing for the idea were actually Taoist monks, in disguise; that being similarly likely. Taoist monks from _Venus_. Please read what I wrote, and don’t read what you THINK I must be thinking. I’m not arguing that I know one way or the other what was in their minds-- you’re the one making bold, broad statements about the motivation of people you have never met. I’m merely suggesting that what is “obvious” to you, is not necessarily The Truth, and am offering another possible scenario. I don’t know where you’re getting all this stuff about Taoists or whatever. The people who screamed to get “under God” in the pledge were largely Christian. Whether or not they were trying to impose Christianity on, for example, Jews by putting that in the pledge is another questions altogether. > [@](#): > > I liked it well enough. Which proves nothing. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/73 "2010-03-13T00:11:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, I’m simply at a disadvantage because I’m only aware of what you actually post, not what you think you are saying. > Well, not if you keep moving the goal posts. > Please read what I wrote, and don’t read what you THINK I must be thinking. I’m not arguing that I know one way or the other what was in their minds-- you’re the one making bold, broad statements about the motivation of people you have never met. I’m merely suggesting that what is “obvious” to you, is not necessarily The Truth, and am offering another possible scenario. > > I don’t know where you’re getting all this stuff about Taoists or whatever. The people who screamed to get “under God” in the pledge were largely Christian. Whether or not they were trying to impose Christianity on, for example, Jews by putting that in the pledge is another questions altogether. Putting aside the pointless noise about how cryptic and incomprehensible we both suddenly apparently are, your argument is that you can propose crazy, ridiculous, completely inconceivable possibilities that be both know are not the case but are still _theoretically_ possible presuming you take enough drugs and/or ignore enough reality. And because I am unable to prove that these wild and crazy theories are _physically_ impossible, this somehow undermines my position. This is quite the approach. Of course, it’s the approach used _traditionally_ to support ceremonial deism, so I guess I can’t fault you for using it; you have tradition on your side. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Which proves nothing. It proves exactly as much as your bald “Bad Analogy” assertion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/74 "2010-03-13T00:13:58Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > However, it remains a fact that ceremonial deism is indeed a load of crap - entirely inappropriate for any democracy that has enshrined a separation of church and state in their constitution. It’s actually kind of unique in this respect; Roe vs. Wade may be judicial activism but it’s not judicial urinating-on-the-plain-text-of-the-constitution; nobody can possibly compare the two without first completely succumbing to partisan bias. (Comparisons with restrictions on gun ownership might on the other hand be applicable, assuming the arguments are as obviously bullshit as the arguments for ceremonial deism are.) I’ll give you a nod for this point. It’s true that _Roe_ creates detailed restrictions and guidelines and calls them constitutional when the the constitution is completely silent on the matter, and ceremonial deism excuses laws made when the constitution says “no laws.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/75 "2010-03-13T00:16:35Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I disagree. I think ceremonial deism is about the clearest example of judicial making-shit-up. > > And, of course the same is true the other way (or something). In other words, I don’t see the opponents of abortion rights coming out in favor of striking words from the pledge or the currency. > > Pretty much _everybody_ mostly cares about the results, not the method. That’s absolutely not true. There are principled opponents of _Roe_ that still think we ought to have legal abortion. And there are plenty of people, myself included, that think “Under God” in the pledge is wise social policy but admit that it falls afoul of a fair reading of the Establishment Clause. I don’t care about results as much as I care about method. ---
**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 13, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/76 "2010-03-13T00:27:36Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Putting aside the pointless noise about how cryptic and incomprehensible we both suddenly apparently are, your argument is that you can propose crazy, ridiculous, completely inconceivable possibilities that be both know are not the case but are still _theoretically_ possible presuming you take enough drugs and/or ignore enough reality. And because I am unable to prove that these wild and crazy theories are _physically_ impossible, this somehow undermines my position. No, not at all. I don’t think the scenario I’m proposing is crazy. I’ll go so far as to say that “God” = “the Judeo-Christian God” in that context. But that’s not the same thing. It’s not obvious, as you claim, that “God” = “Christ”. > [@](#): > > This is quite the approach. Of course, it’s the approach used _traditionally_ to support ceremonial deism, so I guess I can’t fault you for using it; you have tradition on your side. You lost me. The textualist argument I have been referencing is not the argument used to support ceremonial deism. > [@](#): > > It proves exactly as much as your bald “Bad Analogy” assertion. I thought it was “obvious” why it was a bad analogy. 😉 But if you think it’s a good one, why don’t you explain why comparing a berry to a fruit has any relation to interpreting the constitution. Of course, if you just trying to make a witty remark, then we can just chalk it up to a witty remark, and not an actual debate argument. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/77 "2010-03-13T00:36:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, not at all. I don’t think the scenario I’m proposing is crazy. I’ll go so far as to say that “God” = “the Judeo-Christian God” in that context. But that’s not the same thing. It’s not obvious, as you claim, that “God” = “Christ”. Good thing I NEVER claimed that then. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > You lost me. The textualist argument I have been referencing is not the argument used to support ceremonial deism. You’ve been floating at least two arguments - the one about textualism, which I have largely not been engaging with you on, since I think it’s a red herring, and the arguments you’ve been making about how when they put God on the currency and in the pledge, they didn’t really mean God. (Which is to say of course the god that’s referenced in the bible by the name “God”.) The latter argument is the one I’ve been focusing on, and you’ve been engaging because you _need_ the examples of ceremonial deism in question to be ambiguous in order for your arguments on textualism to matter at all. Because if the ceremonial deism is _not_ general and vague, then the various ways to validly interpret the constitution are different flavors of strawberries, and the kind of interpretation it would take to justify slapping the ten commandments on a federal courthouse or “In God we trust” on currency are a fruit of an entirely different color. ---
**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 13, 2010, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/78 "2010-03-13T01:00:59Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Good thing I NEVER claimed that then. You said it was Christian. It needn’t be limited to that religion. > [@](#): > > You’ve been floating at least two arguments - the one about textualism, which I have largely not been engaging with you on, since I think it’s a red herring, It was a post about that which started this whole discussion. If that’s red herring, then I’m just not sure what that terms means anymore. > [@](#): > > and the arguments you’ve been making about how when they put God on the currency and in the pledge, they didn’t really mean God. (Which is to say of course the god that’s referenced in the bible by the name “God”.) Again, you’re moving the goal posts. The “God” of the bible is much more than just the Christian God. That God is the God of Christians, Jews and Muslims. If you want to argue that that group constitutes one religion, then that would be an odd argument indeed. > [@](#): > > The latter argument is the one I’ve been focusing on, and you’ve been engaging because you _need_ the examples of ceremonial deism in question to be ambiguous in order for your arguments on textualism to matter at all. Because if the ceremonial deism is _not_ general and vague, then the various ways to validly interpret the constitution are different flavors of strawberries, and the kind of interpretation it would take to justify slapping the ten commandments on a federal courthouse or “In God we trust” on currency are a fruit of an entirely different color. No, because there is no such religion as Judeo-Christain-Muslim, and so the gov’t would not be establishing a state religion. The establishment clause needn’t be narrowly construed to mean that the federal gov’t must not acknowledge religion in any way shape or form. That’s one interpretation, but not the only on. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/79 "2010-03-13T01:08:25Z")
> [@Perciful](#): > > God can be ‘anything’ greater then ourselves. In this context as in most others, "“God” clearly means the God of the Bible. > [@Perciful](#): > > The God concept is what kept our country strong until atheists took offense and now we have traded in our beloved, “In God We Trust” for the almighty dollar and went bust! You do realize that “In God We Trust” is a late addition? And it’s ON the dollar. Nor has belief in God kept the country strong, rather the opposite; it’s held the country back in many ways. > [@Perciful](#): > > The founding fathers were smart because they knew corruption comes from within so we needed a power from above. God on the money and in the pledge has nothing to do with the founding fathers. As for corruption; given that they allowed slavery and genocide, and in many cases owned slaves, they were already vile and corrupt human beings. Not a group that should be looked up to as moral leaders. > [@Perciful](#): > > In another thread they talk about everything going downhill in the 80’s and that is the same time Madeline Murray O’Hair was doing her best to separate church and state. She won, we as a nation lost. Yeah, sure. I’m sure all the people who didn’t want someone else to ram their religion down their children’s throats “lost”. > [@Perciful](#): > > The further we get from the Constitution the closer we get to our own demise. It will come from within if we don’t place our trust in a higher power that is incorruptible. If God was their standard why is money and greed now our standard? It always was. God is not protection from corruption; God IS corruption. God is a self indulgent fantasy and nothing more. The corrupt, greedy people you complain about are typically believers, like most of the population. Far from making them less greedy, being believers means they can excuse every act they make with “God wants me to do it”. God isn’t going to correct them, because he doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/80 "2010-03-13T01:13:12Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > The Pledge of Allegiance, as adopted by Congress. is the ‘official’ phrasing of commonly held and laudable sentiments which the U.S. government wishes to affirm and support. It is a voluntary affirmation of one’s allegiance to the United States of America, to the ideals it stands for, and to the flag which symbolizes it and them. Yet amusingly, to an outside observer, all it does is make the US look like communist China, Nazi Germany or Soviet-era Russia with rows of kids all pledging their allegiance to the state. Are there any other western countries that have anything close to this utterly bizarre practice? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253.md?page=5)