# 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:** 5
**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, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/81 "2010-03-13T01:15:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. And there are people, like me, who think it is bad public policy but think that it does not fall afoul of the establishment clause. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/82 "2010-03-13T01:16:07Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > What’s the argument here? The technical legal term for the concept at play here is the “Fuck-it Bucket.” Those things are technical violations of the First Amendment, they just aren’t important enough to get worked up about. And I’m an atheist, BTW. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/83 "2010-03-13T01:26:07Z")
No shit? Well, there’s a shocker… ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/84 "2010-03-13T01:27:02Z")
What? ---
**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, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/85 "2010-03-13T01:31:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You said it was Christian. It needn’t be limited to that religion. I dunno what “It” you’re talking about here, but nothing about saying that we’re talking about Christians (which I’ve said) implies that “God” means “That son of God, Jesus” (which I haven’t said). > [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. This is a thread about the arguments for ceremonial deism. Identifying and comparing the ways of interpreting the constitution is not relevent if _none_ of them can be rationally used to support ceremonial deism. Even if somebody mentioned them before. Admittedly, the two arguments are interrelated. If “God” means “any old god or group of gods that you might be imagining” (which it doesn’t), then there are valid interpretations of the establishment clause that would permit congress to make laws favoring it. For example, under some interpretations, congress can make churches tax-exempt, if _all_ churches get the exemption. (Er, for some value of “church”.) Other interpretations would say that the exemption is unconstitutional. However once you start talking about a specific god to the exclusion of other religions’ gods, the debate evaporates: it’s unconstitutional by any rational interpretation. Leaving only the interpretations used to support ceremonial deism. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. It doesn’t have to constitute just one religion - if congress makes a law that respects three specific establishments of religion, they’ve made a law that respects an establishment of religion. Only if the law doesn’t respect _any_ establishments of religion would it be clear. So this is just another red herring. Note that I’ve just opened the door for you to start a debate on what “respecting” means. Note that I’m unlikely to be impressed with any definition that doesn’t consider favoring it over and to the exclusion of other religions like hinduism or confuscionism and pholosophies like atheism to be “respecting” it. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. If you’re trying to split the hair between “the first reformed church of the holy Volvo” and “the religion _practiced by_ the first reformed church of the holy Volvo”, you’re going to need a very fine knife indeed. And with it, you will be able to cut all meaning whatsoever out of the establisment clause. ---
**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, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/86 "2010-03-13T01:44:38Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I dunno what “It” you’re talking about here, but nothing about saying that we’re talking about Christians (which I’ve said) implies that “God” means “That son of God, Jesus” (which I haven’t said). > > This is a thread about the arguments for ceremonial deism. Identifying and comparing the ways of interpreting the constitution is not relevent if _none_ of them can be rationally used to support ceremonial deism. Even if somebody mentioned them before. > > Admittedly, the two arguments are interrelated. If “God” means “any old god or group of gods that you might be imagining” (which it doesn’t), then there are valid interpretations of the establishment clause that would permit congress to make laws favoring it. For example, under some interpretations, congress can make churches tax-exempt, if _all_ churches get the exemption. (Er, for some value of “church”.) Other interpretations would say that the exemption is unconstitutional. However once you start talking about a specific god to the exclusion of other religions’ gods, the debate evaporates: it’s unconstitutional by any rational interpretation. Leaving only the interpretations used to support ceremonial deism. > > It doesn’t have to constitute just one religion - if congress makes a law that respects three specific establishments of religion, they’ve made a law that respects an establishment of religion. Only if the law doesn’t respect _any_ establishments of religion would it be clear. So this is just another red herring. > > Note that I’ve just opened the door for you to start a debate on what “respecting” means. Note that I’m unlikely to be impressed with any definition that doesn’t consider favoring it over and to the exclusion of other religions like hinduism or confuscionism and pholosophies like atheism to be “respecting” it. > > If you’re trying to split the hair between “the first reformed church of the holy Volvo” and “the religion _practiced by_ the first reformed church of the holy Volvo”, you’re going to need a very fine knife indeed. And with it, you will be able to cut all meaning whatsoever out of the establisment clause. I think we’re just talking past each other, and I can’t understand half of what you’re saying here. I’ll just note that the Supreme Court has somehow managed to define an interpretation of the constitution that allows ceremonial deism. Call them irrational if you want, but they’re the ones with the final say. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/87 "2010-03-13T02:51:50Z")
> [@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. … Umm, [_Abington Township School District v. Schempp_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp) (Madeline Murray O’Hair’s case, _Murray v. Curlett_, it never really got to the SCotUS, it was consolidated with _Schempp_) the “school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools” case was decided in 1963. A year after [_Engel v. Vitale_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale), the “official school prayer and required recitation” in public schools case in 1962. Only off by two decades, could have been worse I guess. Ya might want to brush-up on your [SoCaS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_church-state_separation_case_law) case law before you make embarrassing comments about it. (For instance, both _Abington v. Schempp_ and _Engel v. Vitale_ had more support from theists than atheists.) CMC fnord! If the “(G)god([del]s[/del])” in TPoA and TNM is supposed to be all encompassing, I’m sure there’d be no complaints if we, say, rotated through a list of deities regularly, “one nation under Allah/Odin/etc”, right. There’s [plenty](http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm) to chose from! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/88 "2010-03-13T02:57:30Z")
Ceremonial deism only weakens any church/state separation or anxiety thereof if we ignore the meaning of the words. “Ceremonial” is not “religious”, any more than a high school graduation is a religious observance. There are gradations along a spectrum, to be sure, there is no bright demarcation saying this is a ceremony, this is devotion. That, like so many of these things, remains wholly subjective and personal. But I see no reason why anyone should insist that no such thing can exist, that any formal public ceremony that invokes divine favor is somehow religious. By such thought, rationality overturns reason: it is a rational argument, but hardly a reasonable one. Are we to think that the statue of Justice that so overwhelmed John Ashcroft is a religious artifact? Should lawyers wash Her feet and pray for a mistrial? Wasn’t his objection not that she was a goddess but had a kicking rack? ---
**Author:** ![Perciful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b38774/32.png) [@Perciful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Perciful)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/89 "2010-03-13T03:00:46Z")
[quote=“Der\_Trihs, post:79, topic:532253”] In this context as in most others, "“God” clearly means the God of the Bible. 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. > [@](#): > > How has in God we trust held our country back? 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. > [@](#): > > The slave owners were wrong and it is an unfortunate part of our history that we allowed it. It would have better to hire them on for a decent wage. I agree that was despicable. But isn’t it a miracle that after slavery was abolished we have a black president today. Yeah, sure. I’m sure all the people who didn’t want someone else to ram their religion down their children’s throats “lost”. > [@](#): > > The separation of Church and State happened and how has it helped our kids and our country? Our country was founded so any citizen was free to practice their religion without persecution. Church schools educated many Americans and still do. In public schools kids get a secular education and it is usually not as good as a private school. 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. > [@](#): > > God does exist but it is ok if you don’t agree. It says ‘In God We Trust’ on our money so it is real that our nation was founded on the conception of God being who we answer to. God, as a power higher then ourselves protects us from ourselves. We are all supposed to be equals and be treated fairly. Our government was set up to give us a free society where we the people can vote and elect people of our choice to serve. God gave us free will and God is not corruption. People we elected may be corrupt or have the countries best interest at heart. I’d like to know who these greedy believers are I complain about? We have free will and it would be very wrong to say, God made me do anything. It is just as easy to say, The devil made me do it. I don’t understand your point? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/90 "2010-03-13T03:03:10Z")
Devil made me do it the first time, after that, pretty much my own idea. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/91 "2010-03-13T23:20:31Z")
Don’t forget in this discussion that under freedom of religion, saying the pledge is optional. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/92 "2010-03-14T00:38:25Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. +1. Your post is so sensible that the debate in this thread cannot touch upon it. Current jurisprudence has, as you say, come so far left that you would think that the first amendment read “Congress shall not mention religion in any way, shape, or form!” ---
**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 14, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/93 "2010-03-14T00:47:14Z")
> [@Perciful](#): > > How has in God we trust held our country back? Christianity has done everything from interfering with scientific research, to defending racism and slavery and homophobia. It’s been a plague upon the world, including America. > [@Perciful](#): > > The slave owners were wrong and it is an unfortunate part of our history that we allowed it. It would have better to hire them on for a decent wage. I agree that was despicable. But isn’t it a miracle that after slavery was abolished we have a black president today. No, it’s the hard work of millions of people fighting prejudice, the deaths of the prejudiced over time, and a Republican President who was so awful that even a black man was considered better than more of the same. Miracles had nothing to do with it. > [@Perciful](#): > > The separation of Church and State happened and how has it helped our kids and our country? You think it’s OK to persecute kids and people in general for belonging to the “wrong” religion, or none? Because that’s what happened; it’s not just atheists who support the separation of church and state; it’s also all the religious people who don’t want the state used as a tool to force some other religion on them and their children. And it’s been a good thing - to the extent it is actually enforced - because religion is a destructive force upon the world. Religion corrupts and destroys, it promotes and excuses evil and stupidity; reducing the influence of something like that means it can do less damage. > [@Perciful](#): > > God does exist but it is ok if you don’t agree. It says ‘In God We Trust’ on our money so it is real that our nation was founded on the conception of God being who we answer to. :rolleyes: Again; “In God We Trust” is a late addition to our money. It has nothing to do with the founding of the country. And saying that God is “who we answer to” is identical to saying that we answer to no one. And as for your claim that God exists? Prove it. Prove that out of all the thousands or millions of gods humanity has fantasized about, yours just happens to be real. > [@Perciful](#): > > God, as a power higher then ourselves protects us from ourselves. We are all supposed to be equals and be treated fairly. Unless, of course God tells us to do otherwise; and since “God” is imaginary and has no actually opinions, that basically means “we can do whatever we like and feel righteous about it” Religion hasn’t been the force for justice and equality that you are trying to pretend; it has been the opposite. And God doesn’t protect anyone from anything. > [@Perciful](#): > > I’d like to know who these greedy believers are I complain about? Virtually all the greedy people you were complaining about. They, like the rest of the population are almost all believers. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Don’t forget in this discussion that under freedom of religion, saying the pledge is optional. Yeah, sure it is. :rolleyes: And the kids who refuse tend to be persecuted for it. That is part of the point; it singles out those who won’t go along for harassment and the occasional beating. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/94 "2010-03-14T04:03:53Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > The technical legal term for the concept at play here is the “Fuck-it Bucket.” Those things are technical violations of the First Amendment, they just aren’t important enough to get worked up about. And I’m an atheist, BTW. _De minimis non curat lex_ (loosely, “The law does not concern itself with trifles.”) A randy young lawyer named Rex Had a dimunitive organ of sex. When charged with exposure, He replied with composure. _De minimis non curat lex_ ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/95 "2010-03-14T17:33:31Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. Establishing religion is not the same as establishing _a_ religion. Hopefully that makes it clear why it is that the government’s espousal of religious belief entails that Congress has made a law concerning an establishment of religion. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/96 "2010-03-14T17:54:35Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Establishing religion is not the same as establishing _a_ religion. > > Hopefully that makes it clear why it is that the government’s espousal of religious belief entails that Congress has made a law concerning an establishment of religion. Precisely. It’s not “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of a religion” (i.e., not setting up an Established Church), it’s an establishment of [no article present] religion" – setting up nothing that functions as a focus for religious belief. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/97 "2010-03-15T22:01:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. This is obviously true if you interpret the language as narrowly as possible. On the _other_ hand, the phrasing of “God” in both instances clearly amounts to a government sponsored monotheistic view. The fact that the majority in the US has some sort of monotheistic (instead of deist or polytheistic) view probably should not mean that the federal government takes steps to enforce or promote that view. Personally, I don’t care either way, since I’m not a US citizen, but would I think the _intent_ of the non-establishment clause is to prevent federal interference in religious matters as far as is practically possible, and the pledge especially is obviously a violation in that regard. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/98 "2010-03-15T22:21:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Look, surely you see that if you scream loudly about, say, NFL coaches sending videocam-armed spies to opponent’s practices because such action is wrong, and then defend the practice when your favorite NBA team does it, it’s relevant to ask if your real issue is with surreptitious taping of team practices. > > Here, there’s some outrage over a legal piece of reasoning. If you truly oppose that type of legal analysis, then your outrage is genuine. If you oppose it only when it generates results you don’t like, then it;s clear you don’t care at all about the legal analysis; you care about the results in this particular case, and the ensuing debate should more honestly focus on that. > > I pick abortion here for two reasons: first, _Roe_ is about the clearest example of judicial making-shit-up we’re all reasonably familiar with. I could mention Lochner v. New York, or Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States. But those aren’t as well-known, except to law students. > > Secondly, most people who come down one way as a matter of personal preference on ceremonial deism seem to come down the other way when the issue is abortion. > > So this isn’t an attempt to draw a parallel between “In God We Trust” and abortion. It’s drawing a parallel between the judicial methods used to reach a result in _Roe v. Wade_ and its progeny with those used in the line cases that _Newdow et al vs. Rio Linda Union School District_ has just joined. That’s really bad reasoning. The opposition to _Roe_ is that it creates a right out of whole cloth. I don’t believe it does, and I think _Roe_ is probably required by _Griswold_, but I accept the argument is out there. The opposition to Ceremonial Deism, on the other hand, is that the court is being willfully blind. That it is coming to a decision directly contrary to that required by the constitution out of fear of unpopularity. If the Court said the Pledge was unconstitutional, and took In God We Trust off the coins, they’d probably to be consistent need to get rid of Christmas as a federal holiday, and also get rid of chaplains in the military. These things would create such a backlash that we would not have a Supreme Court in its current form. The two situations simply aren’t comparable. _Roe_ is (incorrectly) held up as the posterchild of judicial activism and legislating through the bench. Ceremonial Deism, on the other hand, is the Court putting its head in the sand, much as it did with _Korematsu_. There just isn’t a comparison to be made between the methods, even if your beliefs as to _Roe_ are correct. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/99 "2010-03-15T22:32:59Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > This is obviously true if you interpret the language as narrowly as possible. On the _other_ hand, the phrasing of “God” in both instances clearly amounts to a government sponsored monotheistic view. The fact that the majority in the US has some sort of monotheistic (instead of deist or polytheistic) view probably should not mean that the federal government takes steps to enforce or promote that view. That depends. To what degree is the Declaration of Independence a founding document? If the DofI lays down the moral framework for the break from England and the formation of a new nation built upon the ideals it espouses (which I think it does), then monotheism is something that can the government can promote without establish any religion or belief system. > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Personally, I don’t care either way, since I’m not a US citizen, but would I think the _intent_ of the non-establishment clause is to prevent federal interference in religious matters as far as is practically possible, and the pledge especially is obviously a violation in that regard. I think it’s the other way around. They were trying to keep the federal government from religious interference. By not having an established religion, they did that. That doesn’t mean that the government could not promote that which it feels is beneficial to the society. Also, keep in mind that some states had official religions. And that was not viewed as problematic. If you didn’t like a particular state you could move to another one. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/100 "2010-03-15T23:46:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That depends. To what degree is the Declaration of Independence a founding document? If the DofI lays down the moral framework for the break from England and the formation of a new nation built upon the ideals it espouses (which I think it does), then monotheism is something that can the government can promote without establish any religion or belief system. I’m not that informed about US history, but no matter the intention, monotheism does exclude other popular religions (and atheism, but strict atheism probably wasn’t important enough to be considered at the time - deism was). You can claim that the US federal government is perfectly OK in promoting monotheism because monotheism isn’t strictly speaking a religion, but neither is Christianity or probably even Islam. The plain fact is that in promoting monotheism, the pledge is excluding multiple religious points of view (including deism, atheism and all polytheistic faiths). > [@](#): > > I think it’s the other way around. They were trying to keep the federal government from religious interference. By not having an established religion, they did that. That doesn’t mean that the government could not promote that which it feels is beneficial to the society. Also, keep in mind that some states had official religions. And that was not viewed as problematic. If you didn’t like a particular state you could move to another one. I addressed most of this above, but I was careful to state all my objections as applying to the federal government only. Even though I think it’s a silly distinction to make when your states are as large as the US ones. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253.md?page=6)