# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/121 "2010-03-16T20:34:12Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > No, and haven’t been able to find out yet. I was around at the time (1954) but can’t recall any controversy, which I credit to my then-ignorance and apathy more than anything else. > > If someone could dig back in the newspaper archives ca. 1953-54, and could answer this question (What other non-Christian and non-faiths thought about the proposed Pledge modification) it could be an important point for Newdow et al. in the appeal. If they were OK with it, it supports the Ninth’s decision; if they were opposed, the opposite. > > Surely if intent is a factor, this avenue should be explored. I agree that it’s an interesting thing to look at, and may prove helpful in divining 😉 intent. My guess is, though, that there was merely silence. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/122 "2010-03-16T22:08:06Z")
**Musicat** , My Google Fu is weak today, but I did find [this NYT article](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/28/us/with-little-ado-congress-put-god-in-pledge-in-1954.html?pagewanted=1) from 2002. It discusses a little what transpired back in 1954. [QUOTE=NYT] …Introducing his resolution in the Senate, Senator Homer Ferguson, Republican of Michigan, declared, ‘‘I believe this modification of the pledge is important because it highlights one of the real fundamental differences between the free world and the Communist world, namely belief in God.’’ No one in the Senate or the House spoke in opposition. While Congress was considering the resolution, lawmakers were flooded with letters of support from churches, veterans groups, civic and fraternal clubs and labor unions. Many newspapers backed it editorially, and so did radio commentators. [/QUOTE] So, it appears that no one really objected. Not that it would have been easy to do in that day. I do like the reasoning though, as it ties the pledge back to the DofI, in invoking God as a distinctive component of the U.S. Evidently (there is not unanimous agreement on this), Lincoln also used the phrase (prior to the Pledge, of course) in his [Gettysburg Address.](http://www.usconstitution.net/getty.html) > [@](#): > > that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation **under God** shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/123 "2010-03-16T23:07:21Z")
[Here’s an interesting document,](http://web.archive.org/web/20080107020320/http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/docherty.html) the speech given by Dr. George M. Docherty on Sunday, February 7, 1954, in front of Eisenhower, and which led directly to the bill he later signed. Docherty says > [@](#): > > If we were to add the phrase “under the church,” [to the Pledge] that would be different. In fact, it would be dangerous. The question arises, which church? …Of course, as Christians, we might include the words ‘under Jesus Christ” or “under the King of Kings.” But one of the glories of this land is that it has opened its gates to all men of every religious faith. _All men of every religious faith._ Other religions are fine, but _you must be religious._ He feels that this includes many faiths, but he casts only a small net, excluding many of the world’s religions: > [@](#): > > So, it must be ‘under God” to include the great Jewish Community, and the people of the Moslem faith, and the myriad of denominations of Christians in the land. But he vociferously desires to exclude atheists, saying > [@](#): > > But they [atheists] really are spiritual parasites. And I mean no term of abuse in this. I’m simply classifying them. A parasite is an organism that lives upon the life force of another organism without contributing to the life of the other. These excellent ethical seculars are living upon the accumulated spiritual capital of Judaio-Christian civilization, and at the same time, deny the God who revealed the divine principles upon which the ethics of this country grow. The dilemma of the secular is quite simple. > > He cannot deny the Christian revelation and logically live by the Christian ethic. > > And if he denies the Christian ethic, he falls short of the American ideal of life. So, due to the (to me, ridiculous) assumption that “God” has brought us this continent, government and freedom, it logically follows that we should not ignore that God (look what happened to the Israelites!), and atheists are ungrateful wretches, unworthy of consideration. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/124 "2010-03-17T01:08:43Z")
I’ve been doing some research on newspapers from 1953-1954 on this subject. I haven’t been able to find any opposing views yet, but it is interesting to note that most of the articles are from religious publications or religious columns in general circulation papers, and all are couched in very obvious religious language. Here are just a few. (All are PDFs; bolding is mine, and typos are the result of OCR) [from the Sheboygan (WI) Press, May 13, 1954:](http://doorbell.net/pledge/7524561.pdf) > [@](#): > > Nowhere does the vast contrast between the American way of life and the Communist way of life show up more graphically than in religion. Russia makes a religion of atheistic communism. **In America, religion is God, and God is religion.** This spiritual gulf between us and the Communists was vividly illustrated in an action by a Senate committee. It consisted of the insertion of just two words into a national pledge. But they are **two extremely important words…** > > \ > > With passage of these resolutions by Congress, **the preeminent place of the Supreme Being in the American way of life will be officially recognized** in our basic pledge of allegiance to the flag. Communist Russia is a nation under Malenkov. Christian America is a nation under God. From [Newport Daily News, Wednesday, June 16, 1954](http://doorbell.net/pledge/5720631.pdf) > [@](#): > > The Pledge of Allegiance is nobly worded, simply stated, and unequivocal. Those who long have favored\*\* recognition of Divinity\*\* in it contend that the framers of the Declaration of Independence recognized God in their immortal document, and that the American people always have been basically a religious people. > > So it is seemly and altogether fitting and proper that now, in the Pledge, **we formally recognize that this nation exists “under God.”** > > Our chief enemy is not only godless, but scorns all religion, all churches. Until recent years the Communists openly shouted that their purpose was to “tear God from the sky and religion from the heart of man.” They have played down their anti-God propaganda in recent years, but remain intensely atheistic, so that no person may be admitted to the Communist party unless he abjures all religion and becomes a militant atheist. > > Washington praying at Valley Forge is a cherished American concept. Lincoln took his many problems to the Lord in player, and **Eisenhower’s inauguration prayer is a moving expression of reliance upon the Higher Power.** > > “Under God” belongs in the Pledge. From [May 9, 1953, Ogden (UT?) Standard-Examiner](http://doorbell.net/pledge/62500031.pdf) > [@](#): > > 69% FAVOR “UNDER GOD” IN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE > > A resolution to add the two words was recently introduced in the House by Rep. Louis C. Rabaut (D-Mich.). > > Rabaut said that mention of the nation’s **dependence upon the deity** would help to combat the doctrine of “the wicked idolatry of the state impregnated into fertile, young minds by Hitler and by his Soviet imitators.” > > \ > > The survey finds that college trained people are somewhat less inclined to favor the proposed change in wording than are persons with less formal education. > > \ > > Older people, however, are somewhat more inclined to favor the change than are younger people. Slightly more Protestants are slightly more in favor than are Catholics. > > The Washington Pilgrimage, a non-sectarian organization, devoted to the recognition of the basic sources of the nation’s religious heritage, has for several years advocated the voluntary use of the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. > > One of the reasons given by sponsors of the change is that the present oath [before “Under God” was inserted] might equally apply if we, like some other countries, recognized only the State as supreme and as the author of human liberties. Nothing “ceremonial” about these concepts. They are as strongly religious and biased towards Western Christianity as you can get. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/125 "2010-03-17T01:12:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Notice how you had to say “religious position” instead of “religion”? Therein lies an important distinction. Monotheism is NOT a religion. Nor is it a religious position, meaning that not all monotheistic religions necessarily share anything other than the belief in a single God, even if that God may vary wildly from religion to religion. Monotheism is a philosophical-theological position. > > As far as Scalia, I agree with him. I offer this as an additional argument to the larger issue of what the Establishment Clause allows and disallows. Let’s ignore, for the moment, I used the word “position” at all. The fact is, monotheism is religious in nature, and monotheism is a particular type of religious belief, separate and distinct from the religious belief of polytheism, paganism, etcetera. My point is, I do not think it is a very productive dialogue to debate monotheism in the manner you have in relation to the Establishment Clause. The better argument is acknowledging monotheism is religious, involves religion, but this is of no detrimental consequence when considering the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The reason why this is the better argument is because nobody is fooled by this idea monotheism is not a religion or a religious position quite simply because monotheism is still religious, belongs to the realm of religion and religious beliefs, and is, contrary to your assertion, a religious position. Nobody is persuaded by your remark of “Monotheism is a philosophical-theological position.” Monotheism is the belief in a single supreme deity, and the belief in a deity is a religious belief, belong to the realm of the religious, and is a particular kind of religious belief. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/126 "2010-03-17T02:05:41Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > Let’s ignore, for the moment, I used the word “position” at all. The fact is, monotheism is religious in nature, and monotheism is a particular type of religious belief, separate and distinct from the religious belief of polytheism, paganism, etcetera. My point is, I do not think it is a very productive dialogue to debate monotheism in the manner you have in relation to the Establishment Clause. The better argument is acknowledging monotheism is religious, involves religion, but this is of no detrimental consequence when considering the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. > > The reason why this is the better argument is because nobody is fooled by this idea monotheism is not a religion or a religious position quite simply because monotheism is still religious, belongs to the realm of religion and religious beliefs, and is, contrary to your assertion, a religious position. Nobody is persuaded by your remark of “Monotheism is a philosophical-theological position.” Monotheism is the belief in a single supreme deity, and the belief in a deity is a religious belief, belong to the realm of the religious, and is a particular kind of religious belief. Look, you can believe whatever you’d like, and the throngs can agree with you. And I’m not trying to “fool” anyone, so you can relax. The fact is that monotheism is NOT a religion. Is it a way to _describe_ some religions? Yes. But that is all. It is a philosophical-theoligical position, akin to polytheism, atheism, and agnosticism. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/127 "2010-03-17T02:08:43Z")
Nice research, **Musicat**. I’m not surprised you didn’t find much in the way of dissent. The country was more religious then, and add on the weight of fighting communism, and you’re not likely to find many people speaking out against both God and anti-comunism. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/128 "2010-03-17T02:21:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nice research, **Musicat**. I’m not surprised you didn’t find much in the way of dissent. The country was more religious then, and add on the weight of fighting communism, and you’re not likely to find many people speaking out against both God and anti-comunism. I was looking for newspapers slanted towards non-Christian and immigrant ethnic groups. Couldn’t find much; one problem is such material isn’t as well archived as larger pubs. Another problem is the search cost; google scholar uncovers some promising articles but it always leads to a pay site for the full text. Now if Newdow would pay me to search… ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/129 "2010-03-17T02:34:51Z")
I know, I know, we’ve all read many contemporary articles on this by now, but here’s an especially good one by David Greenberg, [from Slate,](http://www.slate.com/?id=2067499) which includes this: > [@](#): > > The record of the 1954 act shows that, far from a “de minimis” reference or a mere “backdrop” devoid of meaning, the words “under God” were inserted in the pledge for the express purpose of endorsing religion—which the U.S. Supreme Court itself ruled in 1971 was unconstitutional. Also according to the Supreme Court’s own rulings, it doesn’t matter that students are allowed to refrain from saying the pledge; a 2000 high court opinion held that voluntary, student-led prayers at school football games are unconstitutionally “coercive,” because they force students into an unacceptable position of either proclaiming religious beliefs they don’t share or publicly protesting. > > The appeals court decision came almost 40 years to the day after the Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale. In that case, the court ruled it unconstitutional for public schools to allow prayer, even though the prayer was non-denominational and students were allowed abstain from the exercise. When asked about the unpopular decision, President John F. Kennedy replied coolly that he knew many people were angry, but that the decisions of the court had to be respected. He added that there was “a very easy remedy”—not a constitutional amendment but a renewed commitment by Americans to pray at home, in their churches, and with their families. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/130 "2010-03-17T03:32:40Z")
Further research… [In God We Trust and the ACLU, 1955-1959](http://www.kon.org/urc/aclu/kamcza.html) A long, somewhat rambling, but still interesting article on this topic, covering history of both the US mottos and the pledge. Yes, there were organizations opposed to both changes, but they were weak, marginalized, non-mainstream socially and unable to convince the ACLU to join in the fight. Some of these were the American Humanism Association, American Ethical Union, the Freethinkers of America, American Jewish Congress and Madalyn O’Hare (American Atheists). The ACLU was smarting from its apparent lack of respect for religion and getting caught in the red scare, where if you weren’t fanatically a God-fearing American, you were for sure a Communist, and deserved to be punished. They devoted their resources to other causes. > [@](#): > > The organization was so afraid that the ACLU would be looked at as a communist organization that the organization did not take any God-related cases. The ACLU did not want to take any issues that attacked “God,” not only because of the fear of the communist label but also because the ACLU did not win many cases in the previous decades. > [@](#): > > In the fifties the ACLU and a majority of its members considered the creation of “In God We Trust” as the national motto a violation of the First Amendment. The ACLU and the majority of its members also considered “In God We Trust” placed on United States currency and “Under God” into the pledge of allegiance violations of the First Amendment. But during the fifties the ACLU did not attempt to take on “God” cases for many reasons. The ACLU was simply too busy with other cases that it did not have the power to take on a huge issue like religion, nor did the ACLU want to. The ACLU also knew that there were other organizations fighting Christianity, including the Freethinkers of America and the American Jewish Congress. The ACLU seemed to want to motivate and help these organizations to fight for the First Amendment even if it could not get involved directly. The ACLU did not explain its reluctance to take these cases as a response to the anti-communist climate of the day; yet in congressional hearings communism was a major factor in the reasons these laws were created. The ACLU may have feared having the organization’s name affiliated with the word communism. Like President Eisenhower stated, if people disagree with “In God We Trust” then their own patriotism would be challenged. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/131 "2010-03-17T04:21:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t think it is. Some religions are monotheistic, but monotheism by itself is more of a philosophical (theological) position. We can imagine myriad religions, all monotheistic, that might be in direct conflict with one another. So, it is wrong to say that the belief that there exists one god—sans flavor of that god—is a religion. But this would be true for any kind of reasonable description of a religion/philosophical position. I mean, you could go on and on with incredibly specific descriptions of a particular god for pages on end, yet still end up with one with could, theoretically, describe myriad religions, all fitting the pattern yet conflicting with each other. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/132 "2010-03-17T15:59:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Look, you can believe whatever you’d like, and the throngs can agree with you. And I’m not trying to “fool” anyone, so you can relax. The fact is that monotheism is NOT a religion. Is it a way to _describe_ some religions? Yes. But that is all. It is a philosophical-theoligical position, akin to polytheism, atheism, and agnosticism. I never assserted monotheism was a religion. However, monotheism is a religious idea, belongs to the realm of the religious, and is a particular kind of religious notion. The fact monotheism may be, in part, philosophical does not remove the religious characteristics. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/133 "2010-03-18T05:20:56Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > I never assserted monotheism was a religion. However, monotheism is a religious idea, belongs to the realm of the religious, and is a particular kind of religious notion. The fact monotheism may be, in part, philosophical does not remove the religious characteristics. So, you agree that it is not a religion? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/134 "2010-03-18T05:21:59Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > But this would be true for any kind of reasonable description of a religion/philosophical position. I mean, you could go on and on with incredibly specific descriptions of a particular god for pages on end, yet still end up with one with could, theoretically, describe myriad religions, all fitting the pattern yet conflicting with each other. Not following you here, **Rev**. Can you rephrase? ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/135 "2010-03-18T16:43:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, you agree that it is not a religion? Depending on how the word “religion” is defined, I may be in agreement with the notion monotheism is not a religion. ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/136 "2010-03-18T18:32:40Z")
If you really want to go back to the Constitutional source material, you need to see what James Madison had to think about all of this. [http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/memorial.htm](http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/memorial.htm) > **[gbcwoodstock.com](http://ww38.gbcwoodstock.com/home/2009/02/02/john-leland-james-madison-the-bill-of-rights/)** > > This domain may be for sale! As a further aside, when Roger Williams first established Providence, his notion of separation of church and state was that an individual’s religious beliefs were far too important to allow the grimy hands of the state to get involved. In his mind, the 10 commandments were divided into two books; the civil laws, and those pertaining to God’s law. He wrote that there should be a “hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.” ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/137 "2010-03-18T18:37:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Not following you here, **Rev**. Can you rephrase? Well, now i’m not sure. If i’m reading you right, you’re saying that monotheism in and of itself is not a religion, because there are many religions that incorporate monotheistic beliefs and yet disagree with each other on other points. Is that right? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/138 "2010-03-20T00:35:53Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Well, now i’m not sure. If i’m reading you right, you’re saying that monotheism in and of itself is not a religion, because there are many religions that incorporate monotheistic beliefs and yet disagree with each other on other points. Is that right? Which of course contradicts the bible where God says he is a “jealous god” and that you should have no other gods before him. That clearly implies that he thinks he is one of many gods. Maybe we should have the coins say “We trust in one of the gods”. ---
**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 20, 2010, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/139 "2010-03-20T02:10:29Z")
So if the language means that the founding fathers didn’t want there to be a state religion, like the Church of England, _why_ didn’t they want that? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/140 "2010-03-20T02:57:48Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Well, now i’m not sure. If i’m reading you right, you’re saying that monotheism in and of itself is not a religion, because there are many religions that incorporate monotheistic beliefs and yet disagree with each other on other points. Is that right? I think you’re making it much too complicated. It’s not a religion because someone can hold that philosophical position and you know nothing more about them. They’re are know additional “beliefs” that would dictate that they behave in a way that would be different than if they were a polytheist or an atheist. Does that help? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253.md?page=8)