But it’s not like a school is barred from using the version of the Pledge without “under God.” The federal statute that sets out the Pledge doesn’t purport to make it an offence to use any other version, and as a matter of federalism, I don’t see how Congress could bar a state from adopting a different pledge. Nor, under the First Amendment, could Congress prohibit citizens from saying a version of the Pledge that they wanted to. So what it boils down to is that the 9th Circuit decision doesn’t bar a school from using the Pledge without “under God.”
Thanks, N.P. and m.g.
Now i’ll be able to keep up.
“but saying that this is a “nation under God” is stating a religious belief”
I disagree that this is necessarily so. I think a crucial aspect of “religion” is that it is a specific tradition based on a particular text or the sayings of particular spiritual leaders. I think that applies to every religion that I can think of.
The concept of God goes beyond any specific religious tradition; it is also a philosophical concept that can be defined and discussed without any religion in mind as many threads on the SMDB indicate. The phrase “under God” is perfectly consistent with this broader philosphical definition of God.
Incidentally there there are religions like Buddhism which are non-theist so the concept of God is neither necessary nor sufficient for a religion.
I haven’t looked at the legal arguments on this issue in any detail but IMO the mandated pledge doesn’t amount to an “establishment of religion”.
Cyber: & exactly how can a belief in deity be anything other than a religious belief?
Give me a break!
What about those who choose to worship no god at all? Or those who explicitly believe that there is no higher being, no deity?
Also, if you’re correct that “the concept of God is neither necessary nor sufficient for a religion,” then why should people like Buddhists have to put up with being categorized as “under God”?
So if you’re a Buddhist and required to recite this Pledge, acknowledging the existence of a god that you don’t think exists, you’re not being forced to make a religious statement?
I think I explained exactly what I consider a necessary feature of any “religion” ie. a specific tradition based on particular texts,leaders etc. Clearly the concept of God goes beyond any such tradition. It is a broader philosophical concept like ,say, free will. It is not even a concept common to all religions like I explained.
“So if you’re a Buddhist and required to recite this Pledge, acknowledging the existence of a god that you don’t think exists, you’re not being forced to make a religious statement?”
First of all the public schools don’t force anyone to say the pledge AFAIK. But anyway like I said I don’t think it necessarily implies a religious statement; it can very reasonably be interpreted as a philosophical statement.
Can the government promote general general philosophical concepts which contradict the religious beliefs of some people? I would imagine yes. For instance the very concept of separation of church and state contradicts some religious traditions.
Again, if it’s not a concept common to all religions, why should the people of those other religions have to put up a pledge that ropes them under the God concept?
And, even if “the concept of God” does extend beyond a single religion, it does NOT encompass all religions nor all people. It bears no resemblance to a “philosophical concept” like free will, and suggsting that it does is simply sophistry.
“And, even if “the concept of God” does extend beyond a single religion, it does NOT encompass all religions nor all people. It bears no resemblance to a “philosophical concept” like free will, and suggsting that it does is simply sophistry.”
I am not sure what you are saying here. A philosophical concept doesn’t have to “encompass all religions” let alone all people . Not all religious traditions accept the concept of free will.
I am not sure why you think that God isn’t a philosophical concept. Haven’t you ever participated in discussions about God which don’t refer to any particular religion?
Yes, i have. But i think everyone in those conversations assumed that a belief in God constitutes a religious belief, and not simply a philosophical one.
Maybe the best way to put it is that the concept of God is, indeed a philosophical concept, but to say that your nation is “under God” implies a particular set of beliefs about that philosophical concept, and foists that particular set of beliefs onto those who may not share it.
If you’re arguing about the idea of God as a philosophical concept, then surely my atheism constitutes a particular set of beliefs about the philosophical concept of God. Would you be just as happy with a Pledge of Allegiance that included the words “without God”?
“Maybe the best way to put it is that the concept of God is, indeed a philosophical concept, but to say that your nation is “under God” implies a particular set of beliefs about that philosophical concept, and foists that particular set of beliefs onto those who may not share it.”
But the government clearly has the right to promote philosophical beliefs which are not shared by everyone and even make law based on them. Not everyone believes in the principles of the US constitution. Not everyone believes in “E Pluribus Unum”. Etc. So even if everyone doesn’t believe in God the government can still promote the concept of the US being “one nation under God” . This isn’t a religious concept per se and indeed most religious traditions have very little to say about the US specifically.
“Would you be just as happy with a Pledge of Allegiance that included the words “without God”?”
Well since I am an atheist myself I wouldn’t have the slightest problem.
It can be; but it can also be interpreted as a religious statement, affirming that God exists. If it has that meaning for me, how can the Government force me to make a religious statement?
Two points. First, even assuming that the Government can promote “general philosophical concepts”, how can it require individual students to recite those concepts? Second, the concept of the separation of church and state is set out in the First Amendment, so the Government is required to operate on that basis, even if some religious groups do not accept that approach. Compliance with the Constitution cannot be a breach of the Constitution; requiring students to recite a religious statement will.
. “First, even assuming that the Government can promote “general philosophical concepts”, how can it require individual students to recite those concepts?”
Like I said no one is required to recite the pledge. But even if they were this objection would apply regarless of whether the words “under God” are included. It would be a general objection about forcing students to recite things independent of any religious considerations. Clearly a separate issue.
“It can be; but it can also be interpreted as a religious statement, affirming that God exists. If it has that meaning for me, how can the Government force me to make a religious statement?”
Many statements can be interpreted as being religious. For instance concepts like “free will” or “predestination” are integral to many religious traditions. So even a generic statement like “you can be all you want be” could contradict the religous beliefs of some and could be interpreted as a religious statement. It’s hard to see why God is so uniquely a religous concept. As I have explained it’s neither necessary nor suffiicient for a religion.
Cyber: I expected an answer grounded in fact. Thanks for proving there’s no way I’m getting that from you.
I’d trust minty on this one, especially since the state can’t promote religion, no matter how voluntary participation may be. So they have to find another hook, and ceremonial deism is it.
“Cyber: I expected an answer grounded in fact. Thanks for proving there’s no way I’m getting that from you.”
I have given facts: like the fact that there are religions without a concept of God. Besides conceptual debates aren’t always “grounded in fact”. Anyway thanks for proving that you are unable to make any argument whatsoever; factual or otherwise.
—Of course, the real reason for the strong reaction to the Newdow decision was because it barred reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at a time when the country is more-or-less at war.—
December, since no elected official feels any obligation to care, it falls to you to bear the brunt of my displeasure with this cynically misleading statement. I ask you to retract it, or at least modify it to “the outrage is because of what people (wrongly) thought (perhaps in part to most of our elected officials lying about it): that it banned they saying of the pledge.”
Again, the decision did not bar the reciting of the Pledge. This is, to put it plainly, a lie. It is a lie recited by our President. By several Senators, Democratic and Republican. And by our Attorney General. That they say it doesn’t make it less a lie. All the court ruled was that government officials could not lead children in a religious pledge. That’s a far cry from barring the reciting of the pledge, ANY form of it.
We’ve already pointed out how ridiculous the “ceremonial deism” argument is, no matter what luminary is making it (usually with no grasp of history). Many Deists wouldn’t even use the word “God” (prefering to use other concepts like Providence): so how could it possibly a ceremonial tradition based on Deism? For that matter, what does that even have to do with whether or not it’s fundamentally constitutional? Deism IS a religion, and the government can’t get away with anything just by calling it “ceremonial” or because it’s lasted a long time. Are you saying that, for instance, Scalia should be okay with Roe if the decision stands for just a few more decades? Does it eventually become part of our country’s ceremonial pro-choice stance?
At this moment there is only one form of the “Pledge of Allegiance.” It was adopted by Congress about 50 years ago. It unfortunately includes the words, “under God.” (I resented the addition of that phrase at the time it was done. But I digress.) Anyhow, it is literally true that the 9th Circuit Court decision bars school officials from leading school children in the recitation of the (one and only) Pledge of Allegiance. They are free to recite other combinations of words, such as the former Pledge of Allegiance, but none of those can properly be called the “Pledge of Allegiance.”
Your observation that the decision was widely represented as barring the recitation of the Pledge shows how wrong-headed the ACLU argument is. Rightly or wrongly, the public understood the decision to bar reciting the Pledge. That’s what caused the strong public reaction, not the allegedly religious content.
I’m unsure of what you mean. You may be right if you are arguing against the entire concept of “ceremonial deism.” However, the courts have accepted it. It seems to be settled law.
Once you accept the concept, ISTM (and IST Justice Brennan) that the phrase “under God” is a perfect example of ceremonial deism. I don’t wear a skullcap when I say the Pledge of Allegiance. Roman Catholics don’t use their rosary beads or crucifixes to say the Pledge. Muslims don’t refer to the Koran when saying the Pledge. It’s not treated as part of a religious ceremony.
Re: ceremonial deism, which seems to me is like saying oh, it’s not that big of a deal, it doesn’t really mean anything, what about the notion that since it IS troubling to some atheists, it doesn’t warrant the attention of the SCOTUS to take the case and reverse the 9th Circuit?
Furthermore, there are soldiers who are atheist, as well. Isn’t it respecting their rights to honor their beliefs?
Finally, we WON the Cold War - can we all just relax now?