Will the Supreme Court reverse the Pledge of Allegiance case?

Great Debates
101

—Source? I have seen references to “God” meaning a whole different bunch of things. For instance the God in Spinoza’s philosophy is very different from the Judeo-Christian God.—

Well, references are certainly prone to the misuse of the word, but I’ll grant that lax usage over a long enough time can make the point moot, since language, unlike law, has no constitution. But, for instance, in the case of Spinoza, his “God” shares most of the traits that make something THE God versus A god. We’re still talking about a very particular conception of God, not in ANY way a universal statement applicable to all 100,000 gods thought of in human history. Even more importantly, it implies a very particular theology: that the nation is, by some meaning “under God.” For the people who wrote those words, that had a very specific meaning directly relevant to the observant and ruling Judeo-Christian god, and even if if you try to re-interpret it, you’re still left with one particular understanding or another of the relation of the divine to the nation. (when, by the thinking of the founders, the nation should be utterly transparent to things like God, and vice-versa)

102

“The only word game here, Cyber, is you postulating that “god” does not mean “god.””
What a ridiculous statement. I have merely pointed out that the word “God” goes beyond the Judeo-Christian God. I would have thought this would be so obvious that it would require no additional evidence. But I have given one example: the use of God in Spinoza’s philosophy. There are countless others.

103

—Under the decision, a pupil may voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but a school official may not lead such a recitation. In practice, when the P of A is recited in schools, it’s virtually always led by a school official, so this is not much of a correction.—

It’s a huge correction for anyone who realizes that it’s okay for us to do things without direction of the state.

And it doesn’t change the fact that it is flat out false, cynically misleading, to say “This ruling bans anyone from reciting the Pledge.” Indeed, that attempt at misdirection tries to wash over the whole issue of first admendment protections, which, as I have argued, boil down to this: it is never for the government to decide how, and when, and with who, and in what way and even if we choose to reference or worship whatever divine or religious concepts we have.

To pretend that a ruling which restricts the GOVERNMENT’S power to order people to do something is a restriction of THE PEOPLE is a vile vile misrepresentation, utterly Orwellian in conception and execution. It is no different than arguing that prayer is not allowed in schools.

So again: do you agree with me on this charge? That those public figures who have argued that the decision bans God from the schools… even from the Pledge! are lying? Or are you going to continue to dodge the subject to avoid the need for even a slight retraction?

—So, those feared that the decision would lead to the P of A not being used have so far been proved right.—

This is as ridiculous as saying “because the government has stopped taxing me to give to the poor, I can’t help out the poor. It’s such a pity, because I have all this money, but how would it get to them without the government taxing me? I must fight to re-institute dividend tax so that the poor can be aided by my dollars!”

I mean, how ridiculous can you get? If people want to say the pledge with “under God” in it, what’s stopping them? If they want to order their children to do it… what’s stopping them? The only thing that this ruling changes is that the government can no longer be in charge of leading or pressuring kids into saying it. In other words, what changes is not anyone’s right to their own behavior, but their ability to bully other people, via the government.

The cynical switch from the truth to a misleading proclaimation is to switch from the reality of pledge not being used BY TEACHERS LEADING STUDENTS to “the pledge cannot be said by our children!”

—However, the court wasn’t appointed with the power to substitute their preferred wording.—

In this case, they are, because the legislation in question was the addition of those words. The court can strike down the legislation, thus returning the original form of the pledge.

104

Back to the OP. if I may make so bold…

Yes, I think they will. What will be interesting is what kind of legal machinations and scholarly mumbo-jumbo they will resort to in order to accomplish this end. The decision on the 2000 election was a triumph a legalistic contortions to a predefined goal, how then will they manage this?

I suspect they will try to base it on the oldy but goody “original intent of the framers” Bushwah. Of course, we should all then become Freemasons and Rosicrucians. That may be a step forward.

105

“We’re still talking about a very particular conception of God, not in ANY way a universal statement applicable to all 100,000 gods thought of in human history.”
But it doesn’t have to be a universal statement to be a philosophical concept. The important point is that it goes beyond any religious tradition or even the sum of all religious traditions.

The phrase “under God” doesn’t make it inherently religious either. It could simply mean that the US Is bound by “natural law” or something similar.

I don’t think the original interpretation of the people who changed the pledge is particularly relevant since people are perfectly free to interpret the text for themselves. There is nothing in the text of the pledge itself which restricts “God” to a purely religous interpretation

106

:rolleyes: You’re missing the point, which is that ceremonial deism isn’t a religion, but just the understanding that religious imagery and religious terminology are used for non religious purposes. If congress wants to get rid of the “under god” clause in the Pledge, that’s fine. I don’t have any particular interest in keeping it, but to say that the inclusion is unconstitutional is, IMHO, ludicrous.

107

—I don’t think the original interpretation of the people who changed the pledge is particularly relevant since people are perfectly free to interpret the text for themselves.—

Seems like there are some Supreme Court Justices who don’t agree with you: the plain meaning of the words, especially as informed by what was plainly meant by the writers, is very important to constitutionality. If you want to enshrine a different meaning, re-introduce new legislation (maybe even with the same exact words). If “murder” comes to mean “kissing” over time, no one is going to buy the argument that the laws against murder are laws against kissing.

—The phrase “under God” doesn’t make it inherently religious either. It could simply mean that the US Is bound by “natural law” or something similar.—

I think this strains credulity. One could go through a church worship service and make the same sorts of objections, saying that nothing here was religious, but was simply some philosophical speculations about metaphysics, but not many people, certainly not many religious believers, would buy it.

—There is nothing in the text of the pledge itself which restricts “God” to a purely religous interpretation—

Even if that were so (and I still don’t think it is), it’s not supposed to be the governments game to play: to decide what is and is not our religious expression, what the proper account of metaphysics is. Do you really think it was in the minds of the drafters of the first amendment that it would allow the government to order people to repeat “God” (a word some religious people fear to even utter) over and over until the word loses all religious meaning?

108

—I suspect they will try to base it on the oldy but goody “original intent of the framers”—

I hope they do Which founders are they talking about? Rehnquist already did a number on Madison. Maybe they can try mangling Jefferson next?

109

“Seems like there are some Supreme Court Justices who don’t agree with you: the plain meaning of the words, especially as informed by what was plainly meant by the writers, is very important to constitutionality”
I think there is a difference between interpreting the Constitution and legislation and interpreting non-binding pledges and statements. Everyone is free to interpret the pledge for himself whereas this is clearly not the case with binding legislation or the Constitution.

As for the “church service” example surely you can see the difference between the ceremonies of a specific religious tradition and generic references to God which , as I said, go beyond the sum of all religious traditions.

“Even if that were so (and I still don’t think it is), it’s not supposed to be the governments game to play: to decide what is and is not our religious expression, what the proper account of metaphysics is”
I don’t think the government is doing this. It is just making a generic statement about “God” which goes beyond any religion. People are free to interpret this in a religous manner or not according to their beliefs.

110

And you’re missing my point, which is that it is a reference to some “God” whom it says this country is “under” – and that either specifically means the Holy Trinity as understood by Christians or somebody else who’s not Him/Them. I can grant that it’s a good nebulous term to encompass the Jewish, Moslem, Christian, and Baha’i understandings of who the Supreme Ruler of the Universe is – but not everybody belongs to them, and just as Zev would be offended by my insisting on concluding a prayer in which he was asked to join with “though Jesus Christ our Lord” so I can respect the fact that some people are being asked to acknowledge something in which they don’t believe. And I do not pray to a deist God, I pray to the Holy Trinity, to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Christ Himself, or, rarely, to the Holy Spirit (His role is normally that of the guider and conduit for prayers, rather than the object of them.) To ask me to acknowledge Tom Jefferson’s god as my patriotic duty is to place a religious requirement on me with which I do not agree.

Let me ask this – if I want every justice of the peace in the country to be equipped with copies of the Book of Common Prayer at public expense, since it has the traditional wedding service in it, and claim that those JP-officiated weddings are a non-religious use of religious language, so it’s perfectly legal to do so, are you going to support me?

111

—As for the “church service” example surely you can see the difference between the ceremonies of a specific religious tradition and generic references to God which , as I said, go beyond the sum of all religious traditions.—

My point is that you can play the same game of stripping away the “religious” content from anything. Religion is a fairly vague and diverse concept.
There are certianly differences between “under God” and church service, but just the way there is a difference between a kiwi and a pear. They’re still both edible, and none less so than the other. Same trick works just as fine.

Again: for many believers, even daring to utter the word “God” is not just a religious matter, but a matter of blasphemy. You rushing in, saying that “well, if you think about it this way, in light of this radical thinker who may have misued the word, but hey, whatever, then it’s not exactly…” is of no consequence. That word is magical: you can’t strip away its religious content, and what’s more, it’s utterly ridiculous for the government to place the burden of doing so on the people if they want to be able to recite THE pledge of their country. It’s not for them to have to search through history and semantics to find some way to participate without belittling their own religious convictions.

—I don’t think the government is doing this. It is just making a generic statement about “God” which goes beyond any religion.—

So, in your opinion, something like a state mandated teaching about “God” is acceptable? What if it contradicts someone’s religious beliefs about their “God?” Are you going to object that “hey, sorry, but references to God are not necessarily religious, so you have no complaint on the grounds that we are using tax money to attack your religious beliefs.”

You’re arguing uphill on this anyway. The vast majority of Americans see any reference to God as being very religious. The fact that you can find some interpretative way to say that “God” really means “the moon” is beside the point when the issue is whether being asked by the government to recite the pledge places an undue burden on people’s religious consciences.

—People are free to interpret this in a religous manner or not according to their beliefs.—

Children, repeat after me (and remember: you are free to interpret this prayer to Jesus as religious or not, according to your beliefs!) Now, let’s all repeat the Apostles Creed several times: and don’t forget, you are free to pretend that this is just an exercise in memorizing an important historical practice, despite the whole point of this mandate being that we instill these beliefs in you.

No. Government shouldn’t go there. Shouldn’t place people in the position of having to specially and uncharacteristically interpret things just so that they can participate honestly.

112

The divisiveness in this very thread about simply coming to a common understanding of what is meant by the term “God” should be proof enough that reference to same does not belong in a government-established oath.

113

The argument of freedom of religion must necessarily imply freedom from religion, as it must also apply to Satanists, Objectivists, and tree-hugging Druids. As Apos has handily demolished this argument, I will not pursue the question further.

At risk of Godwinning this theme, I point to the historical fact of Germany. State mandated tithing was a tradition of German governance, a citizen was required to choose a religious tradition, and a certain portion of his earnings were passed to whichever religious body he chose. But, and this is a big but, the citizen was not free to choose “none of the above” and thus keep his money. Atheism was held to be reprehensible, even hypocritical and insincere “membership” in a church was demanded.

To my mind, the Nazi regime was as close to an institutional Satanism as has ever existed, nonetheless, Adolf Hitler was nominally a Catholic.

114

CyberPundit, what do you understand the capitalization of “God” to signify over “god?” In my understanding, it implies that each usage must apply to at least A particular “God,” even though that god might be different in each reading or each person.
Some would even argue that it implies a personal God (personal capitalization), which is why Spinoza potentially misued the word.

115

—The divisiveness in this very thread about simply coming to a common understanding of what is meant by the term “God” should be proof enough that reference to same does not belong in a government-established oath.—

This is exactly the thinking of the founders. It’s why the official Presidential oath does not contain “So help me God,” though particular Presidents are free to add that if they please.

116

“Same trick works just as fine.”
Well it doesn’t. There is a lot more religious content in a church service which belongs to a specific religious tradition than a generic statement like “under God”. The same goes for your Apostle’s Creed example.

“It’s not for them to have to search through history and semantics to find some way to participate without belittling their own religious convictions.”
AFAIK no one is being forced to say the pledge or add the words “under God”. But you could have this problem even without the words “under God” For instance it’s possible to imagine some religious group which forbids allegiance to a secular pictorial symbol like a flag. Perhaps the very idea of a pledge could violate the religious beliefs of some. That doesn’t make it unconstitutional though.

“The vast majority of Americans see any reference to God as being very religious”
Source? For instance do people see the expression “Oh my God” as being “very religious”. How do you know this?

Also there is a difference between the personal interpretation of the word “God” and the understanding of the how the word is used generally in the English language. So it’s possible interpret “God” in terms of your personal religion and still accept that others can legitimately interpret God more generally.

117

Wow! (From a non-lawyer,) can you point me in the right direction? I would love to read about this…

118

Without question, there was a religious dimension to adding “under God” to the Pledge, and they meant God when they wrote God, not a metaphysical system of values interpreted individually as individuals so choose, or whatever. Mumbo-jumbo.

119

It’s not only possible to “imagine some religious group which forbids allegiance to a secular pictorial symbol like a flag”; it’s actually happened and reference to it has been made, quite clearly, in this thread. Google “Gobitis” and “Barnette” if you care to educate yourself on the historical background for what we’re talking about, rather than propounding views about the semantics of words.

Zev has made it quite explicit that his idea of “God” flatly rejects mine, though I don’t reciprocate – quite the opposite, in fact. And we would both consider it a violation of that which we hold dearest to recite a votive to the God and Goddess of one of our Neopagan friends here. The word “God” means something to each of us, and something quite different.

And that is why I, as a Christian, reject the present Pledge. Because it’s either a violation of the First Amendment upon which I depend for my right to practice my beliefs as I see fit, and therefore find it incumbent on myself to support others’ rights to practice their beliefs as they see fit; or it’s an institution of a “ceremonial deism” which reduces my allegiance to my God to some nebulous honoring on the same emotional level as the politician praising the apple pies at the county fair. I don’t believe in the deus otiosus of deism, and I resent a willing-to-pretend-piety-for-votes Congressman’s demand that I must agree that the country’s under that pseudogod. But if it isn’t that bland cream-of-dishwater-soup god, then it must be somebody’s God – which means that the atheist and the agnostic are automatically out of step, and two out of the three of Zev, the Neopagan, and me are going to be out of step with them.

If you want to play philosophical games with how people can conceive of God, you’re more than welcome to – but don’t even think of trying to enact it into law.

(JFTR, I personally have no problem saying the Pledge, and one of the most heartwarming memories of my grandkids was the time we were walking together and passed a flagpole, and all three of them turned and saluted the flag and recited the Pledge to it, as serious as a 5-, 7-, and 9-year-old can be about what they were doing. But that was voluntary – their spontaneous choice to do so. And their freedom to choose to do so – or not – is precious to me.)

120

As for what I think “God” means I am not sure. It is inherently vague which is my point. It probably implies some kind of supernatural entitity which is in some sense extremely important. But there may be some people who disagree even with this.