Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

RightatNYU said:

In a courtroom, someone is called in individually for a legal reason, in the day to day workings of the government. It is not a process by which every single person who enters a courthouse must, each day, be sworn in.

You're right, the pledge is a tradition, WITHOUT under god. That was added in as an attempt to "stem the flow to godless communism." It's unnecessary and frankly, is nothing but trouble.

And yes, they do. In numerous incredibly similar cases, they have already decided in the same way. This should be no different.

Click to expand...

So you're only concerned about the rights of the everyday citizen, not about the citizen who, may, or may not, be forced to swear to God?

Makes sense.

C.J. said:

Actually they would be misusing their powers to even mention the states appellate courts. If they limited the cases SCOTUS could hear, the final word would be in each of the 12 circuit courts of appeals. Theoretically there could be 12 different answers to the same question.

The rest of the argument is this. SCOTUS is constitutionally created, but lesser federal courts are created by Congress. They are a creature of Congress and can be handed the same restrictions as SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, I meant circuit courts.

And yes, I understand that. It will never happen, just as the executive will never recess both houses of congress (art II sec II), so whats the point.

RightatNYU said:

That's wrong.

The 14th amendment made all provisions of the bill of rights applicable to the state and local governments, down to the lowest dog catcher.

This is commonly held principle under the equal protection clause, and has been precedent for decades.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS has repeatedly stated that the First Amendment forbids an establishment of religion, and that promotion by any government entity is forbidden, and the 14th applies this to the states. Naturally I disagree, but they are the boss, and I can live with it with no hard feelings.

BTW, the 14th does not make all provisions of the bill of rights applicable to the state and local governments, down to the lowest dog catcher. If it did, the 10th amendment would in effect negate what your point on the 14th, and it can't do that can it?

My thoughts are these; No portion of the first clause of the First Amendment concerns people, just Congress and something they cannot do. Even if this were construed to mean state legislatures, in a constructionist sense it still does not prevent a state or local government from establishing a religion, or using religious quotes, because in a constructionist sense the FA doesn't prevent the feds from establishing a religion, or using religious quotes either. It would merely prevent legislatures, as it does Congress from legislating on the subject.

The first clause of the FA does not enumerate an individual right, or a collective right, but rather it restricts what congress can do. Nothing in the 14th Amendment negates any part of the 10th concerning reserved powers of the states or the people, but portions of the 14th do restrict the legislative powers of the states, and they refer only to actions that affect the privileges, immunities, legal rights and equal legal status of individual citizens and persons.

RightatNYU said:

Excuse me, I meant circuit courts.

And yes, I understand that. It will never happen, just as the executive will never recess both houses of congress (art II sec II), so whats the point.

Click to expand...

RightatNYU said:

Excuse me, I meant circuit courts.

And yes, I understand that. It will never happen, just as the executive will never recess both houses of congress (art II sec II), so whats the point.

Click to expand...

No, it will not ever happen, it's come close a few times, but most congressmen are ignorant enough to not get involved in creating a larger political mess of the courts (I meant that as I said it). My point is that the feds have been gradually intruding in to affairs which they are not constitutionally entitled. The 14th seemed a good idea at the time, but the courts have used it to further intrude, and it makes accomplices of the states.

As far as the pledge goes, I really do not care if "under God" is included or not, but I do not believe it a federal problem, and I sure do not believe it's an establishment of religion problem. If people were being forced by the government to say it, with or without the phrase, then that's a federal problem, but the solution probably would not be found in the courts. If a school system or state or local government is forcing people to recite it, then it needs to be handled there. For those who do not want to recite it, but have to listen while others do, all I can say is that life sure is hell sometimes.

C.J. said:

SCOTUS has repeatedly stated that the First Amendment forbids an establishment of religion, and that promotion by any government entity is forbidden, and the 14th applies this to the states. Naturally I disagree, but they are the boss, and I can live with it with no hard feelings.

BTW, the 14th does not make all provisions of the bill of rights applicable to the state and local governments, down to the lowest dog catcher. If it did, the 10th amendment would in effect negate what your point on the 14th, and it can't do that can it?

My thoughts are these; No portion of the first clause of the First Amendment concerns people, just Congress and something they cannot do. Even if this were construed to mean state legislatures, in a constructionist sense it still does not prevent a state or local government from establishing a religion, or using religious quotes, because in a constructionist sense the FA doesn't prevent the feds from establishing a religion, or using religious quotes either. It would merely prevent legislatures, as it does Congress from legislating on the subject.

The first clause of the FA does not enumerate an individual right, or a collective right, but rather it restricts what congress can do. Nothing in the 14th Amendment negates any part of the 10th concerning reserved powers of the states or the people, but portions of the 14th do restrict the legislative powers of the states, and they refer only to actions that affect the privileges, immunities, legal rights and equal legal status of individual citizens and persons.

Click to expand...

My error, I meant to state that the 14th amendment made all the portions of the bill of rights that we're referring to in this case applicable to everyone from fed to dog catcher.

And what a strict constructionist would or wouldn't do isn't really relevant, since the courts have stated unequivocably

"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs"
-Torcaso v. Watkins

"There cannot be the slightest doubt that the First Amendment reflects the philosophy that Church and State should be separated. And so far as interference with the "free exercise" of religion and an "establishment" of religion are concerned, the separation must be complete and unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute."
-Zorach v. Clauson

"The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. 3 The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship."
-Cantwell v. Connecticut

RightatNYU said:

And what a strict constructionist would or wouldn't do isn't really relevant, since the courts have stated unequivocably

Click to expand...

That's correct especiaal since there isn't really one on the SCOTUS, but I joined this part of the discussion based on your comment of what a strict constructionist would do.

I have enjoyed the exchange, possibly more tomorrow.

Thanks.

C.J. said:

That's correct especiaal since there isn't really one on the SCOTUS, but I joined this part of the discussion based on your comment of what a strict constructionist would do.

I have enjoyed the exchange, possibly more tomorrow.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Agreed, it was enjoyable to have a debate with someone who had a good grasp on the Constitution. :2wave:

RightatNYU said:

Agreed, it was enjoyable to have a debate with someone who had a good grasp on the Constitution. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Awwwweee rightnyu found himself a new friend. Ok now I am getting jealous.

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the Christian States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for Christians.

Caine said:

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the Christian States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for Christians.

Click to expand...

Or; I pledge allegiance to the Chinese-made flag and to the Republicans for which it stands, one nation under a Christian God, hopelessly divided, with limited liberty and delayed justice for all.:lol:

C.J. said:

Or; I pledge allegiance to the Chinese-made flag and to the Republicans for which it stands, one nation under a Christian God, hopelessly divided, with limited liberty and delayed justice for all.:lol:

Click to expand...

Yeah, that one works pretty good too

:lol:

I voted no because I don't care all that much. It really isn't an important issue to me. I do believe in a God, but have been around long enough to see how churches brainwash us into believing in their own version of God, and Christ. Most Christian churches have done little to promote real education, preferring to keep the majority of us ignorant and easily manipulated. The government does much the same. So there is at least one issue where the churches and the government are not seperated, altho I suspect each has its own agenda.
I have friends who are older than me who want to take a few quotes from a few founding fathers and say that the USA was founded on the Christian religion, but they have their heads in the sand when you show them many more quotes from other founding fathers who were all too aware of the hazards of church and politics getting in the same bed. The founding fathers lived during a time when the Catholic church was losing its stranglehold on government leaders, and surely wanted to see that stranglehold gone forever.

UtahBill said:

I voted no because I don't care all that much. It really isn't an important issue to me. I do believe in a God, but have been around long enough to see how churches brainwash us into believing in their own version of God, and Christ. Most Christian churches have done little to promote real education, preferring to keep the majority of us ignorant and easily manipulated. The government does much the same. So there is at least one issue where the churches and the government are not seperated, altho I suspect each has its own agenda.
I have friends who are older than me who want to take a few quotes from a few founding fathers and say that the USA was founded on the Christian religion, but they have their heads in the sand when you show them many more quotes from other founding fathers who were all too aware of the hazards of church and politics getting in the same bed. The founding fathers lived during a time when the Catholic church was losing its stranglehold on government leaders, and surely wanted to see that stranglehold gone forever.

Click to expand...

I agree completely.
I don't understand it really. The founding fathers lived in a time where even if you DIDN'T believe in "God", it didn't behoove you to let others know that. As much persecution that was going on just due to differen't ways of practicing christianity, I think Athiests would have been persecuted even more. In fact, I doubt if there were ANY openly truthful Athiests back then. (Again, for the shallow minded, I didn't say THERE WERE NONE, I said "I" Doubt). So all those who try to quote the Founding Fathers on the fact that this country IS and was INTENDED to be a Christian country.......Try to remember what history can tell you about what life was like back in the 1700s

Caine said:

I agree completely.
I don't understand it really. The founding fathers lived in a time where even if you DIDN'T believe in "God", it didn't behoove you to let others know that. As much persecution that was going on just due to differen't ways of practicing christianity, I think Athiests would have been persecuted even more. In fact, I doubt if there were ANY openly truthful Athiests back then. (Again, for the shallow minded, I didn't say THERE WERE NONE, I said "I" Doubt). So all those who try to quote the Founding Fathers on the fact that this country IS and was INTENDED to be a Christian country.......Try to remember what history can tell you about what life was like back in the 1700s

Click to expand...

Very few on the pro-Pledge side have used any kind of "Christian" argument in this issue and most, in fact, have rejected tieing the Pledge to any kind of Christian doctrine or meaning. The "under God" phrase is acknowledgment of the historical belief, professed by virtually ALL the founders, that all of us are possessed of certain inalienable God given rights and these are never to be messed with by anybody. This notion of the historical belief in God-given rights is affirmed in the preambles of 49 of the 50 states.

Those who do not wish to say it are not compelled to do so, while a majority of Americans do like to recite that phrase. It has now been recited by most Americans for more than 50 years without turning anybody into a religious nutcase nor creating any kind of theocracy anywhere. In fact, despite that phrase in the Pledge, there are many more professed athiests and agnostics than there were when the Pledge in its current form was initiated.

Now it comes down to a matter of tolerance. Those who do not wish to repeat the Pledge or the phrase do not have to do so, are not obvious if they do not, and disrupt nothing. But remove the phrase on the theory that the majority can say it if they wish, it will cause a disruption to say words that are not included.

I personally think it is wrong for the minority to attempt to impose its will on the majority for something that is nothing more than a personal preference. The minority would not take kindly to that if the situation was reversed and it was their right of free speech that was being trashed.

There is no way anybody can show how it has ever been or is an establishment of religion. It is, therefore, after all, an issue of free speech.

(P.S. Anybody who thinks the Founders of this country were not strong, opinionated, and thoughtful men who would have shied away from expressing their opinion or thoughts about anything, simply hasn't read enough of their history.)

AlbqOwl said:

Very few on the pro-Pledge side have used any kind of "Christian" argument in this issue and most, in fact, have rejected tieing the Pledge to any kind of Christian doctrine or meaning. The "under God" phrase is acknowledgment of the historical belief, professed by virtually ALL the founders, that all of us are possessed of certain inalienable God given rights and these are never to be messed with by anybody. This notion of the historical belief in God-given rights is affirmed in the preambles of 49 of the 50 states.

Those who do not wish to say it are not compelled to do so, while a majority of Americans do like to recite that phrase. It has now been recited by most Americans for more than 50 years without turning anybody into a religious nutcase nor creating any kind of theocracy anywhere. In fact, despite that phrase in the Pledge, there are many more professed athiests and agnostics than there were when the Pledge in its current form was initiated.

Now it comes down to a matter of tolerance. Those who do not wish to repeat the Pledge or the phrase do not have to do so, are not obvious if they do not, and disrupt nothing. But remove the phrase on the theory that the majority can say it if they wish, it will cause a disruption to say words that are not included.

I personally think it is wrong for the minority to attempt to impose its will on the majority for something that is nothing more than a personal preference. The minority would not take kindly to that if the situation was reversed and it was their right of free speech that was being trashed.

There is no way anybody can show how it has ever been or is an establishment of religion. It is, therefore, after all, an issue of free speech.

(P.S. Anybody who thinks the Founders of this country were not strong, opinionated, and thoughtful men who would have shied away from expressing their opinion or thoughts about anything, simply hasn't read enough of their history.)

Click to expand...

Okay, So because our fore fathers HISTORICALLY believed in some rights given to them by a "God", we are compelled to remain that way?

This is how you can tell a Conservative, Conservatives tend to try to "Conserve" the old way instead of moving forward.
Progressives (another word for Liberal) tend to try to progress forward to what is required NOW.

Personaly I believe that Change is Necessary, we aren't a nation of Christians anymore, OR even believers of "God" for that matter.

Caine said:

This is how you can tell a Conservative, Conservatives tend to try to "Conserve" the old way instead of moving forward.
Progressives (another word for Liberal) tend to try to progress forward to what is required NOW.

Click to expand...

Actually that is not how you can tell a conservative. Of the several types of conservatives only one comes close to what you are saying, the classical conservative. Even classical conservatives do not oppose change, they resist it and want the pace of change to be slow. They generally have no political ideology (They do have preferences however), and realize change is inevitable, and do not really care if the change is to the right or left, as long as it was methodical, using tradition and law as a guide.

Modern and neoconservatives are politically idealistic and you can bet your last dollar they want change, but only change which attempts to entrench their root ideology even deeper into society, generally preferring assertive policies as their tools. If you have a problem believing this, check out the leadership of this country, and the changes they have made since 2001.

There are of course more types of conservatives.

There are three basic types of liberals, the ignorant, the lazy, and the evil.:2razz:

I'll spare you the details. :lol:

Caine said:

Okay, So because our fore fathers HISTORICALLY believed in some rights given to them by a "God", we are compelled to remain that way?

This is how you can tell a Conservative, Conservatives tend to try to "Conserve" the old way instead of moving forward.
Progressives (another word for Liberal) tend to try to progress forward to what is required NOW.

Personaly I believe that Change is Necessary, we aren't a nation of Christians anymore, OR even believers of "God" for that matter.

Click to expand...

Consevatives don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. And they don't try to fix what isn't broken. They are not advocates of change just for the sake of change, and they do have strong values, know exactly why they hold those values, and are willing to defend them.

You are very wrong about this no longer being a nation of believers in God. A recent Gallup poll showed that more than 90% of Americans do believe in some sort of diety by some name. "God" is about as generic a name as could be used to express the belief held by virtually all our forefathers that we do have inalienable rights that are not devised by or granted by humankind; thus they come from God however one conceives of or thinks of God. That's more than 90% now. Not all Christian. Not all Jewish. Not all Islamic. But people who believe in some sort of diety. That "under God" in the pledge speaks to such diety however He may be perceived.

Again, there is no requirement that you say the Pledge and no consequence if you do not. Why would you wish to deny so many people a phrase that they do like to say?

AlbqOwl said:

There is no way anybody can show how it has ever been or is an establishment of religion. It is, therefore, after all, an issue of free speech.

Click to expand...

Except for every single court case that I've cited so far which have clearly shown that whether or not something is mandatory, the daily recitation in a school has a coercive effect on the children. In addition, it has been proved that an acknowledgement that we are all "under God" is in fact a declaration of the existance and superiority of a superior being, which not all believe.

It's unconstitutional.

Why are people so opposed to simply saying the pledge the way it was meant to be said?

I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

RightatNYU said:

I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Click to expand...

I don't see how this violates anyones rights.
Who gives a **** WHAT the founding fathers believed in anyways, what matters is the obvious violation of the 1st amendment that putting it in there in the first place caused.

Caine said:

I don't see how this violates anyones rights.
Who gives a **** WHAT the founding fathers believed in anyways, what matters is the obvious violation of the 1st amendment that putting it in there in the first place caused.

Click to expand...

Well, the intents of the founders does come into play in many court decisions. However, in this particular case, if one were to rely on the "true meanings" of the founders, it'd help the argument to keep under god out rather than hinder...

All this discussion is interesting and enjoyable,but.When push comes to shove " Under God " is staying in the pledge.Either the Supreme Court is going to keep it their or.The People will amend the Constitution.This is not a red state, blue state dispute. The vast majority of Americans will if forced ,approve an amendment to the Constitution.Iimposing the Pledge with " Under God " in it.

RightatNYU said:

Except for every single court case that I've cited so far which have clearly shown that whether or not something is mandatory, the daily recitation in a school has a coercive effect on the children. In addition, it has been proved that an acknowledgement that we are all "under God" is in fact a declaration of the existance and superiority of a superior being, which not all believe.

It's unconstitutional.

Why are people so opposed to simply saying the pledge the way it was meant to be said?

I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Click to expand...

No it is not unconstitutional and no, it is not coercive. Any teacher who would make it coercive should be fired because s/he would be overstepping the bounds. There is nothing wrong with the Pledge with the phrase 'under God' omitted--many of us learned it that way--and there is nothing wrong with the Pledge with the phrase included. It is a matter of preference. That's it. Pure and simple. Nobody's inalienable or civil rights are being violated in any way with the presence of the phrase. One or two kids who don't want to say it can just omit it and should not be able to deny the rest who do like to say it the opportunity to do so. The parents of the kids who don't want to say it can use it as an educational opportunity to teach tolerance and protocol and the principle of democratic rule.

That an activist judge makes a ruling based on his personal ideology rather than on principles of law is not a compelling argument that will cause me to change my mind.

The Pledge is nothing more than a cultural and historical reference, it violates nobody's rights, and thus the majority should decide. When the majority no longer wants it in the Pledge, it will be gone.

JOHNYJ said:

All this discussion is interesting and enjoyable,but.When push comes to shove " Under God " is staying in the pledge.Either the Supreme Court is going to keep it their or.The People will amend the Constitution.This is not a red state, blue state dispute. The vast majority of Americans will if forced ,approve an amendment to the Constitution.Iimposing the Pledge with " Under God " in it.

Click to expand...

I think you're drastically wrong.

AlbqOwl said:

No it is not unconstitutional and no, it is not coercive. Any teacher who would make it coercive should be fired because s/he would be overstepping the bounds. There is nothing wrong with the Pledge with the phrase 'under God' omitted--many of us learned it that way--and there is nothing wrong with the Pledge with the phrase included. It is a matter of preference. That's it. Pure and simple. Nobody's inalienable or civil rights are being violated in any way with the presence of the phrase. One or two kids who don't want to say it can just omit it and should not be able to deny the rest who do like to say it the opportunity to do so. The parents of the kids who don't want to say it can use it as an educational opportunity to teach tolerance and protocol and the principle of democratic rule.

Click to expand...

You're really missing the point. Court case after court case after court case over the past 60 years has said that when something is recited daily in the public schools, whether or not students are required to say it, it is coercive.

That an activist judge makes a ruling based on his personal ideology rather than on principles of law is not a compelling argument that will cause me to change my mind.

Click to expand...

So every single justice in the past 60 years, not counting Stewart, Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia is an "activist judge?"

The Pledge is nothing more than a cultural and historical reference, it violates nobody's rights, and thus the majority should decide. When the majority no longer wants it in the Pledge, it will be gone.

Click to expand...

Again, the "majority" doesn't decide things like this. The constitution does.

JOHNYJ said:

All this discussion is interesting and enjoyable,but.When push comes to shove " Under God " is staying in the pledge.Either the Supreme Court is going to keep it their or.The People will amend the Constitution.This is not a red state, blue state dispute. The vast majority of Americans will if forced ,approve an amendment to the Constitution.Iimposing the Pledge with " Under God " in it.

Click to expand...

And I agree that you are drastically wrong.
The only Christians who would really FIGHT for this kind of thing are the nut ball christians who think everyone has to be a christian or the are all going to hell. The extremely Conservative Christsian people. The Progressive Christians don't care either way, they have thier religion, taking god out of our pledge isnt going to hurt them.

Nut Ball Christian = Pat Robertson