Pledge of Alligiance - Unconstitutional?

[Fitz]

Imran

I repeat, as someone else already has:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [...]"

Do you really interpret this as "Congress shall make no law respecting establishing a religion [...]"?

Becuase if you do, you are wrong.

An establishment of religion means church, cult, mosque, or any other religious organization, or any faith or belief that a citizen might have.

So, to help you understand the concept, try reading this sentance, which is a very similar thing, but not identical becuase it is more specific:

Congress shall make no law respecting religious faith or beliefs.

Thus, including the phrase "under God", which implies a belief in a God, is unconstitutional. I agree that many factors of the origional Constitution and ceremonies of government have mentions of God in them, but that is becuase at the time of this countries founding, it was inconcievable that someone would have a religious belief that stated "There is no God". Now there are lots of people who do, and all governmental ceremonies should reflect this.

Thus removing "In God we Trust" from money should be done immediately. And so and so forth.


All I can say is It's about time someone got their head out of their ass and got the Pledge removed from Public Schools!

Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court, lead by that idiot Rhenquist, who is renouned for ridiculous and terrible decisions, is likely to overturn it.

And the idiots in Congress and the White House are totally out of line with their comments. Well, maybe not, but it does go to show their lack of open mindedness. However, that's their perogative, just like it's mine to be close minded about Rhenquist and other conservatives.

[Lincoln]

From FoxNews:

Judge Blocks His Own Ruling on Pledge of Allegiance

SAN FRANCISCO — Just one day after he stunned the nation by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a federal appeals court judge on Thursday blocked his own ruling from being enforced.

Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who authored the 2-1 opinion that the phrase "under God" crossed the line between church and state, stayed his decision — preventing it from taking effect until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether it wants to alter course.

The appeals court can rehear the case with the same three judges, or it can go to a full 11-judge panel. The court has often overturned controversial three-judge opinions. Goodwin's latest action has no immediate impact, since the ruling already was on hold by court rules for 45 days to allow for any court challenges.

Vikram Amar, a Hastings College of the Law scholar who closely follows the appeals court, said the latest ruling means that, for now, Wednesday's opinion finding the pledge unconstitutional "has no legal force or effect."

"They're acknowledging the likelihood that the whole 9th Circuit may take a look at this," Amar said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Dr Strangelove]

Chicken!

[Fitz]

Sorry to hear that. However, it probably would be better if it were the ruling of the whole 9th Circuit Court, and not just 3 judges.

[ranskaldan]

Hey, America is a Christian-&-Judaist country, despite what any constitution says. It's sad... but I guess we have to get used to that tragic fact.

[Imran Siddiqui]

BTW, by supporting monotheism, the gov't supports all monotheistic faiths, so it indeed makes those state endorsed religions.

Support and establishment are two different things Ramo. I thought you'd know that.

What do you consider establishing a state religion, if not using public money to endorse it or giving churches that support it money?

Establishing a state religion is to make a church the state's official religion. Giving churches money doesn't not establish it as the state religion. In that case, the government is a wierd mix of religion, since it gives Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc faiths money for faith based charity work (such as prision). Since the beginning of the country, churches were tax exempt (ie, giving them money). Neither of these have led to a 'state religion', therefore no establishment (and I dare you to find any respected legal scholar say tax breaks to churchs, mosques, etc is establishing religion).

repeat, as someone else already has:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [...]"

Do you really interpret this as "Congress shall make no law respecting establishing a religion [...]"?

Becuase if you do, you are wrong.

How am I wrong? Establishment means to set up or create. Congress has not set up or created a church, or even made one the official religion.

So, to help you understand the concept, try reading this sentance, which is a very similar thing, but not identical becuase it is more specific:

Congress shall make no law respecting religious faith or beliefs.

How is that even CLOSE to correct since establishment DOES NOT mean faith or belief. Establishment means to set up or create.

To establish a religion you have to make it a state religion of the state.

Learn the definition of words before you shoot your mouth off.

Oh, and if you try to use one of the definitions of establish that says 'cause to be recognized and accepted', no religion by saying "under God" is accepted as the religion of the United States.

In short: Learn the Damned Constitiution and what words mean before you shoot your mouth off

See, I can use bold big black letters too .

[klesh]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Hey, America is a Christian-&-Judaist country, despite what any constitution says. It's sad... but I guess we have to get used to that tragic fact.

No, in America if you do not like something, you try to change it. Beautiful I think.

-FMK.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh


No, in America if you do not like something, you try to change it. Beautiful I think.

-FMK.

Well, good luck in changing it, with the entire government, congress, supreme court, and 90% of the population against you.

Tyranny of the majority, I say!

[Fitz]

The bolding that was directed at you was merely to draw the eye. I'm glad you can use it too.

See, you are trying to say the sentance should read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment [of religion]

The correct phrase is:

Congress shall make no law respecting [an establishment of religion]

I am saying, the noun is establishment of religion. Establishment is a noun.

You are tyring to say, incorrectly that make .... establishment is the verb of the sentance.

After typing all that, I will now leave it in place and go visit websters online dictionary and see if I made a fool of myself.

The complete entry:
Main Entry: es·tab·lish·ment
Pronunciation: is-'ta-blish-m&nt
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : something established : as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : ESTABLISHED CHURCH c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution
2 : an established order of society: as a often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group
3 a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established

I see that you could possibly, if you wished to use number three, argue your point. I however, will continue to argue that it is number 2 (or possibly 1). Thus, it's pointless for us to argue our sides. Oh well. Go on your merry way then, and I'll do the same.

[Ramo]

Support and establishment are two different things Ramo. I thought you'd know that.

It's an irrelevent semantics distinction.

Again, if we had the same relationship with, say, the the Southern Baptists that the UK currently has with the Anglicans, would that suddenly become unconstitutional?

Giving churches money doesn't not establish it as the state religion.

Sure it does. It makes the religion an appendage of the state. That's the definition of having a state religion.

A religion doesn't become a state religion by the government simply saying that it's the state religion. That's totally absurd!

What do you consider the criteria for a religion being a state religion besides Congress declaring it so?

In that case, the government is a wierd mix of religion, since it gives Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc faiths money for faith based charity work (such as prision).

Which it is.

[Ramo]

And Fitz is right. The Constitution in no way is saying that Congress has to create a church for the Amendment to be violated.

[Fitz]

Thanks for putting it in clearer words Ramo. I had a feeling my point still wasn't going to get across.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fitz: Doesn't matter if you back #1 because that supports me too. No established church in the US. #2 doesn't make sense because it refers to THE establishment. Congress making no law respecting the controlling group of religion is very wierd.

And it can't be a noun, because then it would mean Congress could not make any law that even acknowledges religion exists (ie, can't zone for churches, etc.).

It's an irrelevent semantics distinction.

NO, it is very relevant. Support and establishment have nothing to do with each other.

And every Constitutional question is semantic.

Again, if we had the same relationship with, say, the the Southern Baptists that the UK currently has with the Anglicans, would that suddenly become unconstitutional?

Of course, because they'd be our OFFICIAL CHURCH, which is illegal. You can't have an official church. Says nothing about supporting churches.

Sure it does. It makes the religion an appendage of the state.

So all religions are appendanges of the United States? Ludicrious!

A religion doesn't become a state religion by the government simply saying that it's the state religion. That's totally absurd!

No, that the total truth. A religion can ONLY become the state religion if the state says it is so.

What do you consider the criteria for a religion being a state religion besides Congress declaring it so?

The government has to basically run it, by appointing its members and so on. Those are the only two ways a religion can become a state religion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And Fitz is right. The Constitution in no way is saying that Congress has to create a church for the Amendment to be violated.

Um... yes it is. 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion'. That very clearly states Congress can't create a state Chuch.

[KrazyHorse]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

That means that the congress can't pass any laws about religion, Imran. Don't be dense. It doesn't just mean that Congress can't found its own church or disband another church. It also means it can't show any preference.