Pledge of Alligiance - Unconstitutional?

[Ramo]

That very clearly states Congress can't create a state Chuch.

Never said otherwise. But that isn't what it literally says. And it's not the only way the clause is violated.

And every Constitutional question is semantic.

Not every Constitutional question relies on the semantics of a powerless measure by Congress.

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

All religions, no. Major religions to at least some degree, yes.

You can't have an official church. Says nothing about supporting churches.

Churches that are supported are state churches.

A religion can ONLY become the state religion if the state says it is so.

Congress doing such a thing by itself is a powerless measure. Why would anyone possibly want to prohibit it through a Constitutional Amendment?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That wasn't the intent when it was written and it isn't what the SCOTUS over the years has said. It has said that the Establishment Clause means setting up a state religion.

And no, that doesn't mean that Congress can't pass any laws about religion.. it can't pass any laws ESTABLISHING religion. That has been the meaning since the beginning, with the Anglican Church in the minds of the writers.

[KrazyHorse]

Imran, do you not see that "respecting an establishment of religion" is an equivalent phrase to "about religion"?

Establishment isn't being used as a verb...

[KrazyHorse]

Reread, Imran. The Bill of Rights has it as "respecting an establishment of religion", not "respecting the establishment of religion". There's a difference.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But that isn't what it literally says.

Yes it is.

Not every Constitutional question relies on the semantics of a powerless measure by Congress.

Almost every Bill of Right is a question of semantics. Look at then 2nd Amendment, the 5th, 9th, 10th, etc.

All religions, no. Major religions to at least some degree, yes.

Bull****.

Churches that are supported are state churches

NO, they aren't. State Churches must be declared to be that way or run by the government.

Congress doing such a thing by itself is a powerless measure. Why would anyone possibly want to prohibit it through a Constitutional Amendment?

Because the Founders wrote it in response to the Anglican Church. Because an official church can be used to stamp down on all the rest (ie, the Puritans' reason for leaving was persecution by the Anglican Church). Official Churches were considered very dangerous. It wouldn't be powerless at all.

[KrazyHorse]

As in "this establishment was built in 1863"...

[SpencerH]

Lets give the screw another turn.

Fitz, it is "establishment" of "establishment of religion" that is the noun. An establishment can be a place but not an idea. Therefore, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" could mean that congress cant make laws about the physical nature of churches.

[KrazyHorse]

Imran, you've even got the wrong quote. If it read "the establishment of religion", then you might well have a case. "an establishment of religion" is gramatically incorrect if establishment is to be taken as denoting the action of establishing.

[Fitz]

I say again, laws establishing a religion is not the same thing as laws about an established religion. The clause in question very clearly states that Congress may not pass laws about religion, not laws putting a state religion in place. You're wrong Imran.

I seem to be saying that more and more on 'Poly. Reminds me of my favorite saying:
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. You're still retarded.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, do you not see that "respecting an establishment of religion" is an equivalent phrase to "about religion"?

Establishment isn't being used as a verb...

Reread, Imran. The Bill of Rights has it as "respecting an establishment of religion", not "respecting the establishment of religion". There's a difference.

Yes, 'an', but establishment IS being used as a verb. Even if you use it as a noun, 'under God' would have to stay. Why? Because 'under God' isn't making a law respecting some church (an establishment as a noun means a set organization). The Pledge isn't unconstitutional and has decades of SCOTUS decisions to say it.

If it was a noun instead of a verb, a great many laws would have been struck down already (such as faith based charity, resolutions condoning or condeming churches and churchmen, etc.). It is ludicrious to call it a noun.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Lets give the screw another turn.

Fitz, it is "establishment" of "establishment of religion" that is the noun. An establishment can be a place but not an idea. Therefore, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" could mean that congress cant make laws about the physical nature of churches.

Establishment does not only denote physical presence. It can also denote organisational structure...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fitz, it is "establishment" of "establishment of religion" that is the noun. An establishment can be a place but not an idea. Therefore, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" could mean that congress cant make laws about the physical nature of churches.

DING DING DING!

[SpencerH]

Lets face it there is really two sides to this either the constitution says the federal government cant even use the word god or the federal government cant support a federal church. Given that the guys who founded this country were fairly religious types, whats the most reasonable interpretation?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Establishment does not only denote physical presence. It can also denote organisational structure...

It would still be silly. Congress can make no law about religious establishments or prohibit the free excersizes about those establishments? So basically the US government cannot stop X religion that believes in sacrificing people? Because sacrifice is a free excersize of that religious establishment.

[Fitz]

Spencer, you took the definition of the word noun way too literally, as does Imran.

BTW, Aethism can be considered an Establishment of Religion. Is is an established way of thinking about religion. So, putting "under God" into the Pledge violates that establishment of religion, and making it a law means that the law is unconstitutional.

At least so I will argue. I'm sure there are many fine points of the law & constitution that I (and everyone here) are unaware of that the Supreme Court will consider.

Also, Spencer, your last post raises the whole question of "modern interpretation" vs "founding fathers interpretation", which is a whole nother kettle of worms.