Pledge of Alligiance - Unconstitutional?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Exactly Spencer... the intent of the founders was for not founding a state church.

From the dissent:

Under "Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings," Fernandez wrote.

"'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of 'The Star Spangled Banner' will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third," he added.

And for case history:

Charles Haynes, First Amendment Center senior scholar, agreed, saying the decision "will very likely be overturned because it is inconsistent with prior lower court rulings — and the views of Supreme Court justices found in the majority opinions of various church-state cases."

[KrazyHorse]

Imran, for what you believe to make sense, the wording would have to go "an establishment of a religion".

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

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

Yes. In that case if used as a noun it would imply that congress could pass no laws about the organization of religious groups.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, for what you believe to make sense, the wording would have to go "an establishment of a religion".

No it wouldn't. 'The establishment of religion' seems pretty clear that the federal government cannot establish (verb) state religions (there was no 'a' in that sentance).

[Ramo]

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.

Obviously, the free exercise clause is not absolute, but neither is any other freedom in the Bill of Rights.

But you're confusing the free exercise and establishment clauses. Only the latter is relevant to the debate.

[CygnusZ]

Well, the problem is that the founding father's _didn't_ agree on the issue of what "freedom of religion" would exactly entail. Also you have to remember that many of the founding father's were Unitarian, and certainly not evangelical.

This is all rather irrelvent though. After all, nobody has a crystal ball or any real means of knowing what any of the founding fathers thought on any of the issues in modern context. The judge that claims to be doing the will of the founding fathers is either psychic or lying.

[Fitz]

Krazy, you seem to be way better at english and explaining it that me. I hand the remainder of the argument over to you.

[KrazyHorse]

And it can also denote a belief of a certain segment of the population, as in an established social order...

[KrazyHorse]

Imran, are you also saying that the Constitution allows the government to outlaw specific religions, as long as it doesn't found its own?

[KrazyHorse]

Because your argument only applies if you believe this to be the case.

[Ramo]

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

None of those involve the semantics of a powerless measure of Congress.

Official Churches were considered very dangerous. It wouldn't be powerless at all.

Hence the free exercise clause. The danger of an official church stamping out others is nullified by that. But why does the establishment clause exist then?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let's see... even if establishment is a noun there. And the amendment means Congress cannot pass a law concerning religious establishments, then HOW would the 'under God' part violate that, btw? It is not concerning religious establishments. Monotheism isn't a religious establishment. Many religious establishments are monotheistic, but you can't reverse the statement.

I'm curious, because it doesn't make sense to me.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Fitz

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

I agree. Perhaps the 21st century is the time to address this question and actually define what we want this article to mean.

[KrazyHorse]

It applies to a broad spectrum of religious establishments.

Like if Congress made a law pushing forward Christianity at the expense of Islam. Neither is a single religious establishment; they're conglomerations of different churches with similar beliefs.

[Ramo]

even if establishment is a noun there.

Establishment must be a noun. There's an "an" preceding establishment.

Monotheism isn't a religious establishment.

Why not?

Anyways, by promoting monotheism, you promote all monotheistic religions.