Pledge of Alligiance - Unconstitutional?

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

No, because that would 'prohibit free excersize thereof'.

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

A powerless measure of Congress? It is a very powerful measure.

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?

You can have free excersize even with an official church (see England today).

--

Question: If Congress cannot make a law about religion, does that mean then that student led prayer sessions on school grounds are legal? The government should not allow that to be illegal. Because a student led prayer session is about religion (thus no law banning it).

[SpencerH]

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

No. "Established" in an "established social order" does not refer to the belief in the order, but simply denotes that such a social order can be defined.

[Ramo]

A powerless measure of Congress? It is a very powerful measure

How?

You can have free excersize even with an official church (see England today).

Which is my point. Having Anglican church as the state church is a powerless law since religious freedom is guaranteed in the UK.

does that mean then that student led prayer sessions on school grounds are legal

It alwaays has been, unless the prayer is forced...

[KrazyHorse]

No, because that would 'prohibit free excersize thereof'

Then your argument about cannibals or human sacrificers is null and void.

[KrazyHorse]

Question: If Congress cannot make a law about religion, does that mean then that student led prayer sessions on school grounds are legal? The government should not allow that to be illegal. Because a student led prayer session is about religion (thus no law banning it)

As long as it's held outside of official class time, I have no problem with it (also it's required that school show no preference for making resources available to different groups).

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Congress shall make no law regarding a 'breaking' of bread.

Is breaking a noun in that sentance?

Why not?

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

Is says 'an' establishment of religion, right? 'An' means one. (look below)

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.

Pushing forward isn't illegal. Hell, it is done all the time. You can say Congress pushes forward Christianity by allowing Christian universities access to public scholarships.

--

Would you say that federal aid to private religious universities is illegal (ie, federal loans and grants). Would say providing a military chaplain is illegal?

You do realize that the First Congress opened each session with a prayer and voted to give money to Christian missions. How can it be said they wanted to forbid Congress from passing any law about religion?

[Peacemaker]

We should just get rid of the pledge and the national anthem all together. These are stupid and meaningless traditions. For some reason at my sons t-ball game they play a tape of the national anthem and everyone stands up takes off their hat and continues with their conversions like nothing was happening. Now there's true feeling.

[KrazyHorse]

"Congress shall make no law regarding a 'breaking' of bread.

Is breaking a noun in that sentance?"

That sentence is grammatically incorrect.

[KrazyHorse]

Pushing forward isn't illegal. Hell, it is done all the time. You can say Congress pushes forward Christianity by allowing Christian universities access to public scholarships

Only if they didn't allow Muslim universities access to scholarships.

[KrazyHorse]

Imran, if they say the pledge in class time, then they also should have to say one which includes the phrase "with no God" and one with "under the gods". The phrase was inserted as a deliberate exercise in religious zeal in 1954. There's no reason nor right for it to be there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which is my point. Having Anglican church as the state church is a powerless law since religious freedom is guaranteed in the UK.

It was guarenteed in the age of the Puritans too, but the Official Church persecuted them just the same. You don't think the government persecuted the Puritans do you?

It alwaays has been, unless the prayer is forced...

No it hasn't. Many states have forbidden after-school prayer sessions (which would be wrong, because it would be a law against religion, right?).

--

Also Christmas is an illegal public holiday, isn't it?

[KrazyHorse]

Many states have forbidden after-school prayer sessions (which would be wrong, because it would be a law against religion, right?).

Yes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The phrase was inserted as a deliberate exercise in religious zeal in 1954. There's no reason nor right for it to be there.

No **** sherlock.

Only if they didn't allow Muslim universities access to scholarships.

Scholarships can only go to accredited schools, IIRC. So some schools (that aren't good enough) might be left out, which means some schools which are picked are religious.

Also what about the famous case where the school prohibited a graduation speaker from speaking because her speech was a religious speech. Isn't that 'about religion'?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What about Christmas, KH? Should Christmas be ruled as an unconstitutional public holiday? Should government funds to religious orders to fight poverty or go into prisions be declared unconstitutional? Should resolutions which say 'Merry Eid' or 'Happy Hanukkah' or Merry Christmas' passed by Congress be unconstitutional?

[KrazyHorse]

Now you're just blathering. I couldn't care less about that. They're probably unconstitutional, but also unimportant. Most Christians wouldn't care if the Congress signed acts wishing people a happy Holi, but they would care if their child was exposed daily to a pledge that contained something about one natin under Vishnu.