Pledge of Alligiance - Unconstitutional?

[Ramo]

You're missing my point.

The free exercise clause guarantees, as much as Constitutionally possible, freedom of religion.

The establishment clause is a meaningless addition to the Constitution if it only refers to whether Congress declares a state church. It logically must imply a prohibition against giving certain religions preferential treatment - the real meaning of having a state chruch.

[Xeones]

it figures that as soon as a federal court begins to recognize the hypocrisy in this country ... it gets overturned...

what part of "separate church and state" do they not get?

[Imran Siddiqui]

what part of "separate church and state" do they not get?

There is no such provision.

The establishment clause is a meaningless addition to the Constitution if it only refers to whether Congress declares a state church. It logically must imply a prohibition against giving certain religions preferential treatment - the real meaning of having a state chruch.

No it doesn't. Having a state church itself is what is the problem. Because it has power all by itself.

You can't tell me that the founders thought the Establishment clause meant that the government couldn't make any law about religion, and then in the FIRST CONGRESS proceded to make a law financing Christian missionaries into Indian lands. You just can't.

They were more concerned about the power of a state church (which at times had equal power to the government) even if there was free excersize. It seems to me that the free excersize clause is simply a supporting clause to the Establishment clause. It says that there should be no state church and also freedom of religion, which would make ideas of a state church that much harder.

[Ramo]

You can't tell me that the founders thought the Establishment clause meant that the government couldn't make any law about religion, and then in the FIRST CONGRESS proceded to make a law financing Christian missionaries into Indian lands. You just can't.

Obviously none of the founders were thinking of a bunch of heathens when they considered the 1st Amendment. But I hope our sensibilities have changed the past couple centuries.

Besides, the early Congresses did a number of unconstitutional things.

They were more concerned about the power of a state church (which at times had equal power to the government) even if there was free excersize.

What's the problem if there is free exercise, other than the possiblity of preferential treatment?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Besides, the early Congresses did a number of unconstitutional things.

Such as?

What's the problem if there is free exercise, other than the possiblity of preferential treatment?

A state church having immense power and sway. It seems the free excersize clause was a backup clause to the prohibition of the state church. Saying, now you really can't have a state church that has massive power.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Think of it this way: Christianity already has a great sway over the politics of this country. Imagine what would happen if it was an official state relgion. The sway over politics could only get worse. You don't have to give preferential treatment to a religion in order to be swayed by it.

[Lincoln]

It is not possible in a corrupt society to have much freedom of religion anyway. What if some Satan worshiper wants to sacrifice babies? There was supposed to be a certain amount of common sense involved when the nation was founded. The religion that the United States professed was Christianity. The remnants of that are everywhere in our history. This reminds me of Thailand really.

There the state religion is Budahism and there is a temple on every corner, state holidays etc. But they have freedom of religion, and Moslems, Christians or whatever exist peacefully knowing full well that you cannot curse Budah. That was what America was except Christianity was the official religion (but not the established religion) until the Supreme Court started legislating.

So the question is what is the difference between "professed" and established? In one you must be a Christian and pay for the support of the preachers etc. In the other it is almost in name only as there is no compulsion.

[Dr Strangelove]

To the founding fathers the establishment of a religion probably meant a reversion to the status quo prior to the revolution. In the colony of Virginia one could be either of three things: an Anglican, a Jew or a Quaker. Only Jews and Quakers were excused from weekly worship at the Anglican church of their choice. In theory (according to the royal goverment) the Anglican church was supposed to be all inclusive, except for Jews and Quakers. In theory you could call yourself a Catholic, Puritan, Methodist or whatever and that was OK, so long as you showed up at the local Anglican church every Sunday. This state of affairs obviously didn't sit well with serious Catholics, Puritans and whatever.

During the revolution Virginia wrote a new state constitution, which included a "Bill of Rights" which were essentially the model for the group of amendments known by the same name later added to the US Constitution. In Virginia the concept of freedom of religion originally meant freedom to attend the church of your choice. Church attendence was still compulsory, but Catholics, Methodists and etc. didn't have to attend the Anglican church.

In the 1790s Patrick Henry proposed a law to establish a state church supported by a tithe. Non-state churches would still be permitted, and would even be eligible for funds, but in areas without a church the state would build one of its own. Thomas Jefferson opposed the idea. The law passed, but as a compromise was unfunded. After the adoption of the US Constitution the law was eventually repealed.

My long-winded point is that even though some of them were deists the founding fathers generally abhored atheism and could not imagine not having a religion. When they wrote about forbidding the establishment of a religion they meant just that and only that. They never meant for the law of the land to mandate gagging people who had a religion, nor to expunge every last referrence to any idea that remotely sounded religious from public life.

[Guynemer]

Still, no one has responded to the Eisenhower quote, which pretty much seals the deal as to the meaning of "under God" in the Pledge.

Come on guys, where are your cojones?

[Guynemer]

Nothing? Okay, then maybe you can answer this question...

Who's your rhetorical daddy?

[mindseye]

Still, no one has responded to the Eisenhower quote, which pretty much seals the deal as to the meaning of "under God" in the Pledge.

Guy, can you please re-quote it? I cannot find it in this l-o-o-n-g thread.

[Guynemer]

Here ya go, Mindseye... it was several posts down the line from Lincoln's cartoon. (DD has already answered the post-quote request, and I thank him for that. The quote itself, however, has been ignored...)

Originally posted by Guynemer
I ran across an interesting quote today, from Eisenhower on the inclusion of "under God" into the Pledge. I'm just itching to find out what the pro-Pledge folks think of it. Here's what he said:

"...millions of our school children will daily proclaim... the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

Hopefully, DinoDoc, the Detroit Free Press qualifies as a "credible paper" in your view: http://www.freep.com/news/metro/dicker28_20020628.htm

I'm still interested in hearing whether you think the phrase belongs in the Pledge, regardless of its constitutionality.

[Lincoln]

Okay I answered you summons. What is the question exactly?

[Guynemer]

First of all, thanks.

Eisenhower's quote demonstrates that "under God" is specifically religious in intent, to instill Abrahamic faith in American children.

Do you think that is the government's place? Do you think that is constitutional?

[Lincoln]

The rights we enjoy are not granted by the government. They are natural rights "endowed by the creator." It is constitutional to insert the phrase "under God" in the pledge because it is not mandatory (and therefore not a part of an established religion) and because the constitution does not specifically prohibit the utterance of oaths and references to God. All rights not granted to the government belong to the people and the states. President Eisenhower can just as easily change the pledge as George Bush can proclaim (along with Abraham Lincoln) a national day of prayer.

If the prayer or the pledge is not mandatory (and a SC decision in 194? makes that distinction) then it is simply a national tradition that is not restricted by the constitution. It is not unconstitutional to make references to God. What is illegal is to mandate a religion.