[maadio]

Originally Posted by Luke

Seeing as the Pledge of Allegiance is a tradition and not codified in law anywhere, this objection doesn't make much sense.

Yes. I have restated my position in light of that fact.

[maadio]

Originally Posted by Pieter Friedrich

I don't say the pledge because I have religious (and other) objections to it, so I don't want to defend it. But...

You're saying that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion and yet you're also saying you plan to continue saying "under God" in the pledge? You intend to say that the US is "one nation, under God" despite the fact that you believe Congress should not make laws respecting the establishment of a religion? If there is no religion which is established, respected, or acknowledged by our nation then in what way is our nation under God? Or are you just going to say "under God" because you like saying it and not because there's any actual meaning to that phrase?

I'll continue to say it because I hope for it. Not that I hope for an established religion; but rather that I hope for the Lord's guidance in our country and his favour as well. It's not that the US is an officially Christian nation... it's that I would like the US to be a predominantly Christian nation.

[maadio]

Originally Posted by king

Not to be nitpicky, but which right (defined by the constitution) of non-believers, does this clause take away?

Not that it's in the constitution spoecifically, but I'd say the right to an impartial government which does not endorse any view like this outside of its own boundaries. That right may not be in the constitution, but Americans deserve it nonetheless.

[fifsuperpod37]

First of all, I think y'all are wrong about the meaning of "Under God."
Saying that our nation is under God by no means suggests that we are a perfect or godly nation. Merely that he is the highest and we are below him.

Secondly, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"
What the Framers meant here was that the Government should not establish a state church as England had and that everyone was free to practice their own religion. Acknowledgment of God by our government hardly establishes a state church. No one here has given arguments to support the notion that
having "under God" in the pledge establishes a state religion

[JerryLove]

Not that it's in the constitution spoecifically, but I'd say the right to an impartial government which does not endorse any view like this outside of its own boundaries. That right may not be in the constitution, but Americans deserve it nonetheless.

The right to worship (or not) as they see fit. Jefferson (one of the writers of the frist ammendment) talks a great deal about religion and state intermingling:
"The proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:546

Certainly any pledge with God in it is a profession or renunciation of religious opinion.

More to the point, the US government has determined that the frist ammendment does indeed prohibit state-sponsored theism, and that the 14th ammenment extends this prohibition to the states.

Saying that our nation is under God by no means suggests that we are a perfect or godly nation. Merely that he is the highest and we are below him.

By iteself a useless statement. I could say that the sky is the higest and we are below it, but of what signifigance?

What the Framers meant here was that the Government should not establish a state church as England had and that everyone was free to practice their own religion. Acknowledgment of God by our government hardly establishes a state church.

Well, having a Dianistic Wiccan (who believes in a Godess, not a God) swear an oath to a God would certainly appear to interefere with the free preactice of her religion.

More to the point, can you offer any supporting statements from the framers that this is what the ammendment means? Because a century of courts have disagreed with you.

No one here has given arguments to support the notion that
having "under God" in the pledge establishes a state religion

Nor would requiring Saturday to be a "no work" day under penalty of death be a state religion. Nor would not allowing eating during the day during ramadan. Requiring women to wear veils would not be establishing a religion, just passing a law; and if oyu have to swear "one nation, under satan"; that's not a particular religion either huh?

All that OK with you?

[fifsuperpod37]

By iteself a useless statement. I could say that the sky is the higest and we are below it, but of what signifigance?

It's not a useless sentence. It says "there is a God, and he is bigger than the U.S."

Well, having a Dianistic Wiccan (who believes in a Godess, not a God) swear an oath to a God would certainly appear to interefere with the free preactice of her religion.

Give me an instance where this occurs. In Texas, our pledge allows students to be exempt from saying the pledge for religious reasons.

More to the point, can you offer any supporting statements from the framers that this is what the ammendment means? Because a century of courts have disagreed with you.

Read your History book. A significant reason people initially came to this country was that they wished to worship in different ways than the Anglican church allowed. This freedom was something the founding fathers wanted to preserve about the colonies. Furthermore, there was a century when most of the country's government believed slavery was an acceptable practice. The courts are wrong.

Nor would requiring Saturday to be a "no work" day under penalty of death be a state religion. Nor would not allowing eating during the day during ramadan. Requiring women to wear veils would not be establishing a religion, just passing a law; and if oyu have to swear "one nation, under satan"; that's not a particular religion either huh?

All of these are instances of people being forced to participate. The government can acknowledge the existence of God and allow Christians to acknowledge God in public places without forcing others to participate. Like I said, in Texas you can be exempt from the pledge. Your examples are all flawed.

[JakeW]

Is anyone required to say the pledge?

Jake

[JerryLove]

It's not a useless sentence. It says "there is a God, and he is bigger than the U.S."

By-the-way, there is a Russia and it is bigger than the U.S.... There is also an antarctica, which is bigger than the US.

Give me an instance where this occurs. In Texas, our pledge allows students to be exempt from saying the pledge for religious reasons.

They shouldn't have to get an exemption while the government leads those around them in a Judeao-Christian prayer. But to anwer your question, we can start with millitaryt personell and people seeking citizenship.

Read your History book. A significant reason people initially came to this country was that they wished to worship in different ways than the Anglican church allowed. This freedom was something the founding fathers wanted to preserve about the colonies.

Neither of these statemenst are wrong; however neither establishes what the intent and scope of the first ammendment is. The government has, however, clarified it, and it's scope prevents any governmental institution from performing any religious activities; though it does not prevent private individuals from usigin governmental facilities for such.

Furthermore, there was a century when most of the country's government believed slavery was an acceptable practice. The courts are wrong.

That's not a true statement, but even if it were, it would not be very relevent; you've presented no compelling support for your position.

All of these are instances of people being forced to participate.

Yes, that's the problem with such things.

The government can acknowledge the existence of God and allow Christians to acknowledge God in public places without forcing others to participate.

The govenment cannot promote a religion or religious belief... that is the requirement of the 1st and 14th ammendments. Christians not acting in the capacity of representitives of the government may promote and acknowledge whatever they like.

Like I said, in Texas you can be exempt from the pledge. Your examples are all flawed.

There's a axiom in game design that says "if everyone wants it, it's too good. If no one wants it, it's not good enough".

So, if we changed "under God" to "under Satan", would you still support the pledge? Would you still support your kids standing in school (opted out I'm sure) while everyone recites the pledge to Satan?

[H.M. Murdock]

Originally Posted by king

Not to be nitpicky, but which right (defined by the constitution) of non-believers, does this clause take away?

I would think it could be construed as a violation of the first Amendment, giving the image that the federal government is pushing for one religion over the other. If taken in that light, then it is indeed unconstitutional. Freedom of religion, as a promise from the government, does not apply literally to the individual. Oh, sure, they can be whatever they want, from a trigger-happy Hindu to a pacifist Muslim, if those can even exist. But the promise of freedom of religion applies to us a collective. It takes away the government's power to declare one religion, to be enforced nationally, as was the thing in England at the time, and this procedure was also held in the states under the Articles of Confederation. So you see, it can be thought of as an unconstitutional act if you take it as the government supporting Christianity over another religion, because they gave us their word that they would not do so over two hundred years ago, in the documentation of the highest law of the land.

Not that it's in the constitution spoecifically, but I'd say the right to an impartial government which does not endorse any view like this outside of its own boundaries. That right may not be in the constitution, but Americans deserve it nonetheless.

See above and first Amendment.

Originally Posted by Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.