Pledge of Allegiance ruled "unconstitutional"

[stlscouter]

That's OK Ed- I have come to expect nothing less from Merlyn.

 

I also expect to see Merlyn's posts after the removal of ..One nation under GOD.. to take up the cry to change the names of the days of the week, months of the year and AD from common usage. Although BCE does have reference to eras of other religious trends and precipital events. Come to think of it, so do all of the other calendars in use today.

 

My post refered to The Mayflower Compact, The Articles of Confederation in addition to the Declaration of Independence. If they are not familiar to you, as American History documents perhaps you should google them and we can continue....After all it is the year of the Rooster and You should strut.(This message has been edited by stlscouter)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

stlscouter writes:

My post refered to The Mayflower Compact, The Articles of Confederation in addition to the Declaration of Independence. If they are not familiar to you, as American History documents perhaps you should google them and we can continue....

 

Continue WHAT? You haven't made any sort of argument or point. That's what I told Ed.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Interestingly, Ed, there are 4 circuit courts that had a 100% reversal rate in the last session, easily beating out the 9th circuits measly 75%

[Hunt]

Umm...the Mayflower Compact doesn't say anything about freedom of religion. The Puritans who founded the Massachusetts colony didn't believe in religious freedom--they expelled dissenters. Also, the Articles of Confederation don't say anything about it--they don't include a Bill of Rights. Nor does the Declaration of Independence say anything about it.

[Torveaux]

I think the question is not whether 'freedom of religion' is mentioned in those documents. Rather, it is whether those documents acknowledge the existence of a higher power.

 

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution was never intended to prohibit such government acknowlegement of a higher power. It was intended to prevent the "Establishment" of a government religion. The purpose was derived from the direct experience in Europe where governments tried to mandate adherence to a specific set of beliefs and practices.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Torveaux writes:

The purpose was derived from the direct experience in Europe where governments tried to mandate adherence to a specific set of beliefs and practices.

 

When did monotheism stop being a specific belief? Some religions (like, oh, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) consider monotheism an important part of their creed. The Nicene creed starts "We believe in one God...", so the council of Nicea certainly thought it needed to be mentioned. "Under god" doesn't just conflict with atheism, it conflicts with polytheism. It's promoting a specific religious belief.

 

It doesn't matter if a number of religions subscribe to it; more than one religion says eating pork is prohibited by god, but that doesn't somehow make it a nonreligious belief.

[evmori]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution was never intended to prohibit such government acknowledgment of a higher power. It was intended to prevent the "Establishment" of a government religion. The purpose was derived from the direct experience in Europe where governments tried to mandate adherence to a specific set of beliefs and practices.

 

Exactly! It has nothing to do with monotheism. The purpose was so government couldn't dictate a specific religion. And the words "under God" don't dictate a specific religion or establish a specific religion.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

There has been difference of opinion about the reach of the Establishment Clause from the beginning. For example, President Jefferson declined to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving because he thought it violated the clause. (Washington and Adams had proclaimed such days.) When you look at the history of the Bill of Rights, reasonable minds can disagree about what the framers really had in mind.

But I think it's pretty clear that if the Supreme Court were to honestly apply the establishment clause tests that have been developed and refined over two centuries, it would find that it violates the clause for governments to require the recitation of the Pledge with "under God" in it, even if no student is individually required to recite it. As I posted before, when the Court actually gets the case, however, it is likely either to punt again, or to rely on the strained argument that "under God" is essentially meaningless "ceremonial Deism." It will not, however, say that it is OK for the state to promote belief in God, which is what supporters of "under God" really want. That's why I think the whole thing is really a waste of time, and can't produce a real win for either side.

[stlscouter]

Hunt-the first four words of the Mayflower Compact and the date signed -clear indicators for me that they believed in a much higher power than themselves.

 

Article three of the Articles of Confereration specifically mentions the freedom of religion

 

 

[packsaddle]

Hunt, good point. I agree. This may be merely a distraction while the important questions remain unresolved.

[johndaigler]

??????????????? In the name of ?????????????

[johndaigler]

Figuring out the "intent" and modernday meaning of the Consititution is complicated enough - now we're gonna try to figure out which historical documents the founding fathers considered as they deliberated, and just how much of each one has value????

 

We have an odd sense of entertainment . . .

 

stlscouter - your resource list is interesting but far from definitive and shouldn't be used this way. If you are going to talk about the Mayflower Compact and it's value to the Constituional Convention, you are much better served in noting the differences between it and the Constitution. They have very little structural or philosophical similarities of purpose or intent.

 

jd

[bt01]

The 9th Circuit Court should be ruled as "unconstitutional" and California should be mad into a territory.

[Trevorum]

The observaton of the link between religion and calendars got me to thinking ... Is there any legal requirement in the United States to use the Gregorian calendar ?

 

For example, could a devout Muslim who objects to using a Christian calendar, write a check using a Hegira date (eg. 1426) or can an observant Jew use the Hebrew date (eg., 5765)? For that matter, could someone use an Anno Urbis date (MMDCCLVIII)?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Here's an article written by a conservative atheist on why it should be removed:

 

The Pledge Is Not For Our Children

 

http://www.americandaily.com/article/9369

 

It's too long to quote, but here's the conclusion:

 

If conservatives were genuine supporters of parental rights to control the rearing of ones children, they wouldn't be demanding that my child sit and listen to the government tell her that her father and mother are wrong about their most deeply-held beliefs.