Replies

You seem to make several times what I would consider the illogical conclusion that because a law is passed by the majority of the population or a particular belief is supported by the majority of the population, that that inherently trumps a legal interpretation of the Constitution.

I consider this to be at the very least a dubious assertion. Just because a law enjoys majority support doesn't make it inherently Constitutional. Badly written law is still badly written law whether 5% of the country supports it or 95% of the country supports it. Extrapolating from your argument one must conclude that Brown vs. Board Of Education was a mistake and Plessy vs. Fergeson should never have been overturned.

In this case from what I've read of the decision, I think the 9th Circuit is factually accurate in its reasoning, particularly if you take into account what Eisenhower said when he signed it.

Would you consider it a breach of the Establishment Clause if the Pledge used "under Allah" instead of "under God"? Seriously. If the answer is yes then you have to explain to me the difference between the two.

Anyone who complains that this decision only strengthens the hand of the Christianity haters or advances their cause needs to stop and think about that concept for a minute because they have just legitimized the 9th Circuit's argument that the Pledge in its current form is not religion neutral.

That said, I have to say that I am not in favor of this decision. Though I do believe the outcome to be correct, in all honesty this case wasn't worth the effort put into it. Getting that nit picky over the Establishment Clause is overkill in my book. The only thing it will do is get a bunch of people riled for no good reason. We all know the Supreme Court will reverse the decision.

I'm more or less agnostic but I have no problem with the Plegde in its current form. But it does violate the Establishment Clause. But I consider it to be a "harmless violation". No harm, no foul.

Emotion aside. Look at the logic. I am assuming that you are familiar with the Six-Signa analysis. What this means is that everything can be broken down into a bell shaped curve. Ages, occupation, religion, actions, behavior, everything. Sigma refers to the degree of inclusion of the entities.

One sigma would cut off the extreme top and bottom sides of the bell curve. A One sigma analysis states (kinda like) the 80/20 rules. 80% of the population is included in the middle, but the top and bottom 10% deviate from the norm to such a degree that they are excluded from the majority.

A two-sigma is tighter and has a smaller percentage at the extremes, and a six-sigma is over 95% inclusive. This kind of analysis is useful in factories where it is costly and impossible to include every person in the object.

Any one who has studied Calculus understands that an inversely exponential calculation will never reach zero. It would approach it, but it would never reach it.

The argument against the term "God" in the Pledge is based on the flawed belief that the Constitution is infinity-sigma. That is is completely incluse of evry one and every aspect. The truth is that no matter what form the Pledge takes there will be someone who will be offended.

The best way that I can explain this is that in a DEMOCRACY, the ONLY way that everyone would agree would be to have a situation whereas there are no freedoms. For where does democracy stop infringing on ones freedoms? That is the issue at stake. I'll repeat it again. Where does democracy (The rule of the majority) stop infringing on individual freedoms?

The pledge doe's not violate the establishment clause which specifically was included to avoid a Church of England or official religion situation. The problems in Northern Ireland are proof of the problems caused by an official, state sponsored state controlled religion which by definition would not be a religion but a corporation. All you separation nuts never fail to omit the other part of the wording forbidding the govt. from preventing the free exercise of religion. Unless you are told by the govt. under threat of force that you must worship in a certain state approved way it is not an establishment situation but the exercise of free choice.