PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, AND AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION

June 28, 2002 | The Hajman

[Hajman]

In response to a good many threads (and some rather large ones) on the subject of the matter of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court's ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconsitutional; or more specifically, for those I've noticed who've taken to debate the intentions of the phrase "under God", and the meaning of the relavant section of the First Amendment's clause that states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..., I offer this thread as a central point of discussion relating to this subject (if a simular thread doesn't already exist). It might not be exactly a reference of impressive size, but I'm hoping to get just that, started.

To start with, a few relavent references:

First Amendment [U.S. Constitution]

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

First Admendment Cyber-Tribune

• The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation wrote to President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801.
  
  Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.
  
  Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
  
  Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
  
  And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
  
  Signed in behalf of the Association.
  
  Nehh Dodge
  Ephram Robbins The Committee
  Stephen S. Nelson
  
  Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the Congretationalist establishment in that state.
  
  On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
  
  Gentlemen:
  
  The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
  
  Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
  
  I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
  
  Thomas Jefferson

Establishment of Religion [General]

• On school, law and religious acts [First Admendment Cyber-Tribune - An overall view of religious liberty as defined by U.S. Supreme Court cases]
• On case law and interpretation [FindLaw - U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

[Hajman]

All: I would appriciate civility and good arguments (with case-law, ect, to back them up) on this thread. Thank you.

To moderators and Jim/John Robinson: This is my first posting in this format. If I posted incorrectly, please let me know and correct.

-The Hajman-

[borntodiefree]

I would agree that the "under God" is a red herring. God in the context of the "Pledge of Allegience" only references to something greater than ourselves which when people get down to the bottom line, all people will admit that something whether it be the Christian God, Hindu God, Muslim God, evolution, universal intertwining, all the new age mumbo jumbo, etc... that there is something greater than the individual.

If the children are forced to say the pledge, then they would be wrong, but that was not the case.

[borntodiefree]

You've brought up an interesting point, is referencing "under God" an establishment of any particular religion? It is clear it references at least religion exists in the fact that there is "something" greater than the individual that the People of the United States is under the control of.

By the way, I am a servant of Jesus the Christ (a Christian), and I agree the government in its official capacity should not condone any particular religion. I do not believe that is what the pledge does, it only recognizes that something greater exists, and to me is just wasted words, but does not violate the first ammendment.

[EaglesUpForever]

that there is something greater than the individual.

Yes, and also greater than the state. Referencing a higher power than individuals or governments is a long-established tradition in this country, going back to 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. However, when the "under God" phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950s, it was added in the context of the Cold War. The Soviet "religion of the state" was not just a threat in terms of military confrontation, the Soviet ideology was a disease that the addition of that phrase countered.

[Hajman]

If the children are forced to say the pledge, then they would be wrong, but that was not the case.

You'll get no argument out of me on this point. However, it would seem that some freepers think that even if the children said the pledge without being forced to, if the teacher leads them, then it's a case of "establishing" a religion, or at least endorsing such. Personally, I don't agree with that line of thinking. What say you?

-The Hajman-

[borntodiefree]

At this point, I have to err (lean) to one side or the other. If I am to err, I will always err to the side of the right of the individual. Using only logical thinking trying to eliminate any emotion, I would say that a teacher has a level of authority which equals force over the child. The child is sent to this institution to learn reading, writing, and arithmatic, civics (not citizenship), etc... I therefore must fall that by the teacher coercion the child would be led to say the pledge by the leadership of the teacher possibly in violation of the parents wishes.

Just saying it makes me a little uneasy, but I would have to (vomit) side with the side of these liberals on the single issue "under God" when with the children. This is not the case with adults, but we are not talking about adults.

[Kerberos]

"which when people get down to the bottom line, all people will admit that something whether it be the Christian God, Hindu God, Muslim God, evolution, universal intertwining, all the new age mumbo jumbo, etc... that there is something greater than the individual."

And interesting thing that I have notice since these Pledge threads started running, and passions ran pretty high on most of them, is the polls I have looked at around the net.

There seems to be a lot of talk about how the liberals are godless, and if you made a hint that you might agree with the courts decision, you were automatically labeled an atheist.

Put the polls I have been seeing, on both conservative sites, and liberal sites, the overwhelming majority have been running against the ruling. The widest spread so far has been 4 to 1 against the ruling, and the closest one has been 9 to 1 against it. So if you look at the fact that the country is pretty evenly divided at about 50 % liberals and 50% conservatives, the issue seems to be more as to not weather people believe in a God, but I think more likely, just what that conception of God is.

And this thing has caused me to deeply think about some of my positions concerning such matters. So in the end this may not be such a bad thing in that I think it is somewhat galvanizing the country to take a hard look at who we are as a people.

Sometimes out of bad things can come positive results.

[Eagle Eye]

Under God or not, ANY forced loyalty oath is wrong.

"Under God" is not a Conrgessional law establishing AN establishment of religion.

Now that htis is settled, let's discuss something of real importance: The Bronco's Superbowl chances.

[rwfromkansas]

Nobody should be forced to say the Pledge, as that falls under the freedom of both speech and free exercise of religion.

However, the establishment clause is just that..no official religion. That is a VERY narrow meaning and every single thing that the court has ruled is that since the 1940's isn't.

[Hajman]

I therefore must fall that by the teacher coercion the child would be led to say the pledge by the leadership of the teacher possibly in violation of the parents wishes.

What do you think would be against the parents wishes that the children not say something such as the Pledge of Allegiance?

-The Hajman-

[The Mayor]

Bump for later read, I love this stuff

[LiteKeeper]

Dittoes

[borntodiefree]

Though I don't have a problem with the portion, "under God" they may object to it.

[ReadMyMind]

From: http://www.usconstitution.net/ pledge.html

The Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge of Allegiance was first published for Columbus Day, on September 8, 1892, in the Boston magazine The Youth's Companion. It was written by a member of the magazine's staff, Francis Bellamy. The publication of the Pledge, and its wide redistribution to schools in pamphlet form later that year lead to a recitation by millions of school children, starting a tradition that continues today.

The original text is: "I pledge of allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands - One nation indivisible - with liberty and justice for all."

Several minor changes to the text, including changing "my flag" to "to the Flag of the United States of America," were made over time, some "official" and some less so.

The U.S. Congress recognized the Pledge officially in 1942, and in 1954 added the phrase "under God" to the text. In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled in its Gobitis (310 US 586) decision that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge as a part of their school day routine.

Today, the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance is set in the US Code, at 36 USC 172. The text of that section is below.

If you would like more information on the U.S. flag, I suggest that you visit USFlag.org, an excellent site with lots of resources concerning the flag and its evolution.

---

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.", should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

Emphasis added

---

My opinions:

1. We don't need "Under God" in the pledge. The original is satisfactory.

2. We don't need an involuntary pledge of anything. It smacks of authoritarian brainwashing techniques. The benefits and value of freedom and liberty are self-evident.

3. This is not a big deal. I said the pledge when I was in elementary school and it did not in any way that I can perceive either scar me or make me more patriotic.

[Hajman]

Though I don't have a problem with the portion, "under God" they may object to it.

I never understood why they would, myself. It would seem to me, that if they believed in God (in general), then they wouldn't have much trouble with it (because it is general). However, if they didn't care, or believed in no god, then they're problem with "under God" seems to be akin to singing "Frosty the Snowman" at Christmas. Why would one have a problem with something one doesn't believe exists?

-The Hajman-

[borntodiefree]

Well, you bring up an excellent point, I do not allow my kids to sing "Frosty the Snow Man" or "Rudolph", or other secular so called Christian songs.

They know they exist, and they appreciate and understand that the reason we don't sing them is that Christmas is to be centered on Jesus birth, life, and death, and that these other "things" take our focus off of what Christmas is all about.

I also homeschool, but if I were to send my kids to school, I believe I would preemptivly send a letter to the school saying that those things were inappropriate for my children.

[Hajman]

We don't need "Under God" in the pledge. The original is satisfactory.

Yes, I agree that the original is satisfactory. However, one could say that no pledge is also satisfactory, and that the current version is the same. A better question would be: Why is the current version less satisfactory then the original?

We don't need an involuntary pledge of anything. It smacks of authoritarian brainwashing techniques. The benefits and value of freedom and liberty are self-evident.

When it comes to this, I would agree (noting that this is different then pledging against America). However, this isn't the issue here. The pledge isn't involuntary.

This is not a big deal. I said the pledge when I was in elementary school and it did not in any way that I can perceive either scar me or make me more patriotic.

It was a big deal to me, personally. However, opinion aside, the ruling that claimed it was unconstitutional is a big deal in itself.

-The Hajman-

[Hajman]

Well, you bring up an excellent point, I do not allow my kids to sing "Frosty the Snow Man" or "Rudolph", or other secular so called Christian songs.

I understand that. However, your reason is based on a belief (in this case, religious) that you have. You have a reason not to. What reason not to do those have that would have a problem with "under God"?

-The Hajman-

[borntodiefree]

Well, just as I have the right to believe in Jesus, they have a right to not believe in any "God" and to teach their children the same. Therefore, they could object to their child saying and learning by repitition "under God" which violates their belief their child should not believe in "God" (no matter how sick I think it is :) )

[Hajman]

Well, just as I have the right to believe in Jesus, they have a right to not believe in any "God" and to teach their children the same. Therefore, they could object to their child saying and learning by repitition "under God" which violates their belief their child should not believe in "God" (no matter how sick I think it is :) )

Perhaps.. I could see where your point would be valid. I'll conceed to that point.

-The Hajman-