One nation, under law? (Hillary - "...the court misinterpreted the intent of the framers...")

Washington Times ^ | 10/21/02 | Nat Henthoff

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

No court decision in years has so aroused the nation and Congress as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the phrase, "under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. And the outrage continues.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell has urged a campaign of mass civil disobedience by school officials to keep "under God" in the pledge. So has the president of the Southern Baptist Convention. And George W. Bush's reaction to the inflammatory decision is that it proves the nation's need for "common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God."

[Mr. Bird]

And, in the case that has led to Judge Goodwin being vilified across the country, the Constitution led him to decide that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance "impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. . . It's a declaration of religious belief." Constitutionally, he is indeed correct, however controversial.

I don't see how the existence of the Pledge with the phrase "under God" violates the constitution, any more than the Declaration of Independence violates the same principle. The Pledge is a declaration, and as such, carries no legal weight. One cannot be tried for treason using the language of the Pledge as the underpinning obligation.

One may decline to recite the Pledge and suffer no penalty, in any venue (including public schools). Congressional activities establishing and honoring the Pledge are not establishing a state religion, which would certainly be unconstitutional. I equate Congressional respect of the Pledge to congressional honors bestowed on the Pope, Mother Teresa, the Rev. Martin Luther King, and other formal recognitions of religious figures.

To acknowledge is not to establish.

[cpdiii]

The separation of Church and State as meant by the framers
of the constitution was in reference to a State Religion as
is the Church of England. The framers did not mean the obliteration of Religion or the mention of God. If they did
not want the name of God envoked why in the hell did they open and close the meetings of the Constitutional Convention with a prayer.

In our Declaration of Independence it refers to "rights granted by our Creator." That is not a reference to Hillary Clinton but a reference to God.

[Mr. Bird]

I agree completely.

[Tired of Taxes]

The framers did not mean the obliteration of Religion or the mention of God.

This isn't about just mentioning the word "God". Congress made a law establishing an official oath to this nation "under God". That goes much further than simply mentioning it.

[Mr. Bird]

Please see my comment above. The "oath" carries no weight, compared to that of the POTUS or even witnesses at trial, both of which invoke a non-denominational god.

I could see the concern if reciting the Pledge was a mandatory function of citizenship, but it is not. The fact that Congress "established" the Pledge (actually amending the original) does not mean it established a religion, any more than they do when the Sergeant at Arms says "God Save the United States".