Pledge: Religious Prayer or Political Philosophy

The Supreme Court takes up the Pledge of Allegiance and those two words: "Under God". We'll hear the fresh debate.

Erwin Chemerinsky, professor at the University of Southern California Law Center and chief advisor to Michael Newdow

The link has streaming audio of a 48 minute program broadcast on the night following the pledge argument. I think it is worth the listen (not just because I am a guest) because of the breathlessly admiring way in which "reporters" talk about Herr Doktor Newdow's argument, and because First Amendment Professor Chemerinsky makes it clear that once "under God" is barred from the official version recited in classrooms, then the next step will be to prosecute students who verbalize the phrase when they are compelled to say the denuded pledge.

Newdow was never about the right not to say "under God." He was always about silencing others.

I think this "pledge" case provides a dilemma for the USSC. I don't know if they realize it or not though.

Here's the problem... Many (overwhelmingly-most) good citizens respect our laws and our justice system. To lose respect for the USSC, is to lose respect for the justice system in general, and entirely too many good people will consider a negative ruling against the pledge to indicate that the USSC is wacko and out of touch with our nation.

Few enough people believe in the rule of law in this country, and if you turn those people off, you may have lost it all.

Why should I respect the rule of law on a trivial issue like driving my car too fast, when I consider the justice system totally wrong on important issues?

Here's the problem... Many (overwhelmingly-most) good citizens respect our laws and our justice system. To lose respect for the USSC, is to lose respect for the justice system in general, and entirely too many good people will consider a negative ruling against the pledge to indicate that the USSC is wacko and out of touch with our nation.

Not if they rule according to consistent precedent, and vacate the 1954 law that changed the Pledge under the Lemon rules defining actions that violate Establishment.

If they leave the Pledge be but rule that public schools can't recite it, then there's a problem. Unless of course Congress does the wise thing and changes the Pledge back to where it was.

-Eric

"Not if they rule according to consistent precedent, and vacate the 1954 law that changed the Pledge under the Lemon rules defining actions that violate Establishment."

I would argue that the added words "Under GOD", although supported by legislation, were added because people liked it, not because the law compelled it.

More than two generations have learned it that way, and it's not going to change in your lifetime. It is not currently illegal to say the pledge of allegiance the old way, it's just that nobody wants to.

vacate the 1954 law that changed the Pledge

The socialist subverts society - subverts freedom - by equating "society" with government. Even though we have freedom, we are not free to do anything; even though we are required to do some things - e.g., pay taxes - we are not required to do everything which is not illegal.
Freedom is the difference between what is mandatory and what is illegal; in a perfect tyranny that difference would be zero. Which would be another way of saying that there would be no difference between "society" and government.
If there is a difference between society and government it must mean that there is an authority above the government. And expressing allegiance to the government "under God" is expressing allegiance to the premise that government may not presume to be all of society.
There is no difference between that logic and the logic which drove the signers of the Declaration of Independence to appeal to "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" and other transcendent references. You cannot rationalize rights not granted by government without appeal to authority other than government.
The Soviets had a constitution which purported to be better than the U.S. Constitution. But the Soviets also had no respect for any authority above the state, so their "wonderful" constitution was not worth the paper it was written on. And it was to express that fundamental difference between the Soviet system as it actually functioned and the U.S. system that the Eisenhower Administration advocated the change which you denigrate.

If there is a difference between society and government it must mean that there is an authority above the government. And expressing allegiance to the government "under God" is expressing allegiance to the premise that government may not presume to be all of society.

The problem with adding "under God" to a patriotic affirmation is it affirms a belief in a single Deity and the premise that the Nation is subordinate to that Deity. Neither sentiment exists in the Constitution or anywhere in US law. It is a religious statement that has no place in an affirmation of loyalty to a nation that promises and protects complete religious liberty.

Your point is that the government may not claim authority over all things. I'd agree of course, but this statement does not make that point. A totalitarian Islamic regime, for example, could also claim to be "under God".

-Eric

Eric,

The point of inserting the phrase was not to establish a key point of difference between the US and the USSR but to HIGHLIGHT that difference.

You say that our Constitution omits reference to deity. I agree that there are no patent references to deity. And that could answer the question.

But our Declaration of Independence, the organic document by which the Nation was founded explicitly references Deity, just one, and makes that Deity the source of fundamental rights of life, liberty and property.

Now some will say, yes, and that was the Declaration of Independence and we live now under a Constitution.

To that I respond, and before that we lived under Articles of Confederation.

Meaning that, in fact, "we" have lived under one form of government or another since "we" established ourselves as a free and equal nation among the peoples of the earth in response to uncounted injustices that were unredressed by the Crown. "We," the people of the Nation borne of the Declaration, have chosed a framework for our governance according to the Constitution, but that tells us our "shape" not our "identity;" our identity as a free and independent nation derives from our proclamation of that independence in the declaration.

And, by the way, to this day, the Supreme Court of the United States adheres to the view (if imperfectly executed) that the meaning of the Constitution is derived by examining it through the lens of the Declaration.

So, by adopting "under God" Congress HIGHLIGHTED a key point of difference of the political philosophy that gave birth to this Nation.

In America, under our constitution, an attack demoting God as "THE" authority is an attack on the constitution itself..

ALL our rights are given by God (in the constitution). Demote God, you make rights-->> privileges granted by government. So demoting God (legally) destroys the foundation of any rights and demotes them to privileges, also.

Which is the main intent of the flap over, God in this or that, prayer, etc.. Its an attack on the American Constitution itself.. by Lawyers... Thats where the battle is and should be stated exactly that way.. NO GOD, NO Constitution. Actually God should be invoked MORE than is done, not less.. That is if the American Constitution is worth anything.. remove the foundation and you make the rest of the words.. blah.blah.blah,blah.. Strengthen the foundation and words actually mean something..

What GOD ?... The generic one stated in the Constitution, that one.. Lawyers..LoL... you buy em books they eat the pages.. You don't have to be smart to be a lawyer, just sneaky.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.