Replies

The notion on the table for debate is does the word "God" in the Pledge establish a religion.

But that is not the question that matters. The question is one of intent - does a state-mandated, state-run institution requiring a pledge which includes the phrase 'under God' constitute a violation of the principle expressed by the phrase 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' IOW, does it respect an establishment of religion, and, if it does, does it fall under the jurisdiction of that phrase?

In both instances, the answer is 'yes', unless you want to play Monty Python, and wink & nod, wink & nod, say no more, eh? as long as it fits with your own personal philosophy/belief system.

Again, this would all be a moot point if we managed to completely divorce the state (euphemism for fed-gov) from any involvement in education.

Btw, I will commend you for your views on the hypothetical prayer, and for recognizing that, at its most fundamental (carefule with that word, there), the concept of 'god' encompasses all the various names by which people have come to describe it.

The question is one of intent - does a state-mandated, state-run institution requiring a pledge which includes the phrase 'under God' constitute a violation of the principle expressed by the phrase 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' IOW, does it respect an establishment of religion, and, if it does, does it fall under the jurisdiction of that phrase?

Apparently you are not familiar with the Barnette decision of the Supreme Court in 1943.

You are way off base. First you need an English lesson because it is very on point. The First Major Clause of the First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

There are two minor clauses here and as an English teacher will tell you cannot use a minor clause on its own because it will change the intended meaning.

Let's keep the argument clear. You must consider the whole major clause or you are taking it out of context. The Courts have done this repeatedly and are therefore Unconstitutional in their rulings. The Judiciary does not have the right to make law only the Congress and state legislatures do. The ninth circuit is out of line because this case is outside their jurisdiction. The 10th Amendment states that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the PEOPLE! The ruling is out of line because they are trying to rule on a Community Practice which is outside their scope per the 10th Amendment

Ravenstar

But that is not the question that matters.

Yes it is. But okay, I'll play.

No, because the state-mandated, state-run institution is NOT CONGRESS. Now, what do I win?

IOW, does it respect an establishment of religion, and, if it does, does it fall under the jurisdiction of that phrase?

Wow. Talk about twisting the meaning of a word. It's clear as a bell that "respecting" in that sentence is interchangeable with "concerning" or "regarding", not "showing respect to". Sheesh, laws can't "respect".

(I suppose you think "disrespect" is a verb, too)