How is the "under God" unconstitutional?

1. Jefferson, a guy who wrote about a "wall of separation of church and state," attended church in the Congressional building 3 days after writing that phrase.

3. Madison, the father of the Bill of Rights, supported, alongside with Jefferson, a bill to "punish Sabbathbreakers" while in the Virginia Legislature. Keep in mind these were two of the most liberal founding fathers.

4. The U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled the public display of the Ten Commandments is wrong, has a statue of Moses and the Commandments in its chambers.

5. It was not until the 1940's when the current radical view of the separation of church and state came about. In fact, previous rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as state supreme courts, ruled in favor of things as far as blue laws mandating the closing of stores on Sundays.

6. The Northwest Ordinance, which was needed to become a new territory since I think 1787, required that schools support religion and morality.

In the Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress, the Kentucky Resolution includes this little interesting portion:

"3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution,that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares that "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": thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violates either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion,are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force."

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the States."

"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."

"The successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment OF A PARTICULAR FORM OF CHRISTIANITY THRO' THE U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form is the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they believe that any portion of power confided in me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly."

(notice that this one indicates a view of the Establishment clause that is of a modern conservative, that it strictly refers to a legal establishment of a faith).

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Fran just ruled that the Pledge of
Allegience is unconstitutional because it has the word "God" in it.

Now, to clear up any confusion, there is no law "separating the church and
state". There is a law however saying "Congress shall make no law
respecitng any established religion".

God is used by 3 of the 4 major religions that come to mind. Jews,
Christians and Muslims. Muslims call God, Allah which means God in arab so
it really is no different. There is no specific preference to any certain
religion and the Pledge of Allegience is not requiered by law to be uttered
but is optional. You may even omit parts at which you do not agree with.
I choose "for Liberty and Justice for all" for reasons I would rather not
go into. Maybe another time.

This is an outright attack on the very foundation our nation stands upon.
The Supreme Court begins each session with "God save the United States and
this honorable court", our money has "In God we trust", Ohio's state motto
is "With God, all things are possible". All these are time tested (but
have been previously attacked) proving we submit our nation to a greater
power more than ourselves. It doesnt matter if its Budda or Zues, God is
undetermined regarding which religion it speaks of if any. It shows how
intolerant militant Atheists can be when they hear the word "God" in the
meaning of something greater than themselves.

The purpose of my email is to prove that elected officials who classify
themselves as Democrats with liberal ideology have assigned these judges in
the 9th Circuit Ct of Appeals. What we need is judges who will stand up
for our Constitution, not legislate from the bench striking down laws that
doesn't fit their agenda.

Currently Tom Daschle, Majority leader of the Senate, is holding up George
Bush's nominations to vacant appeals court positions around the nation due
to a litmus test simply because they are conservative. The job Tom Daschle
and Patrick Leahy (Judiciary Committee Chairman) is supposed to be doing
is advising and consenting on whether or not the nominated qualifies to be
a judge. If so, he will be sent to the Senate floor for a vote for
approval. Each and every nomination Bush sends to the commitee, Daschle
and his colleagues find ways to obstruct the nomination from even going to
a floor vote based on ideology that isnt part of a judge decision making
(they make decisions on the interpretation of law).

An example is Judge Charles Pickering from Mississippi. He was endorsed by
the American Bar Assoc. and numerous republican and democrats alike across
the country. Tom Daschle and his fellow Democrat friend Patrick Leahy
accused Pickering of being a racist and not fit for the position. Some
background on Pickering, and something that stands out like a sore thumb,
was that he defended and supported the civil rights of African-Americans
during the 50's and 60's. He was a lawyer for many racist cases and proved
to be a friend of the rights movement. Since Pickering is a proclaimed
conservative and believes in smaller govt, Daschle and Leahy has turned the
nomination into a virtual witch hunt. Disregarding truth for ideology.
Same goes for others nominations Bush has sent through.

What I need is for you to just send this to everyone you know who might not
be interested in politics but is very much interested in keeping America
from sliding down into religious persecution, bench legislation and an all
around moral downward spiral our nations founders wouldnt recognize (as if
they do now).

Please look at the sentor who represents you, make sure he/she fits your
way of thinking, if he doesn't, it is your duty, our forefathers fought so
hard to grant us, to place those who will respect the Constitution as a
standard to how our nation is run, not a societal meter to how outdated it
is.

Thank you,
Smith288

I don't think the pledge is unconstitutional.

But I'll get it a shot of what the other side is thinking.

1. That was then, this is now.
2. Revisionist history omits all the history mentioned in the post. Or the old excuse, these white European males had slaves back then and women were not allowed to vote and that was wrong. So they must be wrong about mentioning God and we must be tolerant.
3. No desire to be accountable to any Supreme Being, other than themselves. (Doing what is right in their own eyes.)
4. Above everything, we must be tolerant.

Side note: I recall saying the pledge every day as a child. There were some kids of particular religious beliefs, which it was forbidden to say the pledge. (JWs) They stepped out in hall as we said it, so it wasn't mandatory. I wasn't aware that any suffered harrassment for not saying the pledge.

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.