[Civil Disobedience Now!] JUDGES WHO BANNED THE PLEDGE MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH

Catholic League ^ | 2-28-2003 | William Donohue

[E Rocc]

The Lord is mentioned in the Constitution, you are simply unaware of that indisputable fact.

I assume you mean the date. That's really grasping at straws. It was the common dating convention of the era. When the federal government uses day names such as Monday or Friday, is it endorsing the pagan faiths those names came from? The Quakers began using numbers to avoid those names, this could have been adopted by the government as well.

If these precise men had wanted to endorse God or Christianity in the Constitution certainly they wouldn't have done so merely in the date.

-Eric

[jwalsh07]

You made a declarative statement, you were wrong. Admit it.

The same men affixed their signatures to the DOI. Every single one of them affirming that rights are granted by the creator.

Would you like to amend the DOI to read:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their State with certain alienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, maybe.

And if not, why not? For historical purposes won't get it. Historically prayer was said in public schools for the first 200 years.

[jwalsh07]

Here's the bad news for your side:

Supreme Court Statements About the Pledge of Allegiance

---

Controversy surrounds the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision holding that the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation under God" violates the Establishment Clause. It is most instructive to read, however, what various Supreme Court Justices have said regarding the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Although the Court has not directly ruled on the issue presented to the Ninth Circuit, many Members of the Court have indicated in past decisions that the Pledge of Allegiance poses no Establishment Clause problem. Following is a compilation of statements made by various Supreme Court Justices since the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

---

A. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

In Engel, the Court struck down New York State's law requiring school officials to open the school day with prayer. Significantly, the Court distinguished New York's policy from a requirement that school children participate in patriotic expressions of religious faith. Although the Court ruled that "government . . . should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves," the Court explained,

There is of course nothing in the decision reached here that is inconsistent with the fact that school children and others are officially encouraged to express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer's professions of faith in a Supreme Being, or with the fact that there are many manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance.

Id. at 435 n.21.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Potter Stewart cited the many examples of how the government has consistently recognized the "deeply entrenched and highly cherished spiritual traditions of our nation." Id. at 450 (Stewart, dissenting). Specifically, he referred to the following: 1) The Supreme Court's practice of opening its sessions with the phrase, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court;" 2) the legislative branches' practice of opening their sessions with prayer; and 3) Presidential appeals (from George Washington to Dwight Eisenhower) to God for protection and help. Id. at 446-49 n.3. Justice Stewart also referred to the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance as examples of governmental recognition that "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Id. (quoting Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952)).


Although he concurred with the result in Engel, Justice Douglas nevertheless agreed with Justice Stewart that the New York prayer practices were akin to other governmental actions that recognized of our nation's religious heritage, including the Pledge of Allegiance.

What New York does on the opening of its public schools is what we do when we open court. Our Crier has from the beginning announced the convening of the Court and then added "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." That utterance is a supplication, a prayer in which we, the judges, are free to join, but which we need not recite any more than the students need recite the New York prayer. What New York does on the opening of its public schools is what each House of Congress does at the opening of each day's business.

Id. at 439-40 & n.5 (pointing out that the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge was another example of this nation's recognition of a Supreme Being).


B. Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Just one year later, in Abington, in which the Court held unconstitutional government mandated Bible reading in public schools, Justice Goldberg again distinguished the challenged practice from patriotic expressions of faith. Citing Engel, Justice Goldberg stated that its decision in Abington did not mean that "all incidents of government which import of the religious" would be "banned by the strictures of the Establishment Clause." Id. at 307.

The First Amendment does not prohibit practices, which by any realistic measure, create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercises or in the favoring of religion as to have meaningful and practical impact. It is of course true that great consequences can grow from small beginnings, but the measure of constitutional adjudication is the ability and willingness to distinguish between real threat and mere shadow.

Id. at 308 (Goldberg J., concurring).

Justice Brennan also distinguished between religious practices, such as prayer and Bible reading, and patriotic exercises with religious references. He thought that such exercises, including the Pledge of Allegiance, did not violate the Establishment Clause because they had lost any religious significance through repetitive usage. Id. at 303 (Brennan, J., concurring).

This general principle might also serve to insulate the various patriotic exercises and activities used in the public schools and elsewhere which, whatever may have been their origins, no longer have a religious purpose or meaning. The reference to divinity in the revised pledge of allegiance, for example, may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded "under God." Thus reciting the pledge may be no more of a religious exercise than the reading aloud of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which contains an allusion to the same historical fact.

Id. at 303-04.

C. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)

In Lynch, the Court again recognized "there is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life." Id. at 674. "Our history is replete with official references to the value and invocation of Divine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements of the Founding Fathers and contemporary leaders." Id. at 675. The Court listed many examples of our "Government's acknowledgment of our religious heritage," and included amongst these examples Congress' addition of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Id. at 676-77. The Court noted approvingly that "many thousands of public school children" recite the Pledge on a daily basis. Id.


D. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)

In Marsh, Justice Brennan repeated his conviction that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance did not violate the Establishment Clause because those words "have lost any true religious significance." Id. at 818 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Calling the Pledge a "formulaic recitation," he distinguished it from legislative prayer, which he considered a violation of the "principles of neutrality and separation that are embedded within the Establishment Clause." Id. at 808.


E. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)

In Wallace, Chief Justice Rehnquist foreshadowed the Ninth Circuit's recent decision when he expressed concern that the Court's decision invalidating Alabama's moment of silence statute in that case would eventually be used to strike down the Pledge of Allegiance" Id. at 88 (Rehnquist, J. dissenting). In a concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor responded to Justice Rehnquist's concern, arguing that the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge is not unconstitutional because they "serve as an acknowledgment of religion with 'the legitimate secular purpose of solemnizing public occasions, and expressing confidence in the future." Id. at 78 n.5 (O'Connor, J., concurring).

F. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1991)

Also foreshadowing the Ninth Circuit's recent decision, Justice Scalia in Lee, criticized the grotesque inconsistency in the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Specifically, Justice Scalia faulted the majority in Lee for striking down the graduation prayer yet implicitly approving the students' recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance before the prayer. Id. at 638 (Scalia, J., dissenting). He argued that the same degree of coercion was involved in both practices. Justice Scalia would uphold both the prayer and the pledge, but he criticized the majority for drawing illogical distinctions. Id. at 639. With great sarcasm, Scalia concluded that the Pledge of Allegiance "ought to be the next project for the Court's [Establishment Clause] bulldozer." Id.


G. Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

In Allegheny County, Justice Kennedy also foreshadowed the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in his critique of Justice O'Connor's "endorsement test." The endorsement test defines an Establishment Clause violation in terms of whether the challenged policy or practice makes nonadherents "feel like 'outsiders' by government recognition or accommodation of religion." Id. at 670 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). In his critique of this approach, Justice Kennedy argued that most "of our traditional practices recognizing the part religion plays in our society" would likely fail the endorsement test, surely a result never intended by the founding fathers. Id. Kennedy provided many examples of official acknowledgements of religion that would be unconstitutional under the endorsement test, including Congress' decision to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. Id. at 672. "It would border on sophistry to suggest that the 'reasonable' atheist would not feel less than a 'full member of the political community' every time his fellow Americans" recited the Pledge." Id. at 673. The Ninth Circuit quoted Justice Kennedy, even though Justice Kennedy stated emphatically his conviction that the endorsement test was a flawed approach to Establishment Clause analysis.

[E Rocc]

You made a declarative statement, you were wrong. Admit it.

Time for playground games I guess. Not suprising. Look back to post 79, I already mentioned what I call the "date dodge". I knew someone would bring it up, as meaningless as it is. It shows the weakness of your position, that's all.

The same men affixed their signatures to the DOI. Every single one of them affirming that rights are granted by the creator.

Would you like to amend the DOI to read:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their State with certain alienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, maybe.

Unlike the Constitution, the DOI is unamendable. Why? Because it was a statement that represented a moment in time. It was our reasons for rebelling.

Jefferson didn't only sign it, he wrote it. Jefferson also believed in Separation. They were two different documents for two different reasons and the framers chose to leave any reference to God out of the substantial portions of the document.

And if not, why not? For historical purposes won't get it. Historically prayer was said in public schools for the first 200 years.

So what? "Historically" the public schools were separated by race. "Historically" we had conscription. Mere "historical" tradition isnt enough to justify something that is wrong. The Constitution states that government should not involve itself in religious matters on a preferential basis, that constitutes "establishment".

-Eric

[E Rocc]

This is the same Court that decided Doe v. Santa Fe ISD, a decision the Ninth Circuit referenced heavily. Hopefully they will find legal justification to attack the ignorant 1954 law and not the Pledge itself. Otherwise, Congress may need to negate that law itself before the Pledge can be recited.

-Eric

[Notwithstanding]

It si telling that you hanging your "separation" hat on the private letter of a lone signatory - and a letter that was written DECADES after the Declaration and and 15 YEARS after the Constitution.

Such evidence would not even get a ham sandwich indicted.

And your other quote is interesting. What year was it? It looks like another afterthought of a lone signaory. (All sorts of politicians try to rewrite history to make themselves and their ideas look better - looks like these two you quote attempted to do a little ex post facto revision)

[jwalsh07]

You're histircally clueless. Thomas Jefferson attended church at the Capitol building on a regualr basis.

Guys like you don't want government neutrality, you want speech you don't agree with banned from the public square.

Your idea of the "separation" of church and state is Stalinist, not Jeffersonian.

[jwalsh07]

The Jeffersonian Myth

I would suggest you read Dreisbach if you are going to insist on using Jefferson as an argument against the voluntary recitation of the words "under God" in the public square.

[jwalsh07]

You may find the link and the book in my previous post of interest. It debunks the Danbury myth thouroughly.

[jwalsh07]

Chief Justice Rehnquist was joined by Associate Justices Scalia and Thomas in his dissent. He wrote:

The Court distorts existing precedent to conclude that the school district’s student-message program is invalid on its face under the Establishment Clause. But even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the Court’s opinion; it bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life. Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.”

I find myself in agreement with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.

[E Rocc]

It si telling that you hanging your "separation" hat on the private letter of a lone signatory - and a letter that was written DECADES after the Declaration and and 15 YEARS after the Constitution.

Such evidence would not even get a ham sandwich indicted.

And your other quote is interesting. What year was it? It looks like another afterthought of a lone signaory. (All sorts of politicians try to rewrite history to make themselves and their ideas look better - looks like these two you quote attempted to do a little ex post facto revision)

What's tellling is your attempt to dismiss Jefferson and Madison as "lone signatories". Jefferson wrote his words as President (indeed clearing the letter with the Attorney General) and Madison is recognized as the primary author of the Constitution.

Indeed the occasional nods they made to religion were more likely to have been political in nature.

-Eric

[Notwithstanding]

Exactly!!!!

They HAD to acknowledge God in the founding documents and accept subordination of the govt to God (even if in a generic form) if they were to have ANY credibility and garner any support for their final products.

Any weight you put on that silly PRIVATE, non-governmental letter proves you to be totally ignorant on this matter.

[E Rocc]

They HAD to acknowledge God in the founding documents and accept subordination of the govt to God (even if in a generic form) if they were to have ANY credibility and garner any support for their final products.

So where, other than the date, did they so much as make reference to God in the Constitution?

Any weight you put on that silly PRIVATE, non-governmental letter proves you to be totally ignorant on this matter.

Really? The Library of Congress seems to feel differently.

Indeed, an 1878 Supreme Court decision endorsed as an accurate representation of the views of the Framers and the FBI was even brought in to perform forensic analysis on the rough draft of the document, finding that Jefferson's original text was even more explicit.

-Eric

[Notwithstanding]

Indeed, you do not read very carefully.

No matter what you claim, the FACT (confirmed in link you provide) is that Jefferson's letter was his very very partisan political opinion and had no effect on the law.

As I posted earlier, this was Jefferson shoring up his image and "spinning" after the fact. No matter that the first two presidents DID establish federal days of thanksgiving, fast and worship (etc.) - Jefferson did not like that, so he SPUN those acts (of Washington, etc.) as not true to the founding documents.

As you and I both know, the meaning of a document cannot be determined by what a drafter deleted or by what he did concurrently with the drafting of a document - or decades after the fact (before you critique this sentence, read a little further).

From the last paragraph of YOUR link: "Analyzed with the help of the latest technology, the Danbury Baptist letter has yielded significant new information. Using it to fix the intent of constitutional documents is limited, however, by well established rules of statutory construction: the meaning of a document cannot be determined by what a drafter deleted or by what he did concurrently with the drafting of a document. But it will be of considerable interest in assessing the credibility of the Danbury Baptist letter as a tool of constitutional interpretation to know, as we now do, that it was written as a partisan counterpunch, aimed by Jefferson below the belt at enemies who were tormenting him more than a decade after the First Amendment was composed."

[LiberalBuster]

>>I trust in God dont you?

Well, you first have to tell me what "God" you trust in before I can answer that.