Seperation of Church and State

“Of course the declaration of independence is an official U.S. document. it brought the U.S. into being.”

Haha, good one.

“The Declaration is just a piece of history, not a legal document.”

The fact that the Pledge of Allegiance happens to be some sort of “legal document” means it can be declared unconstitutional, compared with the “less important” Declaration. Our country was born on the Declaration; it’s a legal document in the way that it [13 colonies] declared independence from England.

With the Pledge Unconstitutional, what’s next? The Supreme Court, itself, begins each of its sessions with the phrase, “God save the United States and this honorable court.” Congress begins each session of the Congress each day with a prayer. The Supreme Court has previously upheld the motto on our currency. In its own chambers the Supreme Court has a motif of all the great lawgivers, including Moses [hahaha, that’s me] with the Ten Commandments. And of course, our currency says, “In God We Trust.”

I wonder if we should have a poll if those words on our money made people become more religious. Do the words “Under God” in the Pledge suddenly turn atheist into religious fanatics?

“I think the pledge of alliegence is a really dumb idea, why should we have schoolchildren recite any kind of nationalistic slogan, speech, ect. at all? It sounds a little bit like what those godless communists would have done in the middle of the cold war. Ok kiddies, it’s time once again to pound into you the virtues of living in this great nation by reciting something together; doesn’t it make you feel good to be part of this great nation where everyone can say the exactly the same thing together. Not only do I find the pledge completely inaccurate and untrue, but that sort of conformity bothers me a great deal.”

Maybe we should ban the Star Spangled Banner because some people fine lines offensive to them. Tell me how the pledge is “completely inaccurate and untrue.” Should there not be liberty and justice for all? And not to the Republic for which it stands? Let’s say I start a club, and one of the first motions of a meeting is to recite our Chapter’s Pledge. Now while most of the members have grown to love it, I have grown tired of it. Now will they point a gun to my head and say, “Do this… OR ELSE you’re out of the club!” No, it’s optional. If I don’t want to hear it, I’m free to leave the club tree house and come back after the rest of the members have finished reciting it. This is true for America, the Pledge is optional. However, does this give me the right to take it away from the people who actually like reciting the pledge? The Pledge of Allegiance is conformist, it’s a way of unifying us together.

“TG, are you forced to Listen to the Supreme Court reciting that? Are you forced to listen to the National Anthem? All I want is the “Under God” removed from the Pledge, and the “In God we Trust” removed from all future money.”

Who says you’re “forced” to listen to the Pledge of Allegiance? I’m sure if you find the words “Under God” so bad, feel free to leave. I’m sure the teachers allow that (well under the court edict at least). Other than schools, you don’t hear the pledge very often; in fact you hardly hear it at all once you get to high school.

Also, there are some parts of the Pledge of the Allegiance I might edit out. For instance, the word “Indivisible” (as in “For the Republic which it stands, under God, Indivisible”) is disgraceful to Confederates like myself. It was purposely written by some damnYankees trying to “brainwash” kids into believing the Union cannot be separated, something we had to fight a “second war for independence” over and loss. Now, should me and my confederate friends from the Dixie get together to declare the pledge unconstitutional? I think not. One of the Judges of the Newdow case wrote that the use of “one Nation under God” is ok, because its use has “drained [it] of meaning.” Now some religious folks may not agree with it, but I think the judge was right in the fact that if you recite something over and over, it starts to lose meaning. Sort of like the topic “What does Liberty mean?”

Young kids really don’t understand the Pledge anyway. It means little to them. When your in high school, you say it or not, you might question it, once. Just another minute in the drab homeroom scene at the start of each day. Point being, the people saying the words probably could care less. The decision suited some adult complaint. My kid sang patriotic songs at the beginning of each day in 1st grade this past year. This is probably due to 9/11. Propaganda, maybe. It could be viewed similarly. Face it. Christianity is part of western culture. All facets of life are effected by it. Shall we hunt down and remove every little reference to silence the complaints? We could, and maybe we are. Seems to me like we could be focusing on the real problems hurting this country instead…

cnn reports a poll stating that 9 in 10 want the phrase left in. If the majority were to rule in this case, would this be “tyranny by majority”, “victory for democracy”, or “back to square one for atheists”?

@TG:

“The fact that the Pledge of Allegiance happens to be some sort of “legal document” means it can be declared unconstitutional, compared with the “less important” Declaration. Our country was born on the Declaration; it’s a legal document in the way that it [13 colonies] declared independence from England.

So, it is then a legal document under british legislation, as there were no USA yet, and the colonies who wished to seperate were british.
How much legal importance does it have to the US (not historic, but legal)?

And th Pledge of Alligence does? Unless you’re saying we should also edit the Declaration also.

So a foreigner reciting the Pledge of Alligence in the bathroom in the middle of the night is against the law? If so, what’s the punishment?

The Framers of the Constitution had seen firsthand in England and elsewhere the establishment of state religions and the suppression of competing beliefs. Many of those who fled to America, such as the Puritans, did so to escape religious persecution. They sought legal protection for all faiths and protection against an all-powerful church of the state supported by tax revenue.

What is clear is that the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights, sought to protect religious freedoms and to provide an active role for the government in promoting the “moral character” of the people.

George Washington, in his Farewell Address said, "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

James Madison, who wrote much of the Bill of Rights, said: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions … upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut-established in 1638-39 as the first written constitution in America and considered as the direct predecessor of the U. S. Constitution -declared that the Governor and his council of six elected officials would “have power to administer justice according to the laws here established; and for want thereof according to the rule of the word of God.”

Throughout the earliest days of our history the courts upheld the role of God as an essential thread that binds together our nation’s fabric. In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court held “The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality…”

When you go to the Constitution, it actually invokes Christian beliefs directly … not just ‘God’ beliefs but Christian beliefs. (Art. I, Sec. 7, 2, stipulating that the President has 10 days to sign a law, “Sundays excepted”) So we now understand I guess, from this court, that the Constitution is unconstitutional. The clause ‘under God’ … goes back to the third verse of the national anthem, so what we’re now saying is the national anthem is unconstitutional.

It is important to note that the words “separation of church and state” do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. This, despite major media and advocates regularly trumpeting the constitutional separation of church and state.

The phrase “separation of church and state” came long after the Constitution was adopted. In 1802, newly-elected President Thomas Jefferson received a letter from a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. They congratulated Jefferson on winning the presidency and urged him to promote religious freedom of outside-the-mainstream religious groups, which the Baptists were at the time. Jefferson, in an eloquent response, assured them that his government valued diverse religious expression and would never seek to interfere in their affairs or establish an official government religion with special privileges, one that would be superior to all other denominations. It was in the context of his brief, three paragraph letter, that Jefferson used the phrase: “wall of separation between church and state” as an allusion to a wall around a church to keep the government from interfering in the free exercise of religion.

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

“No power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” - Kentucky Resolution, 1798

“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government.” - Second Inaugural Address, 1805

“Our excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary.” - Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises.” - Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is very outspoken on the subject:

“It would seem…that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations…The Establishment Clause did not require neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the federal government from providing non-discriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson [Court case]…”

Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer’s personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as “godless” or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God. The Court traditionally has allowed so-called “ceremonial deism” - references to a generic higher power with no real specific religious meaning. A public opinion poll by MSNBC shows 76 percent of respondents believe referencing God in the Pledge does not endorse a specific religion.

“And lets be realistic, you aren’t going to have kids below High School even refuse to recite the pledge, let alone walk out on it.”

When the Pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with a choice between participating and protesting. America itself was founded by protestors.

In a country where the President of the United States and many members of Congress end their speeches with “God Bless America” and citizens can exercise their First Amendment rights to display in a public setting a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung, it is inconceivable our schoolchildren may not voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a classroom.

Lets that a look at another few examples:

Recently, public schools were barred from showing a film about the settlement of Jamestown because the film depicted the erection of cross at the settlement.

In Omaha, Nebraska, a ten year old boy was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time. The boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law. On the other hand, in New York, a federal judge recently ruled in favor of a kindergartner who was saying grace out loud before eating lunch. The school had forced her to stop because, in the school’s interpretation, it violated the “separation of church and state.”

At Columbine High School, school officials told parents, teachers and students that they couldn’t paint messages with religious themes on commemorative tiles displayed in the High School, after they invited them to paint the tiles for healing. The parents won a lower court decision for their Free Expression rights but the school is appealing the case.

A federal judge ruled that VMI’s traditional supper prayer – a “brief, nonsectarian, inclusive blessing,” – constitutes a coerced religious exercise.

The town of Kensington, Maryland, gained national attention last Christmas for banning Santa from its annual Christmas tree lighting because two families out of a town of 1,700 people, complained over the lack of a Menorah.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the sentence of a murderer who killed a 70-year old woman with an ax, on the grounds that the prosecutor had unlawfully cited biblical law to the jury.

“Seems to me like we could be focusing on the real problems hurting this country instead…”

I agree. How is the Pledge so bad, that it hurts to listen to it in silence as a sign of respect toward our country? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the sentence of a murderer who killed a 70-year old woman with an ax, on the grounds that the prosecutor had unlawfully cited biblical law to the jury.

Excellent Moses. All things i’d heard or thought, but never had the wherewithal to research or discuss so eloquantly. Christmas is nearly a “pariah” as far as “appropriate terms” go (i still refuse to wish someone “happy holidays” - maybe a blessed Hannukah . . .), and i appreciate the history lesson. Are schools still allowed to teach the original reason for “thanksgiving”? Or is it a “thanksgiving” to the noble first nations people?

Why should we simply respect the christian faith in our government. Isn’t America a nation for all? then why don’t we pay respects to other religons too? Is our history so all important that we can’t change traditions so that they will be all inclusive? In modern times you can’t represent the entire nation when you refer to any sort of deity, so if the US is so worried about equally representing everyone the only feasable solution would be to remove all references to religion from coinage and such. Otherwise you have all sorts of cases of Americans not being represented by their own country.

but again, how about the “majority rule question”? Given that America is a democratic country, should not the lawmakers abide by the mandate of the voters? It is not communist yet, afterall.

Thanks, errr… Guest! :P

But really, most of that credit belongs to my Conservative friends who supplied most of the information. I’m just take scraps from here and there, pasting it together, editing some parts, adding a special brand of logic and humor into one organized, coherent post. And the way the Courts are going you might see Thanksgiving altered (no more saying grace). But then they’ll have to ply that turkey drumstick out of my cold, dead hands! :wink:

bossk, I see where you’re coming from. However, the Christian faith alone does not run our government (not to the extend that religion had in Europe). I do think we should at least allow religion (as said in the 1st Amendment) and its moral ethics (ie most of the Ten Commandments). And if most Americans wanted the words “Under God” removed from the Pledge, then there should be a legitimate concerned about it. While I may not always agree with what the “majority” has to say, I at least achknowledge their decision (ex once Bill Clinton got re-elected, I did not burn a life size replica of him and refuse to believe he would not be our next president). But this isn’t the case. Most Americans want our Pledge just the way it is. Instead, this is simply 2 of the 3 9th Circuit Judges making a rather brash decision without at least consulting the rest of the 9th Circuit panel.

“Otherwise you have all sorts of cases of Americans not being represented by their own country? “

What I learned is that you can’t appease everybody. What about all the ruthless convicts in jail? Maybe some of those don’t believe in having “justice for all” (meaning they could commit crimes with impunity). What about diehard white supremacist who don’t believe in “liberty for all?” What about fellow Confederates, such as myself, that don’t believe in a republic “indivisible?” Don’t we have just as much right to amend the Pledge as we see fit?

@yourbuttocks:

The problem is that the Catholic Schools are the only ones willing to take the poor.

You’ve GOT to be kidding me! You think catholic schools are the only ones willing to take the poor? Do you KNOW how much money I spend in taxes so some punk in the inner-city can go to school and smoke crack with his friends?

You couldn’t be more wrong. Everyone in this country pays for educaiton, whether they use it or not. This education is provided to everyone, regardless of race, religion, etc. Whereas in a catholic school, the students pay for their own education, and therefore the schools get to choose who they let in. If Catholic schools were in the business of accepting every poor person in this country, there would be no catholic schools….

@bossk:

so if the US is so worried about equally representing everyone the only feasable solution would be to remove all references to religion from coinage and such.

Woops…you’re wrong. The United States was formed with the understanding that you should not be prevented from believing in your own religion.

Now, by me saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school, I fail to see how this is stopping someone of another religion from practicing their beliefs.

How’s this for freedom? If you don’t want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or don’t believe in what is says…THEN DON’T SAY IT. But to stand up and try to dismantle a part of history that our country was founded on, is wrong. I don’t give a shit whether some aitheist thinks that saying “God” in school is wrong, this country runs on the majority, and CLEARLY the majority of the people in this country believe in God.

I commend the President for standing up against those damn liberals in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Pledge of Alligence is a representation of what America stands for and American ideals. While most Americans are christians, it is not a christian nation and should not be veiwed as one. This would be similar to including something about being white in the Pledge; after all most americans are white. The majority does rule in America, but within certain limits. If the majority really ruled then I would not be able to express many of my opinions becuase most people think they are either stupid or simply wrong.

@TG:

Thanks, errr… Guest! :P

yes yes,
sometimes your guest is me, the Crypt.
my 'puter’s in the shop and i’m too lazy to log on. Mind you, i do find it fun and kind of liberating to be anonymous sometimes. Kind of like walking around my condo nude . . . .