In accordance with the Supreme Ct's interpretation of the Establishment Clause, the words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.
DonkeyDude said 05/18, 03:25 PM
The Ninth Circuit said it best:
"[T]he statement that the United States is a nation 'under God' is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism.
The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the Pledge is normative.
To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and - since 1954 - monotheism.
The text of the ... Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."
USA Pit Bull 63 said 05/18, 04:42 PM
Focusing on the case you cited, Newdow v. United States (2002), I will regard the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as ''9C'' for brevity's sake.
9C somewhat thwarted its own ''normative'' argument with its set-up, admitting that ''many [should be ''most''] Americans believe in a deity'' and also that there exists ''the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic.''
Whereas normative connotes a ''should'' standard, by acknowledging the basic fact that many Americans believe in a deity, and that the republic was undeniably founded on a principle of religion???-the clause ''under God'' could reasonably be interpreted by law, and by 9C's own rationale, to merely concede those substantially representative and historical truths (rather than an implicit coercion to believe them for one's self).
9C held that if the standard for determination is ''sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the controlling denominations as an endorsement, and by the nonadherents as disapproval, of their individual religious choices . . . [then it should be deemed unconstitutional, as going against the Establishment Clause].''
Yet its decision contradicts this.
DonkeyDude said 05/20, 02:34 PM
You are missing the reasoning behind the court's words. The court did not thwart its argument by acknowledging the obvious fact that many (or most) Americans believe in a deity. It is universally accepted that a mere descriptive acknowledgment of religion's importance in many people's lives is OK. What isn't OK is for the government to advocate or endorse in any way any religious perspective.
Your whole argument boils down to the proposition that "under God" is descriptive rather than normative. [1] If you look at the text of the pledge [2], you will find that it is indeed normative.
In reciting the pledge, you are pledging your allegiance to (1) the flag, & (2) the Republic (the country). The Republic is then said to be a nation "under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Indivisibility and liberty & justice are ideals that we aspire to as a nation - i.e., they are NORMATIVE. The same is true in saying that we are a nation under God.
The fact that most Americans believe in God in some form is irrelevant. The Constitution demands that we not infuse our government with religious beliefs & that is precisely what the pledge is doing in calling us a nation under God.
USA Pit Bull 63 said 05/20, 06:31 PM
Removal of "under God" could be reasonably perceived by some as an endorsement of anti-theism, or as anti-religious, which would be a blatant disapproval of one's right to free speech and practice of religion, monotheistic or otherwise.
By 9C's own rationale, the removal of "under God" could be just as "reasonably perceived by impressionable schoolchildren" as an endorsement of no influence of religion or God over this country or its history---despite the court's own admission, as fact, to the contrary (earlier in its decision). Ergo, the "controlling denomination" (majority) would likely be forced to become the "nonadherents," which would blatantly show disapproval of their individual religious choices (theism).
Plus, the word "God" itself may be used as an irregular (albeit proper) noun here, like words "deer" or "moose." It is the most universal reference to a deity worldwide, and could be singular or plural, which does not inherently imply monotheism.
The Constitution also demands that we not infuse our government with power to restrict reasonable religious beliefs, & that is precisely what removal of "under God" from the POA, after its inclusion for generations, would do.
DonkeyDude said 05/20, 09:51 PM
You can't say "removal of under God would favor atheism," and you know it. Redressing a Constitutional violation is not showing favoritism toward anybody. NOT HAVING IT THERE is the result that must occur; removing it is righting a wrong. I expect you to do better than that.
"Free speech" is not a concern here. You are free to stand on a street corner and profess your religious views. This is a national pledge, codified in the laws of this land. Free speech has nothing to do with it.
Further, the basis of your argument (and one or two arguments in the comments) is that the court's ruling is contradictory and therefore inaccurate. ... Are you really telling me that you understand their ruling better than they do?? Really? As a lawyer who has researched this subject substantially, I can tell you authoritatively that you are wrong.
"God" is not "Gods" or "god(s)." It intentionally refers to the Christian God. Even if it were to be read as those things, it's an endorsement of a set of religious perspectives. I don't agree with those perspectives, and so I am forced to pledge allegiance to something I don't agree with. Fair? Permissible? The highest courts in the land don't think so.
USA Pit Bull 63 said 05/21, 12:23 AM
I never said that "removal of 'under God' would favor atheism" and you know it.
But judging by 9C's own rationale (as stated previously), the removal of "under God" could "reasonably [be] perceived by impressionable schoolchildren" as an endorsement of no influence of theism on this country, which directly refutes the court's own assertion of religious historical significance in the founding of the republic ("for which [the flag to which we pledge] stands").
If America was founded on the significance of religion, the court should not then hold that acknowledgment of that significance via two words in a pledge is unconstitutional.
Your assertion that the "God" referred to is only "the Christian God" is unfounded, as the words of the pledge---which you said earlier we must examine on their face---do not specify "under the Christian God" or "under the father of Jesus Christ" (etc.).
DD, if you're going to claim "authority" over an issue by default, based solely on your profession, why bother debating it? That's childish. Yes, I'm challenging the rationale of 9C and providing examples that demonstrate paradoxes in its holding.
p.s. You may not be the only attorney here.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Is it just me or did you (donkeydude) once post this debate topic up? I remember it being one of the first debates I saw when I joined here.
strongleader | 05/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
I did post it before, but Pit Bull has been requesting that I debate him on this issue. And whether or not "most Americans" are fine with it is beside the point. Actually, no, it IS the point: the Constitution exists in part to ensure equality, which means protecting the rights of minorities (religious, racial, etc) against the controlling whims of the majority. This country was intended to be religiously neutral, with neither religion nor government intruding into one another's spheres. The religious inclination of a supposed majority of people is irrelevant. Let me ask you this: if Muslims reproduced extremely fast, and in 2050 "most Americans" wanted to change the pledge to say "under Allah," how would you feel?
DonkeyDude | 05/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
... Or change the national language to Arabic, swear in officials on the Koran, etc. Point is, you're missing the point of the Constitution, and this debate topic specifically relates to the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Keep that in mind, PB.
DonkeyDude | 05/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
DD, I'm not going to supply a subjective justification to an objective analysis. Have a little more faith---err, trust in me. ;)
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
Well you suggest that by protecting a minority (people who don't believe in a God), that it should be removed? Well say if I have a sect where we believe in murdering. Would my minority be protected under the Constitution? If not, the law not to murder would violate my protection, would it not?
strongleader | 05/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
Nice try. But in that case, there are competing constitutional concerns: an individual's right to life, and an individual's right to murder in the name of his religious beliefs. In fact, such religions (more or less) do exist. The individuals who would be killed have a more compelling right to live and not be murdered. It is a balancing act. This topic also involves a balancing act, but the law says that the division between church and state is the more compelling interest.
DonkeyDude | 05/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
Footnotes: [1] Descriptive: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/descriptive; Normative: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normative; [2] "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
DonkeyDude | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
DD, you've presented a soundly reasonable argument for how the RIGHTS of a minority should supersede the PREFERENCE of a majority, but reason has about as much power in a religious-themed debate as does Aquaman in a desert.
IamFry | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
haha, agreed, Fry. But really, this is a debate about Constitutional law, as interpreted by the courts. I mean, given the framework I have established for this debate, reason isn't as important as an understanding of Constitutional jurisprudence, which clearly cuts in my favor.
DonkeyDude | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
If we are to go back to the roots of the debate, shouldn't we then consider the statement in the Declaration of Independence ("...they are endowed by their creator...") which posits monotheism? I would argue that the statement "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is not in and of itself a statement endorsing any religion--rather, it is acknowledging the part that religion played in the founding of our country, and as a general guide (similar to common law) in the development of our societal standards. Further, I would argue that the text of the 9C: " The text of the ... Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion." ...is self-defeating; by their example it is religion-neutral. If we were, indeed, to say "Under Jesus", that would be stating a religious preference. Saying "under God" (or even "under god" if you so choose) does not single out any religion or belief (save, perhaps, atheism)--as many religions refer to "their god" (God, Jesus, Allah, Jessica Biel).
Colorado_Flyer | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
One can have reasonable discussions about religion, and about Conn Law, but it's just that both are rare, especially in the same conversation.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
DD, check out what's been going on here, too (and the comments): http://www.elephant-donkey.com/elephantdonkey/show/9541
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
The arguments used in this debate sound so intellectual, I don't even know what the "ninth circuit" is
theyoungdem | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
That's because you are and idiot, dumb and stupid.
dirtythoughts | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
dirtythoughts, I believe you mean "an" not "and". Also be chill man, why would you come on this site to nag on people? That's low.
strongleader | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
Colorado Flyer, I'm glad you brought that up. The Constitution says you can't favor one religion over another. But it also says you can't favor religion over "irreligion" (atheism, etc.) or favor monotheism over polytheism, etc. So "Under God" certainly violates the Establishment Clause under the Court's reading.
DonkeyDude | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
To anyone who disagrees with me: You do not need to be an atheist to feel me here. I think a very religious, patriotic American should agree with me. Upholding the Constitution is the duty of every American. If you disagree with me, again I ask you this: Suppose Muslims here have 30 kids each and by the year 2050 they are the majority in this country. Now they want to change the pledge to say "under Allah." What do you feel then? What are your arguments? "Most" Americans (Muslim) believe in Allah, so should it say that? This hypo can show you your own bias.
DonkeyDude | 05/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
"Further, the basis of your argument. . .is that the court's ruling is contradictory and therefore inaccurate. Are you really telling me that you understand their ruling better than they do?? Really? As a lawyer who has researched this subject substantially, I can tell you authoritatively that you are wrong." --- As you posed a hypothetical scenario, I'll pose one to you: Suppose I stated anytime between 1896 and 1954 that racial segregation was unconstitutional. Would you have scoffed at my argument and called me wrong merely because high courts had already decided the matter against my view? I hope not.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Ok, i'll be honest, I didn't read the decision of the 9C. I also see DD's point, that the POA forces him to state that a being, that he doesn't believe to exist, has a role in running the country. On the other hand, i also believe personally that his public removal would be detrimental to society. Also if all arguements are to be taken at face value as to what is claimed to be written, is actually written, i can see that the removal of the clause is a concern as to effects of it's removal. the clause is religion-neutral, provided religion is in the picture to begin with. DD cannot claim authority on the issue due to his profession, yet Pit cannot change the parameters of the debate as carefully laid out (in the comments, mentioning Supreme Court not sole source of authority on issue in claim). Also if i am to trust that all that has been claimed to be in the ruling is actually in the ruling, it would appear that there is some doubletalk, as in their ruling was to neither favor nor disfavor removal, but rather attempt to make removal a non-issue without actually changing anything. i only have one question left for the contestants, if the court's ruling was indeed in favor of removing the words "under god" from the pledge, why hasn't it been removed yet?
MorgMcA | 05/21/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
Might I remind you majority of Americans are fine with the addition "under god".
strongleader | 05/18/08
Report Offensive Comment