Calzaer

Leviathan (and others, I'm sure) maintains that the Newdow decision was bad because "Under God" is not an establishment issue (among other reasons I can't fathom, being a layman rather than a lawyer).

My question is... if "Under God" in the pledge is NOT an establishment issue, what IS? If this doesn't count as the government creating a de facto state religion and pressuring our kids to acknowledge it, I don't think there's anything the state could do that WOULD count as an establishment issue. Can someone help me out here? What would be a "proper" place to invoke the establishment clause if this isn't it?

Jet Grind

All the claims about "under God" not being an establishment issue come from crypto-nazi conservative BSers. The sad thing is, most americans are willing to tow the line with them on this issue. I find that most americans are A.) completely oblivious to the Constitution/Bill of Rights as well as the history of this country and B.) cannot see why the state endorsing a religious dogma should offend anyone and (sadly) C.) can't see why atheists should even matter. It's disgusting to me that most of the people that I show the famous Bush 41 quote to ("No, I do not know that all atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.") have NO problem with it.

Let's face it, the majority of the people in this country think that atheism is neccessarily "bad," and the government should not acknowledge the rights of "bad people." Most americans are fond of their mystical delusions and will not let them go at any cost. Until this problem is solved then we're always going to be oppressed, no matter what is written in the founding documents of this country. America has never been the beacon of freedom that most people think it is, despite the fine words (and they are fine words) of the Bill of Rights.

Am I ranting?

Worldtraveller

IANAL, but if "Under God" in the PoA, and IGWT on the currency isn't an establishment issue, then why is the 'other side' so worked up by it??

There are a number of religious leaders fighting to maintain the secular status quo and reduce the churches influence in government, and rightly so. These are (the few) religious leaders who, while they obviously have deep seated religious beliefs, believe just as strongly in the founding principles intended for this country!

Is it's 'de minimus', as is so often cited, why aren't any of then religious right agreeing, and letting us return to the secular versions? Apparently, it's only 'de minimus' if it's something they agree with!?! :banghead:

A lot of them say that 'we' should just live with it. Why?? Why can't we have the original motto's, and let 'them' live with it?? Somehow, that doesn't seem quite so fair to them.... [/rant]

I think I will now write a calm, reasoned letter to every one of my state representatives, with as many of Buffman's excellent historical citations as I can include.....

Cheers,
Lane

Rhaedas

"de minimus" means "I want to keep my job and not piss off the RR", or "let's not make too much noise against the majority"

So much for the Bill of Rights protecting the minority FROM the majority.

Calzaer

Leviathan? Anyone? Hello?

sodium

Well, let me play Devil's advocate. One could argue that the establishment clause is only intended to exclude a state church, like the Anglican Church in England. It isn't that the government cannot impose its opinion on religious issues, just that it can't create an actual Church. So, for example, the government could have a pledge stating that God did not exist, and even make such a pledge mandatory, because this would not establish a state church. On the other hand, it could require a pledge to Jesus. None of these things goes so far as creating a state church.

On the other hand, if it were to hire civil servants as clergy, or print "Episcopalianism, the one true religion" on the money, this might be considered as establishing a state church.

Jet Grind

It doesn't say anything about the establishment of a church it says that the government can't esablish a religion. Putting "under God" in the PoA is clearly establishing a religion. Your argument doesn't hold.

Rhaedas

And how is "In God We Trust any different, any way remotely impartial or secular? When capital "G" od is referred to, is there any doubt as to which religion is being promoted here? Hell, it was put on there in two different time periods (coinage and bills) solely to demonstrate a clear Christian dominated nation! And yet now it's somehow "de minimis" and secular.

I agree, and for the same reason above...change it to "under God/Allah/Zeus/Other/Nature/not sure" and you approach secularism in the pledge. Or better yet, revert back to the original secular pledge.

sodium

I see your point, and I must admit to a rather casual slide from religion to church. But my case is that to "establish" something suggests a much firmer role than merely to promote, or discourage it. And in effect, for the government to establish a religion, it would have to set up its own church.

In the Anglican context, Establishment refers to the role of the Church as the official church of the UK, and it could be in that this was the sense in which the framers considered establishment of religion.

Second, it isn't clear to me that theism should be thought of as a religion. It is only a metaphysical hypothesis. So, even if you assume less by "establishment" than I did, it would be hard to claim that a promotion of theism establishes a religion.

Well, I'm not contending that in God we Trust is secular or impartial. It obviously promotes theism. Your contention that it actually promotes Christianity is relevent. Although, not if you accept my argument that establishment only occurs when a state church is set up.

But it isn't clear to me that the Pledge and coin changes were made specifically to benefit Christianity. At the time, the issue seemed more that this would be an attack on Communism, through its doctrine of atheism. But attacking communism is clearly not establishing a religion, and nor is attacking atheism, if you don't see theism as a religion.

And even if you don't believe that that was why these changes were made originally, it could be argued that they are now seen as pro-theist rather than pro-Christian. I think far fewer people would accept an "under Jesus" clause than the "under God" clause, which, if I am right, shows that they are not perceived as the same. Although I contend that an "under Jesus" clause would be legal as well, because of my interpretation of "establishment".

Toto

The First Amendment goes beyond forbidding the establishment of a religion. It forbids Congress (and other governmental entities by virtue of the 14th Amendment) from making any law regarding an establishment of religion. The Supreme Court has interpreted this as forbidding any state action that takes even one baby step towards a religious preference.