NAaronJ

Among the arguments from the critics of the pledge ruling was this:

The pledge is, in fact, constitutional, even with "Under God" as a part of it, because the word "God" is not endorsing a particular religion. I would like to take a closer look at this position.

Let us look at the establishment clause:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

"An" meaning only one -- they can pass laws respecting more than one establishment of religion.

Under this interpretation, could not an highly conservative court theoretically establish a Judeo-Christian theocracy (either officially, or as a de facto theocracy)?

I will admit up front that I am no legal expert. But could a Supreme Court filled with Shrub's idea of "common sense judges", armed with such an interpretation, really undermine our democracy, or is this interpretation invalid somehow?

gallo

You are almost correct. I asked my lawyer. According to the case law, the Pledge doesn't have to endorse a particular religion, but only religion in general, to be unconstitutional. However, the word an does not indicate that Congress can pass laws that affect more than one religion. It has been interpreted to mean that Congress (and state, county, city, and school district) cannot pass a law that either restricts nor encourages any religion in particular or religion in general. An in this case, does not mean "one, so it is OK to pass laws that affect some." It means that NO law that encourages or discourages the practice of any religion or no religion may be passed.

Our government should not dictate our religion.

himynameisPwn

Look up the lemon test on lycos or google or something. If any law is passed that has a primary purpose pretaining to religion, then it fails the test. So, no, its not constitutional.

J-B

Well actually, the way I see it is that Congress can not endorse an establishment of religion. Establishment means the promotion or institution of religion. That includes anything that falls under religion, a belief in God, the Bible, the Koran, what you have.
Now, if they had said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion." then you may have had a point.

Atheist121

I was thinking today that you could split the word "religion" in several ways. Compare:

"Monotheism" doesn't refer to a specific religion, it's a general term for people that believe in God. There are many belief systems whose followers can be called "monotheists."

Christianity doesn't refer to a specific religion, it's a general term for people who believe in Jesus. There are many belief systems whose followers can be called "Christians."

Grumpy

What is a religion, but a package of religious orthodoxies? Does it make any difference if that package has a brand name, like "Mormon" or "Episcopal"? How about a rather generic package like "monotheism"? To me, it's all the same.

Alonzo Fyfe

The standard view of interpretation is that sentences are more than the sum of its parts.

If one practices the constitutional doctrine of originalism (in seeking out what the original writers met), the methodology requires looking at the phrase in context, taking into consideration the whole of their behavior -- words and deeds, coming up with a theory of their desires and intentions, and then reading that intention into the law.

Words have no meaning independent of the intention behind them.

The problem with interpretation is that words are selected through the art of compromise, and as such they show no single intention. The founding fathers themselves would not likely be able to agree on any single interpretation; for us to assume that they shared one common belief encapsulated in a phrase is simply absurd.

To interpret their statement, the best way to proceed is to look at what they were trying to accomplish, and to find the best interpretation consistent with what they would like to see done.

Given the age in which they lived, and the historical context of their writing, they had two primary concerns.

First, was to avoid the violence that was a part of their recent history -- inquisitions, crusades, wars between Catholics and Protestants that had taken millions of lives, and the intolerance that had driven many of them from their home into distant lands.

Second, was to leave the mind unfettered. This was the age of enlightenment, and government dogmatism was to be replaced by the power of reason. Belief, coerced by the state, is empty. The effect of coercion in matters of belief, Jefferson wrote, was "to make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Evidence that they were or were not Christian is simply irrelevant. To make these points relevant is to assume that they were intolerant individuals, eager to impose their beliefs on others. It is to assume that our task is to discover what those beliefs were so that we may discover what views we may approach with intolerance. It is to presume that coercive beliefs were a part of their doctrine. They were not.

The laws against which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gave its opinion were laws of coercive belief.

The existing Pledge of Allegiance equates atheists with separatists (rebels, confederates -- the word 'indivisible' having been written in reference to the Civil War). tyrants, and perpetrators of injustice.

The system of laws require that a young student show up in a public school, declare before their peers that they are atheists, then sit quietly while those classmates, under instruction of a teacher, jointly declare their opposition to atheism just as they declare their opposition to dividing the Union, to tyranny, and to injustice.

These young children, then, are forced to deal with the isolation, alienation and, in some cases, actual physical violence from their peers that are the inevitable result. Which they can escape if they only agree to join the group in its war against atheism, separatism, tyranny, and injustice.

Coerced belief and violence. These are the heart and the soul respectively of the laws that the 9th Circuit Court wrote about in their opinion. These are the evils that the founding fathers wrote the 1st Amendment to protect us against.

These are the reasons why no reasonable interpretation of the Constitution would allow the government of the State of California -- or any state -- to force young children into the type of situation that the State of California presently requires.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

Splat

Bravo, Alonzo.

Shadowy Man

Yes, very well put.