Supreme Court to Take Up 'Under God'

[NousDefionsDoc]

What are laws based on?

[Solid]

NDD-
I'm assuming that this is what you intended as the answer for your question, if not... I assmed.

Governments used to rule using the support of God. The French govt under Louis 14th, an absolutist monarch, is perhaps the best example of this in the West, but I also believe that Allah granted Arab kings and governments their positions.

The US, being a secular state, had people sign their part of the 'social contract' to the nation, not to a god. I believe that the argument for this form of government legitimacy is that previously, non-secular states had not been democracies. Rulers therefore had to provide the people with a reason to support them: religion. However, the US government is elected by the people- it does not seem unreasonable that because of this, US citizens are not ruled by God via their government.

I believe that's the argument, anyway.

Solid

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by Solid
Is it important for the state to be religious as opposed to irreligious?

Solid

As a moral or political judgment, that is a matter of personal opinion.

As a legal judgment, there is a long history of case law supporting the judgment that the state has an interest in acknowledging the divine inspiration of the Founders and for our nation and its institutions.

For example, in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), the Supreme Court reasoned that "[t]here is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789." Id. at 674. A large number of cases have echoed the statement that "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being". In a concurrence in another case, Justice O'Connor noted that "government recognition and acknowledgment of the role of religion in the lives of our citizens [serve the] "secular purposes of 'solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society'".

Even a Justice as liberal as William Brennan stated once that "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."

[Solid]

Airborne Lawyer- thank you for those quotes. I may be reading them wrong, and certainly don't have the complete cases, but I don't see them as being a particularly good argument for a non-secular government/pledge.
The unbroken acknowledgement of the role of religion in American life doesn't state or allude to the fact that because religion is part of US life, it should be part of the US govt. or the pledge.
Also, almost all institutions, especially government, presupposed a divine being: it made governing easier (Opiate of the masses is an overstatement, but back in the day it certainly seemed to have helped). Which is coincidentally an interpretation of the effect of religion to 'solemnize public occasions'.
Furthermore, I think that while many adults will realise and therefore be unaffected by the 'historical' statement- "under god", children aren't likely to, which for me smacks (exceedingly lightly) of religious indoctrination and mullahs.

Sorry for the presumptious tone, I am not arguing with you but with the quotes. Again, thank you for posting them and I apologise for my limited ability in debate.

Thank you,

Solid

[DanUCSB]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas What is purpose/value of reciting the pledge? If you are like me, it is a patriotic oath that expresses support for our country. If you agree, then why would anyone here have a problem with our public schools using the original version of the pledge? Is there someone here that thinks it is not as patriotic as the currently used version?

Exactly. This is the point most folks miss... indeed, it showcases the value of being able to frame the issue. The whole controversey has been framed as 'our values are under attack!' And once that's established, then comes all the hoop-jumping arguments (it's a 'generic' term, it doesn't institute one specific religion, blah), and ad hominem attacks (how can you be against the Pledge?, you're an evil atheist, blah). But it's a straw man. No one's attacking the Pledge of Allegiance as a patriotic exercise. That's what it is/should be. Not a religious one. Yeah, 'God' can be construed as a broad term. But under most usage? It's not. Under most usage, it has a very specific, very narrowly-defined religious meaning. That's why it doesn't belong in the Pledge. Just like the Ninth Circuit (and I'm very aware of its many controversial decisions) said, would you be comfortable if your child recited 'one Nation, under Allah?' or 'one Nation, under the Goddess?', or 'one Nation, under Zeus?'

Americans thought the Pledge was just fine as a patriotic ritual without religious references from 1892-1954. After all, America survived the Great Depression and won two world wars with a secular Pledge, and neither religious devotion nor patriotism suffered.

This, right here, is the crux of it. If you're talking about religion, talk about religion. If you're talking about patriotism (the point of the Pledge), then leave it with patriotism. The original Pledge got us through a lot of trying times. If it was good enough then, it's certainly good enough now.

--Dan, assistant Devil's advocate

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by Solid
The US, being a secular state, had people sign their part of the 'social contract' to the nation, not to a god. I believe that the argument for this form of government legitimacy is that previously, non-secular states had not been democracies. Rulers therefore had to provide the people with a reason to support them: religion. However, the US government is elected by the people- it does not seem unreasonable that because of this, US citizens are not ruled by God via their government.

I believe that's the argument, anyway.

Solid

Giving religion a role in public life is not the same as a theocracy. There is no inconsistency between the social contract and religion. Jefferson argues, in fact, that there is a straight line from God's law to consensual self-government:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

I should note that Jefferson himself is the source of the phrase "separation between church and state". In a letter in 1803, he wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Because of this, Jefferson is often cited by groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State. However, if you read more of Jefferson's writings and note his official acts in Virginia, his primary concern was not keeping religion out of public life, but in ensuring that the First Amendment meant what it said, that the federal government shouldn't establish a religion or favor or disfavor certain religions. It is possible Jefferson would have opposed the 1954 law, but no one can know for sure. Based on his own actions as a governor and legislator, it's hard to believe he would be troubled by California's pledge statute, though.

[Solid]

Airborne Lawyer- thank you again for these quotes. To clarify- I didn't mean that there was a fundemental incompatability between the social contract and religion, just that I didn't think that the US government established its right to rule by claiming holy sanctity.
My point is basically- There are many, many Supreme Beings being worshipped in the US, regardless of the size of their church. As the US government cannot establish a state religion, and cannot thereby make laws or rules under the authority of any one of those religions, the religions essentially rule each other out. Religious diversity, for this argument, equals an utter lack of religion in terms of government.
In this world, can a consensual self-government be established and function?

I believe that the answer is essentially Yes, and therefore that the inclusion of Supreme Beings in the Founding Father's quotes is more of a mark of the contemporary culture than a necessity in the founding of a government. As such, I think that while the modified Pledge isn't going to seriously hurt anyone (unless its used as a precedent for developing something Islam-like), the reference to god really shouldn't appear there. On money, maybe, because kids don't recite what appears on cash, but not in a pledge that is said in homeroom everyday.

Just my .02, I very much enjoy this conversation,

Thank you,

Solid

Just curious as to what the source of ethical behavior is for those who argue for secularism?

[Solid]

Long-since established social ethics which will continue to exist, presumably, in a secular government, and legal boundaries. Where god once regulated the behaviour of the individual, people will now regulate people. The individual will self-regulate through fear of public-perception.

Great question, though. I think that arguing which came first, religion or generally accepted ethics and morals is often like a chicken/egg argument. However, these days it seems that much of the religious approach to ethics and morals has been incorporated into social conduct, and that society could, in the future, act as a surrogate for the moral and ethical effects of religion.

Solid

Presumptions are just that. You haven't answered the question, you have made an assumption.

Find me a society, any society, where the ethical code of behavior is not directly linked to religious beliefs.

[Solid]

My point is not that societies exist where a moral and ethical code was established without religion, it was that now, because these codes have long-since been established, religion is not so much of a factor. Society can regulate itself.

Solid

Originally posted by Solid
My point is not that societies exist where a moral and ethical code was established without religion, it was that now, because these codes have long-since been established, religion is not so much of a factor. Society can regulate itself.

Solid

Still an assumption. One that I have yet to see any data to support.

[Solid]

How about the fact that church attendance (here in England) is at an all-time low, and that crime rates are also at a low? I admit that you don't have to go to church to be religious, but at the same time it does at least partially reflect the fact that morals and ethics can exist without continuous religion.

Also, state schools are forbidden in this country from teaching religion. This, coupled with a general down-turn in the number and size of religious groups would suggest that children are no longer being imprinted with religious morals and ethics. However, as before, crime rates have been decreasing for a long time.

It's difficult to present evidence of this, but theoretically I think that the concept is sound. I suppose that the evidence for this is apparent in every day life. I know I, for one, recieved my morals and ethics from my parents, neither of which are particularly religious. I have now adopted a faith, but managed to exist politely previous to that regardless of the fact that I hadn't read the Bible.

Good conversation. Anyone else going to jump in?

Solid

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I start a SCOTUS thread for the lawyers and not one of them responds?

I was out of town. Give me a few.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
BTW, Sacamuelas, what is all this "separation of church and state" talk? There is no such principle in American constitutional law.

Regarding religion, Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...." There are two parts to this, commonly referred to as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause more narrowly prevents Congress from establishing a state church, like the Church of England is. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits Congress from making laws targeting religious expression (laws of general applicability which impact religion, though, may be OK; an example would be health codes that impact Santeria rituals). The First Amendment has been incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to states as well as the federal government .

In the Pledge case, the second question before the Court is this:

"2. Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment."

So this is an Establishment Clause case. Does having teachers in a public school lead recitations of the Pledge "establish" religion? In the narrow sense, it does not. "Under God" is fairly generic and doesn't represent state sanction of a particular church. The question as it has developed over the past few decades though, is that while it is accepted that the state must remain neutral among different religions, not giving one official sanction over another, is it also required that the state be neutral between religion and irreligion?

Atheist advocacy groups, naturally, maintain that the latter is required, but nothing in the history of the US or the text of the Establishment Clause would seem to require it. In fact, at the time of the adoption of the Amendment, not only were many states not neutral between religion and irreligion, but they had established churches (which would no longer be permitted under the Fourteenth Amendment). And there is a litany of Supreme Court cases holding that while certain sectarian displays might offend the Establishment Clause, the extreme view that any mention of religion by government is unconstitutional is not accepted. These include matters such as the prayer at the opening of congressional and Supreme Court sessions, oaths of office that mention "so help me God" and the "In God We Trust" on currency. There is no wall between church and state in US law.

I agree. But give them a break on the "separation of church and state" thing -- that's just an imprecise description of the same thing. Plus, I believe the term is commonly used in briefings on the issue, although I'm not going to run a search to confirm.

[Edit: I now see you later hit on this point a bit with the Jefferson stuff.]