Supreme Court to Take Up 'Under God'

[Roguish Lawyer]

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

Soviet society. But I like your question.

[Razor]

I don't think GH was asking for a government that based its ethical behavior off non-religious sources; he asked for an example of a society. Although the Soviet government was areligious, I believe you'd be kidding yourself to think that the Soviet people did not have and practice a wide variety of faiths, and that their code of ethics weren't based upon those faiths.

[DunbarFC]

On a related subject Newdow had a loss today in one of this other suits


Judge dismisses chaplain lawsuit filed by pledge challenger



You can read the decision here http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/02-1704.pdf

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Razor
Although the Soviet government was areligious, I believe you'd be kidding yourself to think that the Soviet people did not have and practice a wide variety of faiths, and that their code of ethics weren't based upon those faiths.

There certainly were religious people in the Soviet Union, but many atheists too. Don't know if they reached a majority or not, but I suspect they may have.

I imagine that AL will be along shortly with precise facts.

[Sacamuelas]

I think GH's point about society's basis for ethical behavior is irrelevant in a debate about a government sponsored/state public school instituting a policy of pledge reciting that contains a religious reference.

If you guys are really going to argue that "under God� doesn’t mean/infer God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost then you missed your calling as a lawyer representing our last POTUS. Your appreciation and fondness for the nuances and ambiguity that exists in our language is far more developed than mine...and I view that tactic as simply avoiding the real issue.

“ I did not have sexual relations with that woman� … well, I didn’t consider it a relationship, and I didn’t cause her reciprocal pleasure so I feel I did not lie….yadda yadda yadda…�

You guys are arguing the same way as slick willie used to...

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Soviet society. But I like your question.

Communism is a religious belief. A twisted one, but one nevertheless.

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
I think GH's point about society's basis for ethical behavior is irrelevant in a debate about a government sponsored/state public school instituting a policy of pledge reciting that contains a religious reference.

Governments reflect society. When they fail to do so, they fall.

My point is only irrelevant if you are willing to watch the United States disintegrate.

[Solid]

GH- How do you figure? [edit- re your comment on communism]

Solid

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
I think GH's point about society's basis for ethical behavior is irrelevant in a debate about a government sponsored/state public school instituting a policy of pledge reciting that contains a religious reference.

If you guys are really going to argue that "under God� doesn’t mean/infer God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost then you missed your calling as a lawyer representing our last POTUS. Your appreciation and fondness for the nuances and ambiguity that exists in our language is far more developed than mine...and I view that tactic as simply avoiding the real issue.

“ I did not have sexual relations with that woman� … well, I didn’t consider it a relationship, and I didn’t cause her reciprocal pleasure so I feel I did not lie….yadda yadda yadda…�

You guys are arguing the same way as slick willie used to...

You have your own particular interpretation of the Establishment Clause and the pledge, and when someone disagrees with you interpretation, you resort to insult and impugning integrity. If you are not just being facetious, I can think of a few unnuanced and unambiguous responses, but I won't bother.

Given that the author of the original pledge, in one of life's little ironies, was a socialist, it is not surprising that "under God" wasn't in there from the beginning. The phrase was added to the pledge specifically in response to the threat of Communism. As the legislative history notes, "[a]t this moment of our history the principles underlying our American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own. Our American Government is founded on the concept of the individuality and the dignity of the human being. Underlying this concept is the belief that the human person is important because he was created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp. The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual. " Agree or disagree with the value of this argument - I frankly don't care - but was not part of an effort to establish the Trinity, and was in fact supported by Jewish groups, among others. Contemporaneous efforts to amend the Constitution to acknowledge "the authority and law of Jesus Christ" failed.

And the concept didn't just spring up in some fit of 1950s religious fervor. The views expressed in the Declaration of Independence have already been noted. The phrasing of "one nation, under God," though, owes its origin to these words: "...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." And the motto, "In God we trust," also legislated in the 1950s, comes from "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'" from the Star-Spangled Banner, written in 1814 and made the National Anthem in 1931.

BTW, you may think the Trinity when you hear "under God", but that is your nuance. Among others, the National Jewish Coalition on Law and Political Affairs and the American Jewish Congress, both of whom have filed briefs amicus curiae in opposition to Newdow, apparently have differing views.

And turning to trivia, who can identify the public figures who dared breach the wall of separation of church and state and risk putting us on the slippery slope to theocracy with these words?

1.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

2.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

3.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

4.

As I listened to those songs, in memory's eye I could see those staggering columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs, on many a weary march from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle-deep through the mire of shell-shocked roads, to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of God. I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory.

5.

Since the beginning of our American history we have been engaged in change, in a perpetual, peaceful revolution, a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands, heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women, and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.

To that high concept there can be no end save victory.

6.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

7.

Something else helped the men of D-day; their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer, he told them: Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we're about to do. Also, that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee."

[Sacamuelas]

GreenHat-
I did not intend to insult or belittle you. If you interpreted my post that way, I apologize. That was not my intention.

AL-
Actually, when I hear "under god" I do not personally think of the father, son and holy ghost. I typed that to refer to what I considered to be the majority of Society's view. It was a generalization, a poor one I admit, as it seems to have altered your understanding of my intention.

As to your pointing out that the author was a socialist, what does that have to do with this argument? He was a Baptist minister too, wasn't he? To me, it is intriquing that he did not include any of his personal religious beliefs or phrases into this pledge when he wrote it. Maybe, just maybe, he realized that religious references in a pledge of allegiance to our country should not be included as we value freedom and liberty to those of all faiths and/or lack thereof. It was meant to be patriotic...

Yes, I am almost always sarcastic and I think anyone of average intelligence or above knows that I was not being literal in my suggestion that "you guys" should have been a lawyer for Bill Clinton. I am glad to see you picked up on my attempted humor.

I don't see where I attacked Greenhat personally? Where exactly did you read that? I debated his statement's appropriateness to this discussion. Hell, if anything, you might not want to throw the first stone. You attacked me concerning legal technicalities so specific that you ended up citing cases and explaining the intricacies of the law to EVERYONE on this board so we could understand where you were coming from. Trust me, we are all impressed by your knowledge concerning the law, but I think it is safe to assume that you knew what I was referring to in my post before you went into dissertation concerning the finer issues of Con law. Please reread my post, I posed my sarcastic comments to "you guys" not AT GH or anyone specifically.

Anyway, since you have given the reasons the "under god" was placed into the pledge in the first place... why not change it back based on our current society? Or do you think we should still fear the "atheistic communism" as our #1 enemy?

By AL
As the legislative history notes, "[a]t this moment of our history the principles underlying our American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own. Our American Government is founded on the concept of the individuality and the dignity of the human being. Underlying this concept is the belief that the human person is important because he was created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp. The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual. "

Well, if anything, our country's main national security threat in year 2004 is derived from radical religious indoctrinated regimes that support terrorism and terrorists organizations while creating anti-American hatred in the name of their "GOD". Since you support the 1950's reasoning for a change in the pledge, shouldn't congress be enacting anti religion pledges right now if the idea of changing our liberties based on assumed threats from other countries is such a valid concept?

Originally posted by Solid
GH- How do you figure? [edit- re your comment on communism]

Solid

Communism is a belief of faith. It requires a belief in something ("to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities") that is demonstrated to not work and be counter to human nature. And people will continue to believe in it regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

[Valhal]

Is it the purpose of a democracy to protect the least common denominator, or is it to govern within the auspices of majority opinion?

I do not have a fact book in front of me, but I would posit that the majority of American citizens do believe in a higher power.

It is also an uneducated opinion of mine that what is so great about America is that like minded people can congregate into communities and are free to live within their faith. They have freedom of religion.

I believe that if the majority of a community believe in the same religious tenets, that community should be free to have a monument of the Ten Commandments on display. If it offends, one is free to seek out many other cities within the US that have similar views as themselves.

Lastly I feel the fabric of our American tapestry should remain unfranchised.

Mark

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
Well, if anything, our country's main national security threat in year 2004 is derived from radical religious indoctrinated regimes that support terrorism and terrorists organizations while creating anti-American hatred in the name of their "GOD". Since you support the 1950's reasoning for a change in the pledge, shouldn't congress be enacting anti religion pledges right now if the idea of changing our liberties based on assumed threats from other countries is such a valid concept?

Forget the legal, historical and moral issues for a second and consider your question from a tactical or pragmatic standpoint. Do you think it is tactically sound or wise, when we are engaged in a war with a group of people claiming God is on their side, to make a big public effort to remove references to God from the public space?

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by Valhal
I believe that if the majority of a community believe in the same religious tenets, that community should be free to have a monument of the Ten Commandments on display. If it offends, one is free to seek out many other cities within the US that have similar views as themselves.

I don't agree. This is the United States of America.... we all live under the same basic rights to freedom and liberty. IMO, that judge in AL got what he deserved.

Originally posted by Valhal
Is it the purpose of a democracy to protect the least common denominator, or is it to govern within the auspices of majority opinion?...I believe that if the majority of a community believe in the same religious tenets, that community should be free to have a monument of the Ten Commandments on display. If it offends, one is free to seek out many other cities within the US that have similar views as themselves.

Do you believe the majority opinion should always prevail? If so, you might want to consider what that would have historically meant for civil rights, women's rights, social programs, and the recently the war in Iraq (depending on when you take the poll to determine our national stance on life/death issues). I am glad that the republican right wingers can't get EVERYTHING that they would want to pass. Same goes for the libs.

What about a hypothetical city being formed somewhere in montana by a numerical majoirty of disenfranchised Shiite Islam US citizens from Alabama. Should they be allowed to create a legal system based on islamic law since the majority support it? Or should they be forced to respect ALL citizens basic rights and freedoms guaranteed in the constitution? What if they wanted to make the public school system pledge allegiance to allah every morning? Now consider your kid going to this school. He may be a methodist (just an example) and feels VERY uncomfortable getting up and leaving the classroom every morning while the other 95% of Islamic kids make fun of him for being different. You get pissed because you have just happened to live in the area for the last 100 years yet you are now the minority view. Should you have to just "leave" to find your own kind?

IMO, the purpose is to provide the same basic rights/protections for ALL the citizens in their quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
You said it best.

]Originally posted by Valhal
It is also an uneducated opinion of mine that what is so great about America is that like minded people can congregate into communities and are free to live within their faith. They have freedom of religion.

[/b]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
women's rights[/B]

Women are the majority. Missed that, huh?