Thread: Kinda surprised no one has mentioned this ("Under God" Decision")

Originally Posted by itld

Howdy,
Which part of the constitution?

M.R.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - from memory as I have fought this fight many times.

"Separation of church and state" - a quote from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to church leaders to battle criticism that the establishment clause would have the effect of moving religious power from the state to the feds. It is NOT in the constitution.

The reality is that the constitution only says that no laws can be made that establish a state religion. Thus the title "establishment clause". Also that the right to freely exercise your religion must be preserved.

the other side of this of course is that the courts do have the right to pervert the law by using evolving precedence to make decisions rather than the actual constitution. This is an unfortunate mistake of the founders and one that I'm afraid we are forced to live with.

The reality is that the constitution only says that no laws can be made that establish a state religion

Surely it's not that clear cut, since many seem to interpret the establishment clause to include any endorsement:

"Any symbolic "endorsement" of religion by government, as Justice O'Connor has argued, violates the Establishment Clause."

from http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5966
- just some guys opinion i realise but, seemingly not an uncommon one.

similar sentiments seem to be echoed here:
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/anarchy.html

and here (a decision presumeably made by judges):
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/26/162047/701

6 years and counting

Sorry your post confused me, i thought you were slating the French though surely saying "no religion at all (you're not allowed to show your religion" is a slight exageration. I mean there is religion in France, and i was under the impression that only specific elements of Islam were being restricted in an attempt to reduce extremism and promote cultural blending - if i am mistaken (which is entirely possible) please correct me.

(presumeably the rest of your post isn't directed at me, right?)

Originally Posted by Clyde

Surely it's not that clear cut, since many seem to interpret the establishment clause to include any endorsement:

Originally Posted by FillYourBrain

the other side of this of course is that the courts do have the right to pervert the law by using evolving precedence to make decisions rather than the actual constitution. This is an unfortunate mistake of the founders and one that I'm afraid we are forced to live with.

I thought I clearly headed this off. I guess not.

i'm talking about in schools. in french schools you aren't allowed to wear
-islamic headscarf
-crucifx
-judaique cross (hope that was right)
-kipaa

or any other large noticable objects that might show your religous beliefs. the only people who hada problem with it were the muslims with the headscarf, which is why it was talked about the most in the media.

Ah i see, i did not realise it was that extensive.

I thought I clearly headed this off. I guess not.

Ok, but claiming it's a "perversion" is surely an entirely subjective view, i also don't really understand what you mean when you say "using evolving precedence" how for example does that phrase apply to:

Strict constructionists of the Constitution for the United States of America use words as written to mean what they say. For example, the object of the preposition "of" in the Establishment Clause is "religion," not church. Therefore, the prohibition against Congress relates to laws that would establish "religion," which includes all ideas and practices respecting "religion," not just church. In other words, says the strict constructionist, if the First Congress had meant to restrict the prohibition merely to the establishment of a church, it would have used those words

Clyde your first link can be disregarded as emotional, opinionated nonsense. Funny that he very specifically talks of supreme court precident right up front. Helps to my point actually.

but the second is a good read. It correctly interprets the first amendment as I see it but does not touch on the issue of exactly who is being restricted in the establishment clause. Congress only. "Separation of church and state" or even government "endorsement of religion" are not issues that are directly addressed in the first amendment.

Again, you have to use this evolving interpretation through precident worship to come to the conclusion that church and state separation is a constitutional mandate.

edit:
I should point out that I AM aware that this thread is about a congressional act that added "under God" to the pledge. I just like to shoot down those who use the broad sweeping "separation of church and state" phrase. There's no such thing.

Clyde your first link can be disregarded as emotional, opinionated nonsense. Funny that he very specifically talks of supreme court precident right up front. Helps to my point actually

Fair enough, i simply plugged a few words into google, and noted down a few links that seemed to dispute the point.

but the second is a good read. It correctly interprets the first amendment as I see it but does not touch on the issue of exactly who is being restricted in the establishment clause. Congress only. "Separation of church and state" or even government "endorsement of religion" are not issues that are directly addressed in the first amendment.

Ok, though surely it is relevent in some sense to government endorsement of religion if that endorsement comes in the form of law.

Again, you have to use this evolving interpretation through precident worship to come to the conclusion that church and state separation is a constitutional mandate.

and you don't think use of an evolving interpretation is right?

I should point out that I AM aware that this thread is about a congressional act that added "under God" to the pledge. I just like to shoot down those who use the broad sweeping "separation of church and state" phrase. There's no such thing.

I see, so then do you think that the act that added "under God" to the pledge was unconstitutional, and presumeably should thus be removed (or the constitution changed) or, maybe not?

Originally Posted by Clyde

Ok, though surely it is relevent in some sense to government endorsement of religion if that endorsement comes in the form of law.

somewhat, but only for congress. establishment of religion is only a matter to be avoided by congress (or state lawmakers as specified by the 14 amendment. I think it was 14th that specified constitution applies to states as well). State property or state workers are not bound by any such thing as they can not make laws.

Originally Posted by Clyde

and you don't think use of an evolving interpretation is right?

well no. The constitution means what it says. Not what a lost in translation court comes up with. Have you ever played that game where you have a story that you whisper into someone's ear. They whisper it to the next person and so on until you've passed through 15 iterations of the story telling. When you get to the end you have a totally different story. This is what I mean by "evolving"

Originally Posted by Clyde

I see, so then do you think that the act that added "under God" to the pledge was unconstitutional, and presumeably should thus be removed (or the constitution changed) or, maybe not?

possibly. While I don't think it matters much, there is a logical constitutional argument against it.

My issue is that there is a difference between constitutional mandate and court mandate. I dislike that fact, while realizing that both became law in what I consider a flawed system. "Separation of church and state" is a court mandate, not a constitutional one.

Americans may have found the banning of islamic scarves in french schools anti semite but i'm loving this example of the 'land of the free'

This and other statements bring something to the issue. Do you people feel that someone should be allowed to express their religion in a public place? I mean, are you going to suspend/punish the kids in school that say the pledge of allegiance with the "under God" once it is removed?

Now, onto the France vs. Religious symbols debacle:

Wearing a hajib or other religious symbols should not be banned for the sole reason it is freedom of speech. If some, I am using this as an example, gay person in France wore a huge rainbow colored T-Shirt with the words "I am gay and proud of it" would they be punished? If not, then how is a Crucifix(which is not just a christian symbol, but an ancient Egyption symbol) or the Hajib(which can be viewed as a religiously based hat(which I presume are not banned)) be viewed as a inflamatory symbol anywhere close to my example?

Originally Posted by FillYourBrain

I just like to shoot down those who use the broad sweeping "separation of church and state" phrase. There's no such thing.

theres no such thing? how do you figure that?

as for the banning or religous apparel, the line is very thin between bandanas, hat, small corsses and such. but in France, with the seperation of church from schools going back 100 years (and back to the revolution of 1789 for the church and state) we like to make it a point that you aren't christian or protestant (the original quarrel was between these two. see st bathemews day in france) or muslim or jewish, you are French above all. out on the street, no-one could care less but if you come to french school you accept to not show your religous beliefs.

I honestly think that everyone should be allowed to think for themselves

I wish more than anything else that everyone knew how to think for themselves.

We live in a world with 6 billion people, 6 billion different personalities and opinions on things. There will never be a time when every single person agrees on one thing wholeheartedly. Starting arguments and wars just to convince people that your opinion is right or wrong only shows your ignorance to step back and look at the whole thing. I know I'm going to get flamed by this, but I really just want to say what I think here. I tend not to participate in flame wars or debates like these, as I deem them pointless because they just go in circles

I don't think this thread is a flame-war, i think we've had pretty intelligent discussion thus far. Neither do i think it shows "ignorance" to attempt to explain why you think someone's view may be mistaken.

There's thousands of people out there every day who die because someone didn't like their opinion

And that sucks, really it does, but not talking about it will not stop that, infact talking about stuff is surely better that beating on each other.

I honestly am not a firm believer in any religion, but I'm not going to go and tell other people that their opinions are wrong

Right because it doesn't matter to you, what about things that do matter to you, would you say argue against say racism? I'm not attempting to draw comparisons between religion and racism, my point is simply that there are things (i suspect) that you would challenge (or at the very least not complain when you saw other people challenge).