Religion in the US -  Should "Under God" be removed from th... (577 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
 
From: YWN666 DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostMay-15 1:55 PM 
To: All Poll  (1 of 60) 
 5120.1 
Should "Under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?
Yes, it is a constitutional violation
No, it doesn't violate anyone's rights
Undecided
Other (explain)
 

36 people have voted so far

 
 Reply   Options 

 
From: Dan (DANCULBERSON) DelphiPlus Member IconMay-15 4:26 PM 
To: YWN666 DelphiPlus Member Icon Poll  (2 of 60) 
 5120.2 in reply to 5120.1 

Not only is it a constitutional violation under the freedom of religion clause, but it is also a free speech violation under the same First Amendment clause

 

 
From: YWN666 DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostMay-15 10:50 PM 
To: Dan (DANCULBERSON) DelphiPlus Member Icon Poll  (3 of 60) 
 5120.3 in reply to 5120.2 

It links belief in god with patriotism.

      Host of *Your Mileage May Vary
 

 
From: Song~ (_Song_) DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostMay-16 12:15 PM 
To: YWN666 DelphiPlus Member Icon Poll  (4 of 60) 
 5120.4 in reply to 5120.3 
And not just a god, but specifically the xian flavor of god, even if it's not admitted to out right when you call them on it.


 

 

 

 
From: YWN666 DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostMay-17 6:54 AM 
To: Song~ (_Song_) DelphiPlus Member Icon Poll  (5 of 60) 
 5120.5 in reply to 5120.4 

An editorial from 2002:

Loving God and loving country -- separately
ARNOLD H. LOEWY
 


Perceived judicial attacks on God or country are not taken kindly by the populace or politicians. This point has been illustrated over and over again by attempts to amend the Constitution to allow school prayer and punish flag burners. So it should come as no great surprise that when God and country appear to be under attack in one fell judicial swoop, the politicians will indeed become restless. Consequently, the senate's 99-0 rejection of the 9th Circuit Court's decision invalidating the phrase "under God" in the flag salute was not unexpected. It was, however, unfortunate.
I know of no more important duties than the support of God and country. But they don't mix well. We elect senators and congressmen to enact laws describing reciprocal duties between ourselves and our country. We do not elect them to prescribe our duty to God. For that we have priests, ministers, rabbis and other clerical or lay church leaders.
Roger Williams, one of our most pious founders, insisted on separation of church and state because of his firm belief that civil leaders were unqualified to lead us in the ways of God.
More recently, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of government neither endorsing nor disapproving one's religious beliefs.
Put differently, one's devotion (or lack thereof) to God is irrelevant to her status as a citizen. The phrase "under God" in a patriotic pledge certainly disapproves of Buddhists, Taoists, ethical culturalists, secular humanists and, of course, atheists.
One might be tempted to respond: "So what? We're right and they're wrong. Who cares if a few heathen are offended?" That, however, is just the point. You and I might know that we're right and they're wrong, but the government is not permitted to know that. The government must remain neutral.
In some ways, the public pledge in school is worse than public prayer. With prayer, the nonbeliever must identify herself as a nonbeliever by not participating. But with the pledge, a devoutly patriotic American atheist may appear to be unpatriotic when he was merely ungodly. Compelling the atheistic patriot to either appear unpatriotic or betray his religious convictions is precisely the choice that the establishment clause forbids government to impose on its citizens.
For those who think that "under God" is merely political and not religious, imagine a hypothetical future when America is controlled by a majority of atheists, who decide to substitute "without God" for "under God" in the flag salute. I would hope that the Supreme Court (even if then also controlled by atheists) would hold that unconstitutional. I would argue that however atheistic the majority of the country may be, our fundamental charter demands that the majority's religious philosophy not be the basis of our country's politics.
Ironically, it was the Soviet Union's dictatorial infusion of atheism into the warp and woof of Soviet society that prompted us to add "under God" to the flag salute in the first place. Perhaps we should have added "with freedom of religion" instead. That would have properly highlighted the difference between us and the Soviet Union.
Those who worry that invalidation of "under God" in the pledge might lead to the eventual demise of "In God we trust" on our coins and currency should recall Jesus' admonition in regard to the propriety of Caesar's likeness on the coins and currency of the realm. He famously remarked: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." God most assuredly deserves our trust, but he doesn't need "Caesar" to provide it. Our alternative motto, e pluribus unum, from the many one, describes both our diversity and, in pledge terms, our indivisibility. And, it lacks the divisiveness of a motto spiritually offensive to some and theoretically offensive to others.
The love of both God and country are characteristic of most good American citizens. It is my fondest hope that this will continue to be the way we are. But countries that seriously integrate the two are not among those that we like to emulate. The Shiites of Iran and Islamic Jihad are two recent examples of the harm that can come from excessive intermixing.
While America would never go down that path, we would do well to remove ourselves as far as possible from the Theocratic State. As Justice Jackson, the Nuremberg prosecutor, once observed: "It is possible to hold a faith with enough confidence to believe that what should be rendered to God does not need to be decided and collected by Caesar."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold H. Loewy is Graham Kenan Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380 

      Host of *Your Mileage May Vary
 

 
From: YWN666 DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostMay-17 6:57 AM 
To: All Poll  (6 of 60) 
 5120.6 in reply to 5120.5 

Another comment in the newspaper - author unknown

 

       The words "under God" were added to the pledge in the 1950s to counter the Soviet society that forced its citizens to be atheists, lest they be sent to the gulag. Yes, we were right to respond to this totalitarianism. But we were wrong in how we responded.
       By putting "under God" in the pledge, we imposed on the populace a state-sanctioned religious worldview, much as the Soviets did. What we should have done is simple: Promote religious freedom. We should absolutely love the fact that we have a society with so many different religious perspectives. Our diversity of beliefs makes us strong, endlessly creative.
        If we want to put this idea in the pledge, how about simply adding, "with liberty, religious freedom and justice for all"? That would have strongly countered the Soviets. Here, in this wonderful country, we are free to believe as we choose, without the state getting involved in that very personal decision.

 

      Host of *Your Mileage May Vary
 

 
From: YWN666 DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostMay-17 7:05 AM 
To: All Poll  (7 of 60) 
 5120.7 in reply to 5120.5 

A comment from a friend on another forum:

 

The addition of "under God" created an environment where people were forced to choose between pledging to their nation and a god they don't believe in, or risking punishment by their peers and suspicion of being "un-American." That doesn't seem like much of a threat until you consider the number of lives and careers that were ruined during McCarthy's hearings.

      Host of *Your Mileage May Vary
 

 
From: YWN666 DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostMay-17 7:11 AM 
To: All Poll  (8 of 60) 
 5120.8 in reply to 5120.7 

I think one way to demonstrate why "under God" doesn't belong in the Pledge is to replace it with "under Allah" and then stand back and let the Christians explain how unfair it is to link patriotism with "their god".  The phrase is OK as long as their god is the one being worshipped.

      Host of *Your Mileage May Vary
 

 
From: Dan (DANCULBERSON) DelphiPlus Member IconMay-17 8:52 AM 
To: YWN666 DelphiPlus Member Icon Poll  (9 of 60) 
 5120.9 in reply to 5120.8 

YWN666 said...

The phrase is OK as long as their god is the one being worshipped.

This just occurred to me while reading these messages, and I don't believe that I am being completely serious, but could the matter be settled if the phrase "under God" were replaced with "under a god"?

 

 
From: YWN666 DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostMay-17 12:30 PM 
To: Dan (DANCULBERSON) DelphiPlus Member Icon Poll  (10 of 60) 
 5120.10 in reply to 5120.9 

Dan (DANCULBERSON) said...

I don't believe that I am being completely serious, but could the matter be settled if the phrase "under God" were replaced with "under a god"?

It still leaves out atheists/agnostics.  The fairest way for all is to leave religion out of it completely.  If a believer wants to say "under god" when reciting the pledge, no one will stop him but I don't believe it should be in the official Pledge.

      Host of *Your Mileage May Vary
 

 
Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.