Government Paper

[Nebulis]

So I've spent the past 2 days writing a paper about how 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of church and state. I just had a meeting with my professor and she basically ripped it apart and said before anything I need to answer this question... If our Senate says a prayer before every meeting and 'In God We Trust' is written on every piece of U.S. currency, how can you say something that our government and Americans have practiced daily for centuries is unconstitutional?

Personally I'm completely stumped and don't even know how to approach that question. Everything I come up with seems weak and not enough to back up the thesis. I figured with all the religious/political debates you guys have on here you could throw some insight my way.

[Maj]

Is your professor religious are they just being objectionable?

[Diraker]

Under God was inserted in 1954. Also to site previous violations to justify current violations isn't a very good argument.

Anyway I'm tired and going to bed soon but there are a bazillion web sites with info on this. You might want to look up Michael Newdow who took 'under God' to the supreme court. Folk say that his arguments and performance were amazing. Turned out though that the court ruled that since he wasn't the custodial parent of his child he had no standing. He has his own web site and stuff from the supreme court is public record so there should be transcripts.

eta: some links to places that might have tons of info

www.ffrf.org
www.atheist.org
www.au.org

about.com also has a decent section about general separation of church and state stuff too

[Ablate]

What does the constitution say? If it's there in black and white, exactly why the fuck does it matter what the senate does or the treasury prints on a bill? Governments can't do unconstitutional things? I want some of whatever the fuck koolaid she's drinkin'.

[Relapse]

Take a look at the founding fathers and their religious beliefs. Mainly look at Jefferson and his letter to the Danbury Baptist church.

Look at how the words "under God" were added later on as well and what the pledge first started out as.

Also take a look at the Establishment clause, which basically prohibits any national religion to be made.


I don't know if your teacher is a religious person and disagrees with you, or they are just trying to make you research more. Some teachers aren't very good at being unbiased while reading a paper. As long as you make your argument based on facts and established laws your teacher shouldn't be able to rip it apart.

I really don't think it is unconstitutional myself, but I can see both sides for and against it with valid points.

[Maj]

Its fairly simple to me. Just because something is has become a tradition doesn't automatically make it right. Slavery was widely accepted and practiced by most people back in the day including congressmen. Did that mean it was constitutional? No, hense the 13th amendment.

Government is riddled with religion mainly because a large body of our political leaders are religious. Hell, we have a man running for office that openly stated that he wants to change the constitution to be more in line with the bible. Even with statements like that the man still managed to get as far as he did.

Separation of Church and State means that Government can not dictate what religion you practice. In that respect "Under God" isn't unconstitutional. What is unconstitutional is forcing someone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance for any purpose (you hear about this in schools all the time). Theres nothing that states that you must say the Pledge of Allegiance, therefor you're not being forced into any religion.

Either way I think the bottom line is your professor has a weak argument. Just because something has become a tradition doesn't mean its right. The constitution doesn't change, its the views of the people that do. Why have things like "In God We Trust" not been deemed unconstitutional? Because we live in a religious and tradition driven society. As more and more people fall away from religion that will change. The question isn't if those phrases will be removed, its when.

[Dong]

It's hard to answer her questions because your professor is right.

[Mourne]

It's hard to answer her questions because your professor is right.

Right about what? It looks like she's just making a question to me and wanting him to give his opinion either way.

[Ablate]

yea, hows neb gonna learn critical thinking if he asks us how to beat his prof? He can't run back here every 30 seconds when she asks a new question lol.

[Dong]

Right about what? It looks like she's just making a question to me and wanting him to give his opinion either way.

It's hard to argue that we've established a state religion if we've been saying the phrase in question for a long time and, well, not established a state religion yet.

[Nebulis]

As far as I'm aware she's not religious and she was playing devil's advocate because she wants me to have a stronger argument.

A large portion of the paper is based on stating the best argument against your thesis (mine being "under God" is an infringement of the separation of church and state) and then refuting it. I had a hard time coming up with that argument but eventually I decided it was because the phrase was a metaphor for the unity of Americans under a higher power. Then I included articles and facts on how it does the opposite and creates tension between those who believe in God and those who don't. Needless to say she didn't think that was the best argument as to why the phrase belongs in the pledge.

Then she gave me the argument which I mentioned in my first post. In her opinion that was one of the best arguments you can have as to why 'under God' belongs in there. However, she said if there are better arguments for why the phrase should stay, I should use those. My problem is that I am very biased on the issue and can only see reasons for why it doesn't belong.

[Ablate]

It's probably a pretty common argument at least lol.

[Mourne]

Yeah, most teachers play devil's advocate pretty often when it comes to these sorts of things.

Good point too Dong.

[Mutt]

Your teacher has likely seen this topic before

[Diraker]

Using religion to bring people together is ridiculous. Religion is divisive. Notice, ironically that the phrase 'under God' was place right between "One Nation, indivisible" as the original pledge was worded. It's also worth noting that the original pledge was written in the late 1800's by a pastor or reverend or some other church guy who also happened to be a socialist.

Anyway I don't have the stamina to get into this again. But again Neb, you should read the brief submitted by Michael Newdow when he argued in front of the Supreme Court. It has everything you could ever want about 'under God'.

All related court documents can be found here.

http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/legal.htm

In addition to reading Newdow's brief you should also read the 9th Circuit's opinion. They lay out why they thought that to require students to pledge to God in public school was deemed unconstitutional.

eta: note that all the court documents are pdf's so I can't copy paste from them. These documents are actually good reads too, they aren't the cold heartless legal documents that you might expect.

[Diraker]

Darn I can believe that I failed to mention the Lemon Test. Although flawed it's the test that courts apply to determine if something is unconstitutional.

This is the quote from the opinion of the Chief Justice at that time.

"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion.""

So test #1 might consider that 'under God' has a secular purpose but if you look at what Eisenhower actually said (that now children can pay homage to the Almighty...paraphrase) the religious purpose becomes apparent. Test #2, 'under God' fails because it clearly favors religion over non-religion (something the supreme court has ruled unconstitutional already). Test #3, fails too although the phrase "excessive entanglement" is wishy washy and very subjective.

Neb, if you talk about the Lemon Test and court documents, especially the opinion of the 9th circuit, I think your teacher would be happy.

eta: here's the Eisenhower quote.

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than to contemplate this rededication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country's true meaning.

Especially is this meaningful as we regard today's world. Over the globe, mankind has been cruelly torn by violence and brutality and, by the millions, deadened in mind and soul by a materialistic philosophy of life. Man everywhere is appalled by the prospect of atomic war. In this somber setting, this law and its effects today have profound meaning. In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."

bolds by me