God in Our Heritage (Why the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional)

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Thursday, December 18, 2003 | GREG ABBOTT

[presidio9]

Half a century after Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, the Supreme Court is poised to consider whether those words make it impermissible for children to recite the Pledge in our nation's public schools. Michael Newdow, the man at the center of the case now before the court, contends that requiring students to say the words "under God" unconstitutionally establishes religion. An overwhelming majority of others, including the attorneys-general of all 50 states, strongly disagree.

[Devil_Anse]

Why we should continue to say "under God" while saying the pledge of allegiance:

1. We have freedom of speech, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

2. Newdow is seriously mentally ill, and mentally ill persons should not be allowed to shape our law.

[azhenfud]

First, in the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," - the "an establishment of religion" was intended as a noun, not in the verb sense. Viewing it as intended, the recognition of God cannot be seen as "respecting" a particular "establishment of religion", for no law is made with respect to one particularly.

Secondly, the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" guarantees every individual the right to worship God (or not) without fear of government intervention or coercion to a particular faith (religion).

Without both aspects having equal weight, government could establish and demand a particular "religion" be practiced.

[xzins]

Brennan....may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded 'under God.'"

It is true that it was believed to have been founded under God.

It is also true that it was founded under God.

Funny, though; if they can 'separate' themselves from the belief in some way, then they feel better. It's like the creche amonst the reindeer and the Santa's. Their point is that it's a 'cultural' phenomenon as distinguished from advocacy.

That was Roy Moore's crime. He wanted to elevate the discussion to the level of "actually" recognizing that the nation IS under God. (Which it is. And which our forebears were careful to point out.)

[TheOtherOne]

That was Roy Moore's crime. He wanted to elevate the discussion to the level of "actually" recognizing that the nation IS under God.

"elevate the discussion" LOL. Moore is a joke.

[Devil_Anse]

"Justice William Brennan, one of the Court's more liberal members [CHOKE!]... ADMITTED"... etc.

I wonder how many pins they had to stick in that culture-murdering liberal skank to get him to admit any such thing.

[reed_inthe_wind]

Language is still free. It is the judges who threaten to remove the term "under God", from the pledge that the majority approved through Congress. If they succeed, then the new pledge should have a new title to differentiate it from the "under God" pledge. Anything less is dishonest and a sign of a derelict language. I suggest the proposed pledge be titled "The Judges Pledge of Allegiance."

[freeeee]

In 1954, Congress inserted the phrase "under God" to make the Pledge more reflective of the nation's character.

Nice historical revisionism.

The pledge was added at the height of the cold war as a means to weed out communist sympathizers, who were thought to all be atheists.

[Gargantua]

Here is the Oath of Office taken by our Congressmen as they are sworn in to their elected office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter:
So help me God.

I wonder if this Oath is therefore unconstitutional...?

The assumptions being made in this trumped-up fight gainst the pledge are twofold—

1...that because schools accept Federal funding, they are Government institutions...

2...that under the Constitution, it is prohibted for Government to "establish a religion."

Neither of these assumptions have any basis in fact. Schools are not Congress, and only Congress is Constitutionally prohibted from passing legislation regarding any religious group or establishment.

The fight as presented now completely twists the usage of the language employed by our Founders in framing our Constitution, and such twisting is treasonous against America.

If the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to become an accomplice in this treachery, they should be disbarred and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law for crimes against the Consitution and Country they were sworn to serve.

;-/

[MEGoody]

"elevate the discussion" LOL. Moore is a joke.

So much for elevating the discussion. Maybe you can handle it next time.

[freeeee]

If they succeed, then the new pledge should have a new title to differentiate it from the "under God" pledge.

What did they call the original version between 1942 and 1954?

[MEGoody]

"The pledge was added at the height of the cold war as a means to weed out communist sympathizers, who were thought to all be atheists."

So when was it added? Got a link? Everything I've read says it was added in 1954.

[freeeee]

1954.

[reed_inthe_wind]

Each generation has its chance to shape language. The sneaky left had no desire to name the current pledge: "The Majority of Americans Pledge of Allegiance."

[MEGoody]

Ah, okay. I thought you were saying the date was historical revisionism. You meant the REASON they added it. Gotcha.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[gcruse]

Amazingly, the US survived up until the mid-fifties without injecting religion in the patriot's pledge, winning two world wars along the way. Just lucky, I guess.

[The Mayor]

Bump for later

[steve-b]

After an early form first appeared in a youth publication in 1892

I will never understand why conservatives are so in love with a statist credo written by a pinko (really, you can look it up).

[steve-b]

The pledge was added at the height of the cold war as a means to weed out communist sympathizers, who were thought to all be atheists.

"Chiefs and sons of chiefs may speak the words, but the evil one's tongue would surely turn to fire."