Many of our current laws are based from religious belief. Not to say we could not have come to those same laws without religion, but that religion has nonetheless been an influence. Could a person one hundred percent disregard everything he/she has learned from religious study?

Amendment 1 – Right of Religion & Expression
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pettion the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Blah blah blah ad nauseum. That’s the lamest argument ever, and it shows you know basically absollutely nothing about real Constitutional law.

Over 200 years of the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution says that nevertheless there is a fundamental separation of Church and State in the Constitution. Plus, check out the Federalist Papers, where the phrase definitely is included. Now, I realize that the Federalist Papers aren’t binding or anything, but they do give you an idea of what the guys who wrote the Constitution meant when they wrote it, and how they explained it to all the people who were ratifying it.

And a purely textual approach doesn’t even work, since it’s not really possible- the Constitution is purposely vague and written in broad terms, in order to function and be flexible as the supreme law of the land.

How would you combine Church and State without it respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? It doesn’t even make sense.

“Many of our current laws are based from religious belief.”

Again, a commonly cited pure BS argument, that mostly shows that you don’t even understand what law is, much less where laws come from and which ones were motivated by which considerations.

Could a person one hundred percent disregard everything he/she has learned from religious study?”

Of course not, and that would be completely ridiculous. However, that actually has nothing to do with separation of Church and State. It’s completely irrelevant to the separation of Church and State. And if someone ever says that separation of Church and State means that policymakers, office-holders and voters, are supposed to ignore their religious convictions when making decisions, that person doesn’t understand Constitutional law any more than you do.

But changing the pledge of allegiance, by statute, to include “one nation under God” most certainly is an example of Congress making a law that establishes religion.

When I wrote this post, my main intent wasn’t to remove the “under God” phrase, but while I was at it, I figured I might as well do it. Isn’t it ironic how many Mormons defend religious influence on government? Given Mormon history with government’s interference with polygamy you would think they would be in the vanguard of defending church and state separation. Then again, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both wanted a theocracy.

Any suggestions on how to better revise the pledge?

“I am persuaded no constitution was never before as well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government.” – Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, April 27, 1809

“The prosperity…The splendour, and…the duration of the Empire.” – Adam Smith, 1754

“The day is within my time…when we may say by what laws other nations shall treat us upon the sea. And we shall say it.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1801

“This form of government [The Constitution], in order to effect its purposes, must operate not within a small but an extensive sphere. – James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 1787

Yes, pledge allegiance to the very nation. The US is an empire. Spawned of an empire. And to this day illustrated by this nations imperialistic actions in expansion and intervention. We can discuss all we want about how ‘the pledge’ should be worded, and whether or not it should include ‘under God’. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn’t matter. We may call our selves a republic, but we are an empire and always have been. And, it won’t make a difference what ‘the people’ truly want. Our government only gives us the illusion that we govern the government.

Kullervo, your absolutely right. As I’ve stated in many of my previous postings, I’m rather idiotic. It finally took someone to agree with me. I must not have one iota of intelligence when it comes to understanding anything. So, it continues to become obvious to me that I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to society. And especially to a one sided discussion, which I lack the intelligence to participate in. I’ll recede to my dark abyss and bother you no more with my vague and useless religious rhetoric. Obviously god must no exist, or else I am a sadistic toy of its design.

Jon, since I obviously make no real contribution here, please delete my previous posts. Except perhaps this one that my remains may still be mocked in my absence.

Well, cybr, if all you’re going to do is rehash a tired uninformed argument with no real grounding in the Constitution or Constitutional law and that basically amounts to a platitude, then yes, you don’t have much to contribute. You’re a parrot, and you’re not even parroting something with analytical weight.

Come on. If you want to wade into Constitutional law and argue with people who know what they’re talking about, you’re going to need to do better than that.

On the other hand, if you actually do know what you’re talking about (which is entirely possible), then back it up with something other than worn-out tracks from the Religious Right’s Greatest Hits album played on repeat.

By the way, that line about the “extensive sphere” is probably taken out of context- they’re probably talking about “extending the sphere,” which is a concept from the Federalist Papers (I don’t remember which one) that basically means that in order for the Constitution’s checks and balances to operate, the scale has to encompass all of American society so that small factions can’t dominate.

the quote from Adam Smith is irrelevant, since it’s dated twenty years before the Declaration of Independence and it was written by an economist, not one of the Founding Fathers or anything.

And in light of the fact that pretty much every country in the world is a party to the Law of the Sea Convention despite the fact that we have refrained sort of makes Thomas Jefferson’s sea-prophecy a little dubious. And anyway, that has more to do with international law than anything else, and that’s a whole different kettle o’ fish.

I really don’t want to have to do that. I would much rather preserve your contributions to the discussions here. You have to decide if your participation here is doing anything for you. I can understand why a religious person would find this an inhospitable place, especially given the usual deference religion is given in everyday society. I don’t plan to give religious superstitions any quarter here. At the same time, I want to hear from the religious point of view to keep me honest. That’s why, for example, I’m currently reading A History of God.

This will perhaps sound cheesy (when has that stopped me before?), but I really want to get to the truth here. That’s why I have this blog. This search requires humility, which I define as the strength to look at things as they are. If I am full of crap, I hope to get smacked down.

Let me emphasize, however, that I don’t appreciate ad hominem attacks. This discussion has gotten a little personal: one of us attacking the other’s abilities, and the other playing the martyr. Why don’t we just get back to the discussion without the distractions, eh?

Besides, if I am not mistaken, Kullervo is a first year law student (second year now?), so I’m glad I’m on his side this time. I personally wouldn’t want to cross swords with him regarding the law. Computer engineering would be another matter. Unfortunately, that topic doesn’t come up in conversation much.

I like your version of the pledge. Obviously not what I find ideal, but I think it’s an improvement over what we’ve got. I can understand the desire to have people pledge allegiance to the state, though I would like to make it contingent on the state upholding the ideals. My first allegiance lies with the ideals.

My personal pet peeve about the law is that we’ve created a system where we’re responsible for knowing the law, but it is impossible for any one person to comprehend all of it. I almost wax nostalgic for the days when you could post the entire code of law on a stone in a public square, almost.

I will endeavor to support and promote the ideals of my country,
so long as no better ideals come along,
and so long as such ideals do not contradict the ideal of common human good
and so long as such ideals do not fail to flourish the human biosphere.
–

Seriously, why do we have a pledge of allegiance at all? It’s a solemn promise of loyalty — whether to symbol, republic, or to ideas … such promises are meant to be abused, ignored, or broken, and the result in each case is the debasement of the human mind.

Attaching “god” to it was just an escalation of an already very bad idea.

Kullervo, is it safe to conjecture that the “Pledge of Allegiance” was already extra-constitutional before adding god made it unconstitutional?

I don’t know if that’s really true, but it was interesting to listen over your shoulder once in a while.

Mel,

Your version struck me as the opposite of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the United Nations. After mouthing a bunch of ideals, Article 29(3) states “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” Sounds pretty ominous. Shouldn’t the purposes of the UN only ever be to promote those human rights? Of course I realize that the UN doesn’t really serve the people of the world but rather its member nations.

Good ideas, really good ideas spread like wildfire and are not soon forgotten or betrayed — not without lots of contrary brainwashing that is …

Enjoy.

As far as the Pledge goes, hmm. I’m not sure. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of what constitutional grounds Congress would have had to pass 4 U.S.C. section 4, but even if it’s not constitutional, it’s the kind of unconstitutional law that you can’t really do anything about since virtually nobody would have standing to challenge it in court.

The addition of “under God” is a different story, but as of yet, the Supreme Court has done its darndest to avoid ruling on the subject, for lots of reasons that I can sympathize with.