What Would The Founders Think of The Pledge of Allegiance?
Read the article this discussion is about
- Tina_Coruth
- Tina_Coruth
- Mugwump53
- Frank_Monaldo
- plowboy
- Terrie_Bittner
-
Brian Tubbs
- FortBrooke1824
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» Tina_Coruth - Very interesting!
Hello Brian,I saw your thread at Presidents and First Ladies. As a result of reading your article and John's post in that thread about the 1st Amendment, it seems to me that there are two separate issues here. It seems that adding "under God" to the pledge is not a violation of the 1st Amendment. I haven't read the decision (there is a search on for it on the Web!), but it sounds as though the court addressed an issue that has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. Rather, the question seems to be: Are children who have no religion or a religion with a supreme being that is not called God, being treated unfairly by having to make the version of the pledge that includes "under God"? I don't think I explained this very well. It just seems like a case of apples and oranges to me.
I am looking forward to part 2 of your article!!
Tina
-- posted by Tina_Coruth
» Tina_Coruth - Re: Very interesting!
In response to message posted by Tina_Coruth:Hi Brian,
I'm back to correct myself. I read the decision (John found it and posted the URL in the discussion you started). I was off the mark thinking it was apples and oranges. The decision is actually very interesting reading and it made a lot of sense. However, in the end, I found myself persuaded by Justice Fernandez' dissent:
"under God" taken in the context of the Pledge, is devoid of any significant religious content and therefore, constitutional. Neither "under God" nor "in God we trust" have contributed to the growing of any religion.
It will be interesting to see how it is finally resolved!
Tina
-- posted by Tina_Coruth
» Mugwump53 - Waiting for the next installment...
I am eanxiously awaiting the next installment, of both court action and your article.I do not think Congress should have gone out of its way to add religious wording to the pledge, but I do not think it unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers all accepted faith and God and religion in some form,as can be seen from the personal writings (letters, journals, diarries, etc.) The First Amendment was to prevent the federal government from favoring any specific religion, not to ban any mention of religion. I agree with Judge Fernandez that the words (under God" do not favor any establishment of a religion.
That is not to say that the Pledge is meaningless, and I don't think that is what opponents of the decision are saying. They are merely saying that the words "under God" do not mean the establishment of a specific religion.
So much for my humble opinion. I am still anxiously awaiting what comes next from the 9th Circuit, and what come next from you in the 2nd part of this series.
-- posted by Mugwump53
» Frank_Monaldo - Just a thought
If the words, "under God" were replaced by "created from a belief that rights are endowed by a Creator" the pledge would become more awkward. However, the statement would be undeniably factual. Even the most robust athetist would have to acknowlegde it. Just an idle thought.-- posted by Frank_Monaldo
» plowboy - To The Flag
Pledging allegiance to the FLAG of the United States of America.And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.
Not pledging allegiance to GOD.
Pledging allegiance to GOD is a personal choice.
With LIBERTY.
Liberty implies free agency. (personal choice)
And Justice.
Justice implies RULE OF LAW.
For ALL.
-- posted by plowboy
» Terrie_Bittner - Re: To The Flag
In response to message posted by plowboy:Since the part about God was added later, I wonder if this will simply lead to having two official versions of the pledge, allowing any group saying it to decide which to use. If it had originally had the phrase in it, it would seem silly to change a historical recitation, but we already have changed it. I would say Under God, but I wouldn't be horrified if someone else left it out. That's certainly better than outlawing the pledge altogether!
-- posted by Terrie_Bittner
»
Brian Tubbs
- Back from travels....Part Two coming very soon
Thank you to all of you for your wonderful comments.
-- posted by Brian Tubbs
» FortBrooke1824 - How NC might have reacted
Earlier this year while taking out some trash a student from NC had thrown away his history book on NC history. lol I was only too happy to keep it for myself. For in books like these i find most interesting history.I don't recall exactly when it started maybe during the war or just after, but it ended in the very early 1800's due to a court case.
I do not have access to the book at present so i will have to paraphrase. As i recall they had three laws. Anyone caught breaking these laws their punishment would be this "All real and personal property shall be seized and auctioned off to highest bidder and proceeds would to to the state."
1) Anyone when asked not swearing loyalty to the state or the colonies or the US.
2) Anyone not entering the army when of military age. ( they did have a mention that if you were a quaker or had a religious reason then no problem however you would have to pay twice the taxes.)
3) all people of age would have to pay taxes within the state.
It is interesting to note that NC had collected over one million dollars over a period of time. And that is going back when land was a few dollars an acre if that. These laws were i believe aimed at the Tories within the state. It is no wonder that such a large amount of Tories left the state and the country. This information for the first time gave me real insight as to what our founding fathers might have reacted to in todays world.
-- posted by FortBrooke1824
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.