Why "Under God" does not violate the Constitution

[Norstal]

This makes me laugh. "member what happened last October?

Yes. The House was able to discuss unemployment within their Committees on Ways and Means, the Senate was able to conduct hearings on transatlantic trade done within their Committee on Finance.

If you're talking about the debt limit, well, I know you only watch Nickelodeon or the Disney Channel for political news, but Congress does more than that.

[Flaxxony]

You are by default irrational because you believe in an invisible man who controls everything, based on a book's word rather than actual evidence.

That, and religion by and large is the denial of reality. Debating it is worthless because only you can accept reality and get rid of the "god delusion".

And to say that having "God" in anything is NOT a violation of the First Amendment, then it's equally valid to have it say "Fuck God" and "There is no God" and "God is an Asshole" and "Atheism For the Win" and "Jesus was a Marxist" and "The Dude Abides".

Red herring, strawman and ad hominiem.

And you're getting dreadfully OFF topic.

Argument dismissed.

Ok seriously quit doing the whole "Im a big kid i know my phallacies" Crap.

1) You pointing out fallacies is a bit hypocritical considering you have already thoroughly been proven wrong yet you keep interjecting

2) Its such a narrow topic that its not going to be able yo stay on that tiny topic without broader implications philpsophically

[Draica]

Red herring, strawman and ad hominiem.

And you're getting dreadfully OFF topic.

Argument dismissed.

Um...no, actually:

"And to say that having "God" in anything is NOT a violation of the First Amendment, then it's equally valid to have it say "Fuck God" and "There is no God" and "God is an Asshole" and "Atheism For the Win" and "Jesus was a Marxist" and "The Dude Abides"."

This isn't off topic. Stop dismissing what you disagree with, then calling me the anti-intellectual.

Ok, let me explain how you're breaking the laws of logic.

You're introducing new topics that aren't even part of the initial topic, such as me believing in God(red herring)

You're calling me irrational(ad hominiem)

You assume I believe he's a "man" or in whatever ridiculous context you put it(strawman)

And now you're making a bunch of obscene remarks that serve no purpose but to ridicule(Appeal to ridicule)

Your argument is invalid.

[Ultor Empire]

Quite an interesting thread.

On one hand, as it has already been pointed out, it's just two words and there have been cases in which people have refused to say them, which is within their rights, as some have pointed out (First Amendment). I.e.- the term "one nation under God" is present in the pledge of allegiance of the US, however legislation was passed which gave citizens and non-citizens the right to refuse to say the pledge (it used to be mandatory in schools), partially because of that term.

On the other hand the insertion of such phrases does contradict the First Amendment, however seeing as this is not affecting anyone (above paragraph) it's not that big of a deal. The reason for these phrases is primarily because the US was founded with a strong Judeo-Christian presence which has been here ever since, along with the Cold War scenario.

[Draica]

Red herring, strawman and ad hominiem.

And you're getting dreadfully OFF topic.

Argument dismissed.

Ok seriously quit doing the whole "Im a big kid i know my phallacies" Crap.

1) You pointing out fallacies is a bit hypocritical considering you have already thoroughly been proven wrong yet you keep interjecting

2) Its such a narrow topic that its not going to be able yo stay on that tiny topic without broader implications philpsophically

I'm not acting like I'm a big kid, I'm trying to debate as debate was intended. They teach anyone from grade 8 - in English class how to debate properly in many countries, I HOPE many people here are above grade 8.

[Farnhamia]

The country's not really broken and discussing issues like this hardly take away from dealing with the issues facing us. I get very tired of people saying we should discuss this, that or some other thing "until we fix this country." In 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, the United States started building the first transcontinental railroad. We can do more than one thing at a time.

To be fair the railroad was intended to help transport troops and supplies.

No, not really. "The First Transcontinental Railroad (known originally as the "Pacific Railroad" and later as the "Overland Route") was a 1,907-mile (3,069 km) contiguous railroad line constructed between 1863 and 1869 across the western United States to connect the Pacific coast at San Francisco Bay with the existing Eastern U.S. rail network at Council Bluffs, Iowa, on the Missouri River." Not unless you mean those tens of thousands of Californian berserkers that President Lincoln enlisted. Anyway, the war ended in 1865, so it wasn't much help.

[Imperializt Russia]

Calling you irrational is not ad hominem.
The truth only really hurts those who fear it.

[Greater-London]

And to say that having "God" in anything is NOT a violation of the First Amendment, then it's equally valid to have it say "Fuck God" and "There is no God" and "God is an Asshole" and "Atheism For the Win" and "Jesus was a Marxist" and "The Dude Abides".

Of course its equally valid none of them necessarily conflict with the First Amendment. You can say whatever you want in your pledge of allegiance ( the whole practice is ridiculous anyway) it needn't imply any form of God in the traditional sense or you can just not say it.

[Page]

"Under God" is an overt and obvious reference to the god of the desert/god of Abraham so yes it is unconstitutional to force children to recite it in public schools. Though we could move past the controversy if we just abolished the pledge of allegiance in public schools altogether. If patriotism needs more than a decade of daily oath recitals in a group setting to be instilled in children then maybe it's not a value worth bothering with - let kids grow up and decide if they are proud of their country or not on their own terms.

[The Black Forrest]

Stop trying to continue justifying the Cold War and accept the fact that America isn't always right.

You got that from what he wrote?

[Draica]

Calling you irrational is not ad hominem.
The truth only really hurts those who fear it.

You're right, that's the Personal attack fallacy.

Thanks for helping me on that, Russia. You go, guy.

[Communist Potato Union]

Im not an american so i don't know all of the facts but why even have under god ? it suggest there being a god you could just cut it out, it was only added in 1954 after all and it serves no use other then to suggest there being a god.

Then again i find the idea of a pledge to any country to be a form of indoctrination especially in the case of being done in schools as well as a form of encouraging nationalism two things that i find to be of no befit to a person

[Farnhamia]

Calling you irrational is not ad hominem.
The truth only really hurts those who fear it.

You're right, that's the Personal attack fallacy.

Thanks for helping me on that, Russia. You go, guy.

Right, let's all step back, shall we? Draica's beliefs are not actually the topic, the topic is whether "Under God" in any government-approved context in the US is constitutional.

[Reverend Norv]

We need to get clear on what we are discussing here. First of all, here is the First Amendment for you, because amazingly no one has thus far provided it: "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 petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What we are debating is the first part of that, known as the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from imposing a state religion on American citizens.

Now, the first thing we need to have clear in our minds is this: the United States is a common-law legal system. That means that the Constitution, legally speaking, is defined by the interpretation of our courts. It does not have any existence independent of that interpretation. This can be difficult for people to wrap their heads around, but it is true. If the Supreme Court interpreted the third amendment to say that all citizens of the USA must wear feather boas, then that would be the only legally legitimate interpretation of the third amendment. Supreme Court rulings cannot be unconstitutional, because they are the Constitution.

So legally, the question of whether or not "Under God" violates the Establishment Clause is exactly equivalent to the question of whether or not the Court says that "Under God" violates the Establishment Clause, because the Constitution only exists insofar as it is defined by judicial interpretation. That is a precise question with a clear answer, and the answer is "No."

For close to forty years, the Court has upheld ceremonial references to God in American public life. In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), Justice Brennan explained that certain types of government religious speech ‘‘serve such wholly secular purposes as solemnizing public occasions, or inspiring commitment to meet some national challenge in a manner that simply could not be fully served in our culture if government were limited to purely nonreligious phrases...the designation of ‘in God We Trust’ as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow’s apt phrase, as a form of ‘ceremonial deism,’ protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.’’ Such ceremonial references have ‘‘an essentially secular meaning.’’

Sandra Day O'Conner made this definition more exact in County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989). She stipulated that religious references were acceptable government speech so long as a.) they had enjoyed such long historical practice as to rob them through rote repetition of any spiritual content, and b.) their purpose was secular rather than religious (one nation under God). Justice Blackmun concurred, concluding that such ceremonial references should not be "understood as conveying government approval of particular religious beliefs.’’

The final element of this doctrine fell into place in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004), which decided exactly the issue that we are currently discussing. Justice O'Connor wrote that government religious speech about which there is ‘‘a shared understanding of its legitimate nonreligious purposes" may be described as "ceremonial deism," and is permitted by the First Amendment. Such speech must meet four conditions: (1) it must have been ‘‘been in place for a significant portion of the Nation’s history’’ and have been ‘‘observed by enough persons that it can fairly be called ubiquitous’’; (2) it must not constitute ‘‘worship or prayer’’; (3) it must not reference a specific religion; and (4) it must contain ‘‘minimal reference’’ to institutions of organized religion. "One nation under God," O'Connor ruled, satisfied all four conditions.

So the answer is really quite simple: legally, "under God" does not violate the Establishment Clause because the Constitution exists only in the interpretation of the courts, and the Supreme Court has ruled that there exists a category of religious speech - including "One nation under God" - that does not violate the Establishment Clause. You do not have to like that, but you do have to accept that it is legal reality - there is no Constitution beyond the courts' interpretation of it, and the courts have said that "under God" does not violate the Establishment Clause - so legally, it does not. One can disagree with their opinion morally, but not on the basis of the law. So in at least one sense, I would hope that this settles our debate: in terms of the law, "One nation under God" is not unconstitutional.

[Draica]

We need to get clear on what we are discussing here. First of all, here is the First Amendment for you, because amazingly no one has thus far provided it: "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 petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What we are debating is the first part of that, known as the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from imposing a state religion on American citizens.

Now, the first thing we need to have clear in our minds is this: the United States is a common-law legal system. That means that the Constitution, legally speaking, is defined by the interpretation of our courts. It does not have any existence independent of that interpretation. This can be difficult for people to wrap their heads around, but it is true. If the Supreme Court interpreted the third amendment to say that all citizens of the USA must wear feather boas, then that would be the only legally legitimate interpretation of the third amendment. Supreme Court rulings cannot be unconstitutional, because they are the Constitution.

So legally, the question of whether or not "Under God" violates the Establishment Clause is exactly equivalent to the question of whether or not the Court says that "Under God" violates the Establishment Clause, because the Constitution only exists insofar as it is defined by judicial interpretation. That is a precise question with a clear answer, and the answer is "No."

For close to forty years, the Court has upheld ceremonial references to God in American public life. In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), Justice Brennan explained that certain types of government religious speech ‘‘serve such wholly secular purposes as solemnizing public occasions, or inspiring commitment to meet some national challenge in a manner that simply could not be fully served in our culture if government were limited to purely nonreligious phrases...the designation of ‘in God We Trust’ as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow’s apt phrase, as a form of ‘ceremonial deism,’ protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.’’ Such ceremonial references have ‘‘an essentially secular meaning.’’

Sandra Day O'Conner made this definition more exact in County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989). She stipulated that religious references were acceptable government speech so long as a.) they had enjoyed such long historical practice as to rob them through rote repetition of any spiritual content, and b.) their purpose was secular rather than religious (one nation under God). Justice Blackmun concurred, concluding that such ceremonial references should not be "understood as conveying government approval of particular religious beliefs.’’

The final element of this doctrine fell into place in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004), which decided exactly the issue that we are currently discussing. Justice O'Connor wrote that government religious speech about which there is ‘‘a shared understanding of its legitimate nonreligious purposes" may be described as "ceremonial deism," and is permitted by the First Amendment. Such speech must meet four conditions: (1) it must have been ‘‘been in place for a significant portion of the Nation’s history’’ and have been ‘‘observed by enough persons that it can fairly be called ubiquitous’’; (2) it must not constitute ‘‘worship or prayer’’; (3) it must not reference a specific religion; and (4) it must contain ‘‘minimal reference’’ to institutions of organized religion. "One nation under God," O'Connor ruled, satisfied all four conditions.

So the answer is really quite simple: legally, "under God" does not violate the Establishment Clause because the Constitution exists only in the interpretation of the courts, and the Supreme Court has ruled that there exists a category of religious speech - including "One nation under God" - that does not violate the Establishment Clause. You do not have to like that, but you do have to accept that it is legal reality - there is no Constitution beyond the courts' interpretation of it, and the courts have said that "under God" does not violate the Establishment Clause - so legally, it does not. One can disagree with their opinion morally, but not on the basis of the law. So in at least one sense, I would hope that this settles our debate: in terms of the law, "One nation under God" is not unconstitutional.

I like how you explained it in a classy, elegant way.

[Ifreann]

We need to get clear on what we are discussing here. First of all, here is the First Amendment for you, because amazingly no one has thus far provided it: "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 petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What we are debating is the first part of that, known as the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from imposing a state religion on American citizens.

Now, the first thing we need to have clear in our minds is this: the United States is a common-law legal system. That means that the Constitution, legally speaking, is defined by the interpretation of our courts. It does not have any existence independent of that interpretation. This can be difficult for people to wrap their heads around, but it is true. If the Supreme Court interpreted the third amendment to say that all citizens of the USA must wear feather boas, then that would be the only legally legitimate interpretation of the third amendment. Supreme Court rulings cannot be unconstitutional, because they are the Constitution.

So legally, the question of whether or not "Under God" violates the Establishment Clause is exactly equivalent to the question of whether or not the Court says that "Under God" violates the Establishment Clause, because the Constitution only exists insofar as it is defined by judicial interpretation. That is a precise question with a clear answer, and the answer is "No."

For close to forty years, the Court has upheld ceremonial references to God in American public life. In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), Justice Brennan explained that certain types of government religious speech ‘‘serve such wholly secular purposes as solemnizing public occasions, or inspiring commitment to meet some national challenge in a manner that simply could not be fully served in our culture if government were limited to purely nonreligious phrases...the designation of ‘in God We Trust’ as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow’s apt phrase, as a form of ‘ceremonial deism,’ protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.’’ Such ceremonial references have ‘‘an essentially secular meaning.’’

Sandra Day O'Conner made this definition more exact in County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989). She stipulated that religious references were acceptable government speech so long as a.) they had enjoyed such long historical practice as to rob them through rote repetition of any spiritual content, and b.) their purpose was secular rather than religious (one nation under God). Justice Blackmun concurred, concluding that such ceremonial references should not be "understood as conveying government approval of particular religious beliefs.’’

The final element of this doctrine fell into place in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004), which decided exactly the issue that we are currently discussing. Justice O'Connor wrote that government religious speech about which there is ‘‘a shared understanding of its legitimate nonreligious purposes" may be described as "ceremonial deism," and is permitted by the First Amendment. Such speech must meet four conditions: (1) it must have been ‘‘been in place for a significant portion of the Nation’s history’’ and have been ‘‘observed by enough persons that it can fairly be called ubiquitous’’; (2) it must not constitute ‘‘worship or prayer’’; (3) it must not reference a specific religion; and (4) it must contain ‘‘minimal reference’’ to institutions of organized religion. "One nation under God," O'Connor ruled, satisfied all four conditions.

So the answer is really quite simple: legally, "under God" does not violate the Establishment Clause because the Constitution exists only in the interpretation of the courts, and the Supreme Court has ruled that there exists a category of religious speech - including "One nation under God" - that does not violate the Establishment Clause. You do not have to like that, but you do have to accept that it is legal reality - there is no Constitution beyond the courts' interpretation of it, and the courts have said that "under God" does not violate the Establishment Clause - so legally, it does not. One can disagree with their opinion morally, but not on the basis of the law. So in at least one sense, I would hope that this settles our debate: in terms of the law, "One nation under God" is not unconstitutional.

I saw that you cited Newdow, and didn't read anything else.

[Reverend Norv]

We need to get clear on what we are discussing here. First of all, here is the First Amendment for you, because amazingly no one has thus far provided it: "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 petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What we are debating is the first part of that, known as the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from imposing a state religion on American citizens.

Now, the first thing we need to have clear in our minds is this: the United States is a common-law legal system. That means that the Constitution, legally speaking, is defined by the interpretation of our courts. It does not have any existence independent of that interpretation. This can be difficult for people to wrap their heads around, but it is true. If the Supreme Court interpreted the third amendment to say that all citizens of the USA must wear feather boas, then that would be the only legally legitimate interpretation of the third amendment. Supreme Court rulings cannot be unconstitutional, because they are the Constitution.

So legally, the question of whether or not "Under God" violates the Establishment Clause is exactly equivalent to the question of whether or not the Court says that "Under God" violates the Establishment Clause, because the Constitution only exists insofar as it is defined by judicial interpretation. That is a precise question with a clear answer, and the answer is "No."

For close to forty years, the Court has upheld ceremonial references to God in American public life. In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), Justice Brennan explained that certain types of government religious speech ‘‘serve such wholly secular purposes as solemnizing public occasions, or inspiring commitment to meet some national challenge in a manner that simply could not be fully served in our culture if government were limited to purely nonreligious phrases...the designation of ‘in God We Trust’ as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow’s apt phrase, as a form of ‘ceremonial deism,’ protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.’’ Such ceremonial references have ‘‘an essentially secular meaning.’’

Sandra Day O'Conner made this definition more exact in County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989). She stipulated that religious references were acceptable government speech so long as a.) they had enjoyed such long historical practice as to rob them through rote repetition of any spiritual content, and b.) their purpose was secular rather than religious (one nation under God). Justice Blackmun concurred, concluding that such ceremonial references should not be "understood as conveying government approval of particular religious beliefs.’’

The final element of this doctrine fell into place in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004), which decided exactly the issue that we are currently discussing. Justice O'Connor wrote that government religious speech about which there is ‘‘a shared understanding of its legitimate nonreligious purposes" may be described as "ceremonial deism," and is permitted by the First Amendment. Such speech must meet four conditions: (1) it must have been ‘‘been in place for a significant portion of the Nation’s history’’ and have been ‘‘observed by enough persons that it can fairly be called ubiquitous’’; (2) it must not constitute ‘‘worship or prayer’’; (3) it must not reference a specific religion; and (4) it must contain ‘‘minimal reference’’ to institutions of organized religion. "One nation under God," O'Connor ruled, satisfied all four conditions.

So the answer is really quite simple: legally, "under God" does not violate the Establishment Clause because the Constitution exists only in the interpretation of the courts, and the Supreme Court has ruled that there exists a category of religious speech - including "One nation under God" - that does not violate the Establishment Clause. You do not have to like that, but you do have to accept that it is legal reality - there is no Constitution beyond the courts' interpretation of it, and the courts have said that "under God" does not violate the Establishment Clause - so legally, it does not. One can disagree with their opinion morally, but not on the basis of the law. So in at least one sense, I would hope that this settles our debate: in terms of the law, "One nation under God" is not unconstitutional.

I saw that you cited Newdow, and didn't read anything else.

Given that Newdow was ultimately dismissed on procedural grounds, it is not in itself sufficient legal precedent to uphold my argument. But combined with Lynch v. Donnelly and County of Allegheny v. ACLU, and with numerous lower court decisions made on the same basis, it is abundantly clear that as of this moment, ceremonial references to religion in government speech are constitutionally protected. That is the law, and that is all I'm arguing.

[Ifreann]

I saw that you cited Newdow, and didn't read anything else.

Given that Newdow was ultimately dismissed on procedural grounds, it is not in itself sufficient legal precedent to uphold my argument. But combined with Lynch v. Donnelly and County of Allegheny v. ACLU, and with numerous lower court decisions made on the same basis, it is abundantly clear that as of this moment, ceremonial references to religion in government speech are constitutionally protected. That is the law, and that is all I'm arguing.

And I'm dismissing your argument out of hand because you cited a case that you knew did not address the question of the constitutionality of the pledge as if it supported you.

[Reverend Norv]

Given that Newdow was ultimately dismissed on procedural grounds, it is not in itself sufficient legal precedent to uphold my argument. But combined with Lynch v. Donnelly and County of Allegheny v. ACLU, and with numerous lower court decisions made on the same basis, it is abundantly clear that as of this moment, ceremonial references to religion in government speech are constitutionally protected. That is the law, and that is all I'm arguing.

And I'm dismissing your argument out of hand because you cited a case that you knew did not address the question of the constitutionality of the pledge as if it supported you.

It does. Regardless of whether or not it is legal precedent in and of itself, O'Connor's four-point definition has since been used as such by lower courts on multiple occasions. This is a fairly common pattern, as I suspect you know: the Supreme Court dismisses a case procedurally, but nevertheless explains why, if the procedural grounds were solid, they would rule a certain way. Those opinions are then used by lower courts in cases where the procedural grounds are solid, and so pass into precedent. I can go and find the district court decisions to prove it if you really want me to, but I think that you know our legal system well enough to know that I am right.

Besides which, although Newdow defines it best, ceremonial deism dates back to Lynch v. Donnelly and was elaborated upon in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, both of which were decided upon the merits of the case. There has been no precedent since to overturn those decisions, so legally, they are sufficient to support the existence of a category of ceremonial references to God in public life that do not violate the Constitution. According to Lynch, that category includes "the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag." So regardless of your opinion of Newdow, "under God" is still constitutionally protected as of this time.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Is it constitutional? Yes it is, based on court decisions.

Is it time we should have removed it and stop being too fucking lazy not to? Yes.

[The Scientific States]

OP, that's a silly argument, since Under God still implies that we are a nation united under theism, which violates the separation of church and state.

[Benuty]

It violates constitutional notions of secularism by enforcing the will of the cult of the founding fathers. What other God would they be talking about than George Washington?

[Kelinfort]

I think I can sum up my view best this way: It's not 'under god" that is the problem, the real problem is these faith based initiatives, which really do violate the constitution in showing favouritism to certain denominations and faiths.

[The Alma Mater]

Stop trying to continue justifying the Cold War and accept the fact that America isn't always right.

You got that from what he wrote?

Does make some sense. As mentioned ad nauseam, the "under god" was only added to say "fuck you" to the Soviets. Not for any religious reasons.

[Cumalas]

America was created by anti-religious theists who believed in natural rights and considered atheism a mental illness.