Is 'Under God' Constitutional?

[Were-E-Wolf]

I know this is a little out of date with the legal battle occurring s few mounths ago. Actual this is from a few mounths ago when our 8th grade Social Studies Classes did an editoral for the paper. This was my entry, which didn't win. I wonder why that happened, maybe because almost all of my class are belivers in God. I actual saw one editorial that was picked say that if you don't belive in God you should leave the country. All but one of them stated that the words should stay.

I'm posting this now because looking at it again I realy wonder how it could not have been picked comparred to the other ones in how it sounds, not opinion. You guys can flame me all you want, this is ONLY MY opinion and something to think about.
Were E. Wolf

When many people look at this question it would be yes. The words ‘Under God’ in our Pledge is constitutional. Yet another person may look at this question, an atheist like me, and say no. Now before you burn this editorial thinking why should I listen to an eighth grader that doesn’t believe in God. Well lets just say my constitutional right to say this and you have the right to hear it.

Let's state the problem here. In a state far, far away from here, a state like California. In a little city called Sacramento. A man named Michael Newdow doesn’t want his daughter to hear the words ‘Under God’ in a public school. Well, as we all should know, or at least those who read the paper and not the editorials should know that this issue has made it’s way to the 9th circuit. There they have voted that ‘Under God’ is unconstitutional. So they decided on February the 29th that starting on the 10th of March it can not be said in the 9th circuit. states.

Now lets look at both sides of this story. Why should God not be mentioned? It is unconstitutional as is against our rights as Americans to have it mentioned in our government. Why exactly He should be mentioned in schools and government? It is our freedom as Americans to mention God. If you don’t want to say those words then don’t. It would be bias against religion to ban ‘Under God’ from the pledge.

Is it just me or do people that believe in God have a better fight? Well here is my side of the argument. I believe that they had every right to take those words out of the pledge. These words were not in the original document either. They were added in 1954 during the cold war, years and years after Bellamy created the pledge and died. Now lets get back to this cold war thing. It was added because of ‘godless Communism’, is Communism godless? Never mind, forget that, that would be a whole ‘nother subject altogether.

Let's look at what Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain wrote, ‘The absolute prohibition on any mention of God in our schools creates a bias against religion’. Now tell me are we banning any mention of God in schools what so ever? Or are we banning the school and government from using the words ‘Under God’. When I look at money all I do is look of it’s worth, I never take much notice of the words ‘With God We Trust’. I don’t think we need to take out everything talking about God. If the majority wants the state Motto to be ‘In God All Things Are Possible’, then let them. But this is the pledge people. This is how we pedge loyalty to our Nation. Should it not show the world that we are able to think of ourselves equal? I think we only need to remove the words ‘Under God’ from the pledge. Let everything else stay the way it is.

[purinpuff]

Placing "under God" in the middle of "one nation indivisible" is a tad odd. It kind of messes with the rhythm, you know.

[DarkWolf]

You should try being in Britain. In a school that have assemblies where they give out information and then ask you to pray under God - and these assemblies are considered mandatory in most cases, should you believe different like if you are jewish, atheist or whatever, you can opt to never take that assembly but you will be responsible for making sure you ask a teacher for the notices.

One such case was a friend of mine, a Jehovah (spelling?) Witness or something was her religion and so never once took assembly, was never asked to pray, and was allowed to skip all Religious Education and all without fuss, and technically, the school can be sued should they try and make a person listen to a religion they don't believe in.

In short, britain respects the religious rights of others and God plays no part in the mandatory systems. There is no "under god" constitution, there are no "in god we trust" messages, and the nation as a whole has no specific religious orientation, giving it freedom for the civilians to be any religion they choose and be freely expressive of it, and other religions are not allowed to enforce messages of any religious content in any educational or goverment related institute. (basically in religion, us britons are more respectful and open minded, apparently, :p )

[Wolffy13]

You got to love how people in the States claim that we are so diverse and then turn around and assume everyone is Christian. It is unconstitutional, violating the first amendment, to put church and state together. Honestly. As much as I would oppose them, satanists have the right to be satanists here in the USA. You can't cram God down someone's throat, it makes them hateful towards God.

[punisher]

It is against the Constitution, as is the "In God We Trust" on our money. Those words wer added to our pledge only in the Red Scare 50's to show that we were a Godly country, as opposed to those Heathen Russians.<ok, on re-read, I just saw your comments at the end>

The fact that a girl has to say it in school isn't the big problem. Yes, she could just not say that part. She is going to hear that stuff. If you are afraid of teachings that will corrupt your child, you are not doing your job as a parent to instill your values upon your child. They will hear this stuff outside school as well and be forced to come to their own decision. I hear pagan stuff all the time, atheism crowds our society, I am still a christian. The problem is that this oath is our "offical" pledge of "allegiance". People are pledging to be faithful to a country, not its God. You don't have the right to freedom "from" religion, you have the right to practice your own religion and not have one religion championed as the state religion.

[punisher]

(basically in religion, us britons are more respectful and open minded, apparently, :p )

That would probably because of the Church of England. Masses of people were executed when the country dropped catholocism and they wouldn't convert. It is still a bone of contention with many Scots and Irish. The English thought it meant their loyalties were split as they would hold the pope above the King (this was actually a point brought up when JFK became president, that he would take orders from the pope). The catholics saw it as another tool of oppression. C of E is still the state religion, national events still take place in religious buildings. But the actual religion is removed from the actual law-making process. The English government learned the very hard way that forcing a religion on people is not the thing to do. It is a good thing to learn from one's mistakes.
The problem is that America was built on the auspices of religious freedom. Take a real look at the founding fathers (not just a cursory glance that the Christian right does), there were atheist and agnostics galore, a jew, dutch reform, methodist, espiscopalian, etc. They meant it when they said separation of church and state (part of the reason being the impact C of E was having at the time in England)

And that is just with catholics and the C of E. In America we have Devil-worshipers, Satanists, Setists, LeVay followers. That takes a great country to have someone preaching the exact opposite of you, that your preachings are sending you to damnation (And your preaching saying the other way around). And both are still protected equally under the law. I may disagree with someone whole-heartedly, but I still respect their right to choose. That is one thing that makes America the greatest country on earth. I would like to see it stay that way.

[RQ]

Placing "under God" in the middle of "one nation indivisible" is a tad odd. It kind of messes with the rhythm, you know.

You know, I thought the same thing until I looked at the ways the phrase could be spoken. It could be either of the following:

One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

or

One nation, under God indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


Anyway that's my $0.02.

[Nurika]

I don't really think that saying, "under god" is too constitutional. But this is only my point of view.

When I don't pledge, my teacher would yell at me and force me to do it. I'm not too happy about that. But that's not the point. The point is the fact that people have different religions, and shouldn't be forced to say the pledge. I just don't like how they force you to do it. Especially if it says, "under god" in the pledge. Not everyone believes in god, and has the same religion..and I think that sort of violates that fact.

[LV426]

It is a Constitutional right that we are given by the founders of the United States to choose what religion we wish to practice. We are also guaranteed a separation of church and state. Basically that means that the government may not in any way infringe upon a citizen's religious practices unless their religion violates any other said laws in the constitution. Of course I believe we have added that any religious practice that brings harm to others can be restricted in that those practices are not allowed. For good reason of course.

Schools, unless privately owned are run by the government. To force children in a government run school to pray or use the word "God" in any way is a violation of their inalienable rights as citizens of the United States. There was a war fought over this and not just because of the Church of England. The reason that people came here was because of various reasons but one that seemed quite common was religious persecution. So in effort to prevent anyone from forcing their religion on others they wrote in that lovely little law that allows anyone to worship anything or anyone.

It hasn't always worked out very well as some of you may know. Christianity, the worship of one god and only one god as well as his son, Jesus, became the majority and all others the minority. Usually as long as God in some form was acknowledged they pretty much allowed the practice, but if one decided to look to other gods and goddesses, those who had their religious freedom decided to persecute those who were excercising their own religious freedoms. Usually rather painfully involving bonfires or stakes, or other painful torture. Yes americans have not always practiced their own Constitution but at least the religious rights were there.

We have moved forward now and there is more tolerance for other religions and it has come to a point where the average american citizen has decided that he needs to defend his religions rights for himself and his children. It is his right to do so, and it is the government's responsibility to honor his rights and remove "God" from the public schools. One may think that saying god in a morning prayer or pledge is harmless, but to a child that is not raised with god and who is forced to accept such a thing this can be harmful.

It is also another way to set a child apart from his/her fellow class mates. Any differences shown among peers of that age is considered a weakness and to be the only child that has to leave the room or refrain from saying the Pledge can draw unwanted attention. Children can be cruel as can their parents and zealous christians who find out that their child shares a classroom with a "godless heathen" can turn into a holy war on the playground.

It is but a simple matter to remove god from the government institutions but there are many that insist that "god" is the beginning and the end of everything...unfortu nately in some cases this is right.

[chriz]

Strictly speaking, it's not unconstitutional. Our constitution never said anything about atheism (which isn't really a religion). All it says is congress shall pass no law restricting religion. It doesn't say we can't have religion in government, although it implies government can't advocate a specific religion (since that would be, in effect, restricting others).

The mere mention of "God" isn't advocacy of a specific religion. Which god? The Christian one (Catholic or Protestant)? The Jewish one? A pagan god? It never says anywhere that we enjoy a separation of Deism and State. And the constitution itself doesn't mention separation of Church and State, that phrase comes from other Jefferson publications.

Having said all this, I'm not a fan of "under God" in the pledge, nor am I one of the 10 Commandments on court house walls (which is, in fact, an advocacy of Christianity). I don't like it, but unconstitutional it's not.

[Xzengrim]

Chriz IS right. But I think what we're all thinking when we hear "freedom of religion" is that the state shows neither favoritism nor opposition to any particular religion, and leaves the people to find their own spiritual enlightenment (THERE'S a phrase that tastes bad in my evil mouth...). In that respect, it is unconstitutional to put "In God We Trust" on the money or to make people say the pledge, because it represents God in government. If they really want to be fair to everybody, they shouldn't do it.
But also, I heard Britain was thinking of changing the royal family's motto from "Defenders of the Faith" to "Defenders of Faith.", because the latter does not so much imply that a particular religion is being upheld.
Any Brits in here heard about this?

[SoulScream]

In reply to the original post, since it was so long i didn't want to have it all quoted....

There was a problem in the high school I went to. The teachers there were no longer allowed to talk about the bible, God, or anthing christian based. At all. Ever. Yet, any time anyone brought up anything that was non-christian, or "satanic" or such, they were reprimanded. Because it was still a christian based school system with christain beliefs. Which is fine. Didn't bother me. But I thought it was just all so odd because they were priding themselves on being multi-culteral...but i guess to them culter has nothing to do with religion, when in fact reliogion is something so deeply rooted in all of human history and behaviour and cultures. So how were we supposed to study all of human history and culture and behaviour if we can't talk about other peoples religions? Or even discuss christian ones?
And WHY were they not allowed to discuss religion? Because one of my teachers had a class reading Lord Of The Flies, and they were talking about the symbolism in the book, and the allusion of Beelzebub. Some of the students didn't know who that was or what it was refering to. So the next day he brings in a bible to show them the references so they would know what the author was talking about. So one girl goes home and she's talking to her parents about her day and mentions one of her teachers brought in a bible to show them what this book they were reading meant. Her father freaks out. Gets pissed at the school. Causes a fuss with the schoolboard, ect. Because he doesn't want his daughter learning about other religions. Why? What's so wrong with learning about them? It doesn't mean you have to believe them, it's only expanding the mind to learn about other people. I mean christ, why not have the book itself banned. Yeah, lets start a good ol fashioned book burning just so no one will get offended. :rolleyes:

They weren't forcing anyone to conform, saying you HAVE to believe this, or that or the other thing. I didn't see what the big deal was, why people have to get so offended by any of it if it's not doing them any harm. True, some things can use adjustments to make room for all the diverse people and beliefs of the world, especially in multi-cultural parts of the globe. But some people also need to realise that this is a very diverse world. Not everyone is christian, not everyone is athiest, or hindu or bhuddist or...Yeah.

Did I make sence at all?

[DarkWolf]

That takes a great country to have someone preaching the exact opposite of you, that your preachings are sending you to damnation (And your preaching saying the other way around). And both are still protected equally under the law. I may disagree with someone whole-heartedly, but I still respect their right to choose.

And this is just American.. why? We have devil-worshippers, satanists, blood fetishists, the full works in Britain, and they're protected under law too. In general we also have high respect for others, and not just in religion either. Any ethnic origins are welcomed, any sexual preferences are welcomed, and so on.. and yes.. protected under law too. If you harass someone because they're black or gay or whatever, is an illegal offence and will land you with a high fine and probably an 18-month (or more) prison sentence.

[YoungFang]

I heard Britain was thinking of changing the royal family's motto from "Defenders of the Faith" to "Defenders of Faith.", because the latter does not so much imply that a particular religion is being upheld.
Any Brits in here heard about this?

I haven't heard about that untill now. I guess they would be changing it because the county's becoming so diverse (and crowded). I personally think they should change their motto to " Denfenders of the Right to spend your Tax on Garden Parties" But that's just my opinion. I don't like the Royal Family, partly because the Royal family is not just the Queen, children and grandchildren but the second cousins and third cousins. The Royal Family itself is hardly ethnically diverse and they originate from such a religiously strict line it seems a little hypcritical. It's hard to see them as modern when they follow such traditional lines and I tink it's holding the country back from becoming a much more diverse and understanding environment.
But hey that's just my views :)

[Ahroun]

I can not avoid replying in here. I was looking at my mails and topics, and by now i should have been gone. So, sorry i am again writing.. :shrug:

I was <open mouth> with the fact "In God We Trust" on the money. Now, please don't get me wrong! But more and more America seems to me what your Government hates and fights in other countrys :rolleyes:
I have learned God has to do with Love and Feeling. Never with money or Power. Maybe if most Believes would see this, they would accept each other, and not fight cause of it.
Anyway, i find silly i lay an hand on a bible and swear i will say only the truth. Even if it would be my <own> Bible. Because even a faith shouldn't be so <limited> to words of a book, since humans are incredibly <unlimited>

Anyway, thanx for listening, and again i am sorry for this post

Namaste!
Ahroun

[YoungFang]

I agree. I always thought religion was not just something to believe in but something to better yourself by such as honesty and kind deeds as since when do you see that in politics?

[shadowhound]

I was <open mouth> with the fact "In God We Trust" on the money. Now, please don't get me wrong! But more and more America seems to me what your Government hates and fights in other countrys :rolleyes:
Ahroun

It seems just a bit of a reach to say that having "In God We Trust" on money is oppression. Even having "Jesus Loves You" or "Satan Rules" on money wouldn't be oppression. I think it would be wrong, and make a lot of people very upset, but that alone would not constitute religious prosecution.

[phantomroller]

well I don't think it's unconsitutional. over the past summer, I took a law course in Chicago and it was very intense in consitutional law. and we discussed the first amendment and the idea of separation of church and state (as many have mention here already). and a lot of people say that adding 'under God" and is unconstitional cause it interfers politics and religion. well, the consitution is saying about separtaion is that congress (the government whichever) can't enforce or make a law establishing favorinig a religion, or in this case saying everyone has to say Under God. if they made a law and passed the law saying that all americans now have to say Under God in the pledge, then that would be unconsitiutional. to enforce a law favoring one religion over the other is uncostitunal. but if you don't like the pledge, then don't say it! As I siad, there is no law saying that every american has to say the pledge with the words under god in it. if they did that, then yes, by all means it's not right. but don't say the words if you don't like them. don't try and take them out.

I think it was a bit extreme to go to court over it (up to the Supreme Court no less). it was a bit much I thought. but I don't think it's unconsitutional at all. that's my opinion on it.

[Darth Cluich]

Since the issue here is really the constitutionality of "under God," doesn't this really belong in the Politics forum?