Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

As a refresher, here is the text of the First Amendment:

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.

The "intent" has been interpreted as one in which the state is protected from religion, and religion is protected from the state, it goes both ways.

Despite the fact that the words, "make no law" are used in the amendment, the interpretation has been that government should "promote no position", which essentially leaves it in a secular stance.

"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291

Well no quarrel from me on that point wandeljw....gotta give you a nickname....but we'll get around to it. On another thread today, DTOM mentioned having to recite the Lord's Prayer in a public school class. In my interpretation of separation of Church and State, that would be a clear violation and clearly an inappropriate establishment of religion. The phrase "under God" in the pledge, however, does not teach, infer, or expect any particular understanding of who or what God is nor does it include any expectation of faith or worship and therefore that doesn't cross the line. It is not an establishment of religion.

Because Zeus or Allah are specific gods. The term God is not necessarily specific as it would have to be defined to be specific and it could apply to any God, secular or religious.

Because Zeus or Allah are specific gods. The term God is not necessarily specific as it would have to be defined to be specific and it could apply to any God, secular or religious.

...why have it in there at all?

The history of the pledge supports Goodwin's decision. The record of the 1954 act shows that, far from a "de minimis" reference or a mere "backdrop" devoid of meaning, the words "under God" were inserted in the pledge for the express purpose of endorsing religion-which the U.S. Supreme Court itself ruled in 1971 was unconstitutional. Also according to the Supreme Court's own rulings, it doesn't matter that students are allowed to refrain from saying the pledge; a 2000 high court opinion held that voluntary, student-led prayers at school football games are unconstitutionally "coercive," because they force students into an unacceptable position of either proclaiming religious beliefs they don't share or publicly protesting.

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

Okay that link is written by somebody who obviously is vehemently opposed to the pledge. Could we use a more objective source for the history:

In 1954 on flag day President Dwight D. Eisenhower added the words "under God" to the pledge because:

Quote:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

It acknowledges the important and powerful role religion has played in our nation's history. It does not presume a Christian God or Jewish God or any particular diety but succinctly denotes religious faith.....



The question remains: why do some object so strenuously to the phrase?

What harm comes to those who either do not recite the pledge or just omit that phrase or say it believing it doesn't mean anything?

In your opinion it foster superstition. To a large number of others it is meaningful and important. So who should prevail since the phrase itself is not an 'establishment of religion':

a) The large majority who have no problem with the phrase and want it there and are willing for it to be ignored by any others or

b) The minority to whom the phrase is meaningless and/or an irritant and therefore think it should be denied to everybody?

In your opinion it foster superstition.

To a large number of others it is meaningful and important.

So who should prevail since the phrase itself is not an 'establishment of religion':

The large majority who have no problem with the phrase and want it there and are willing for it to be ignored by any others

The minority to whom the phrase is meaningless and/or an irritant and therefore think it should be denied to everybody?

In your opinion it foster superstition. To a large number of others it is meaningful and important. So who should prevail since the phrase itself is not an 'establishment of religion':

a) The large majority who have no problem with the phrase and want it there and are willing for it to be ignored by any others or

b) The minority to whom the phrase is meaningless and/or an irritant and therefore think it should be denied to everybody?