Under God

[stu]

The pledge as it is written and currently voluntarily practiced is constitutional according to the High
Court,

It remains unconstitutional according to the First Amendment of the Constitution. I take it that will be just a minor consideration to you

and considered constitutional by those who actually practice religion

Not by ALL those who actually practice religion it isn't. Many religious leaders consider it unconstitutional and damaging to religion for reasons already described.

and considered constitutional by those leaders of all major religions in the USA.

No surprises there. Of course they would say that. Such people might well say black is white or green is red if they thought it would be in their interests to do so.

I have given supporting evidence to my conclusions in 4 ways:
One is the High Court and their opinion, and I provided a link to the Courts own words on the matter.

The High Court's opinion changes on such matters. It has before. It probably will again.

Second is the historical framework of the Bill of Rights, its evolution, and the intention of the
Framers to uphold the spirit of Locke's "Freedom of Conscience" and I provided a link to a Law Review article
to support that information.

That argument doesn't work. The words in the First Amendment are clear and precise. The "Freedom of Conscience"
is again further confirmation if it is anything, not to have the state involving itself in the sponsoring of religion.

Third is the common man, and common sense.....and what the common man understands religion to be, i.e. creed and dogma, enacted upon and motivated by faith in God. To the common man, someone who simply repeats "Under God" but does not do so with full faith in God is not engaged in the practice of religion.

So then, that leaves the common man who IS engaged in the practice of religion. It should therefore be reasonable to anticipate that this particular brand of common man requires "under God" to be in the Pledge because it is
indeed respecting an establishment of religion.

A parrot can be trained to say "under God" and no reasonable man would say a parrot is practicing a
religion by a simple repetition of the phrase "under God."

So one lot of common man is trained - under law - by the other lot of common man, to parrot a phrase in order that , the common man, can have it endorsed by government , his respecting an establishment of religion. Nice.

...The meaning is provided by the speaker or listener of the word God, not by the word God
itself....

No need for the word God then. "one nation under.... whatever". Has a ring to it.

Fourthly, the religious leaders, the real experts in what is religion, all agree that a simple repetition of the word "God" does not constitute a religious practice. Only when the word God is said with full
faith in prayer to God and as implemented as part of the entire practice of religion, does the word God have any value from a religious perspective.

Some religious leaders will tell you anything (especially tell children anything). The word God , both in common use and in specific use , is a religious word. It is nothing else.

stu loses. Yet, stu thinks he has won.

I lose 'cause you say so and I think I have won 'cause you say so too. Are you God then?

stu thinks saying the word God makes something a religion. stu is wrong.

You know I think that as well. Amazing mind reading ability you have.
You know I think something which I have never said - even more astounding.

The word God is directly and indirectly associated with religion only. Nothing else. Whether the word God makes
something a religion (which is what you say I am thinking lol) is irrelevant, as the word God already has religious meaning and nothing else. It has to be qualified before any other context can be given to it. "under God" does not qualify the word God in any way. Therefore in common meaning it remains a religious word.

Yet, stu continues to believe he is right, and all the others who disagree with him wrong.
Hmmmmm......
I guess stu thinks he knows more about religion and what it is than anyone else.

Then keep on guessing.

How odd, first we have axeman who thinks only he and the atheists are the only ones qualified to define
properly what atheism is---not the religious people......

The words in the First Amendment do well enough by themselves.

and now stu thinks he is better qualified than those religious leaders, religious practitioners among the common people, and the Supreme Court to define what is religion, and what constitutes practice and/or establishment of religion.

You are practicing knowing what I think as a sort of religion are you?

This has nothing to do with what constitutes practice and/or establishment of religion, and as axe may say STRAWMAN..and so it is. Because you seem unable to get your head around the difference in ..practicing religion or...establishment of religion..against... respecting an establishment of religion .. doesn't mean you have an argument.

You have moved from High Court to Supreme Court. You may well find the Supreme Court is a little more hostile to your personal definitions.

Stu thinks we can throw out context, the wishes of the Framers (who 3 days before ratification of the
First Amendment approved paying a chaplain's wages to say a daily prayer to God at their meetings), the history
of this country, the use of the word God and the Creator in the Declaration of Independence, etc. stu doesn't think he needs to build a foundation for his argument and reach a conclusion citing case law, the accepted tests of what is religion determined by the high court, nor any historical references. He simply has to say it is so, and it is so.

Who are you talking to?

Does stu have a God complex in this case? It would seem so, he sees and claims fact where others don't, only he knows what the words mean and what the Framers intended, and only he is entitled to say what is fact....not simply a point of view or opinion.

The only God complex here is manifested by those who were so scared of "Godless Russia" they violated the constitution to declare America a nation under God. And by those who so energetically want to keep a word which they say means nothing or anything at all.

But notwithstanding all of this, you have yet to show how those 10 words mean something else than what they say.

I am glad as an American citizen,

I don't believe you

which stu is not,

I don't believe you

that we follow the law, which grants the High Court final decision in matters of what is actually constitutional, and not leave it up to extremist groups or individuals who have problems with others saying a
word voluntarily.

The same type of extremists who had problems with children being forced to recite the Pledge no doubt. The same type of extremists who had problems with segregation no doubt. The same type of extremists who don't want to see the Constitution violated. The same type of extremists who the High Court turn over decisions in favor of because they could be bothered to have a problem with them.

If the word God is so meaningless, why would anyone want it in a pledge in the first place, and why should anyone get so upset about keeping such a word in a pledge if it is meaningless.

Want to scare stu? Don't say Boo!, say God! He appears terrified of the word.

Wrong again, Boo will do it. God is meaningless... remember.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Yes, I do know what you think.

You have made that abundantly clear.

God=religion was your statement.

A statement only of course, and a statement that the common reasonable man, the High Court, the leaders of all major religions state is false, as religion is more than the word God, or the phrase "under God."

You claim it true, but as a claim only, it is as impotent as any other claim lacking foundation and evidential proof.

So if stu thinks he wins, or if stu thinks he loses, or if stu mindlessly repeats as a parrot "The pledge is unconstitutional" that does not make it so, any more than the same parrot mindlessly repeating "under God" makes the parrot a practitioner of religion.

What makes it so? What exactly makes a law unconstitutional? The law itself. And where is it written into the law itself who determines what the law means when their is difference of opinion?

The issue of the pledge is contested of course, and there are differences of opinion. We are not dealing with the 2+2=4. We are dealing with matters of law, which are subject to interpretation.

What to do about difference of opinion of what is constitutional? Consult philosophers? Consult historians? Consult atheists? Consult religious leaders?

It is written into the law, into the Constitution itself, that difference of opinion on what law means shall be determined by the High, and most Superior and Supreme Court:

Article. III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The judicial power was not placed in the hands of philosophers, statesmen, atheists, religious leaders, etc., but in the hands of those considered to be legal experts....experts in the law.

You are free to petition the court with your arguments and claims, but the court will determine what is law, what is constitutional.

You can lose a case and continue to think you are right, but the High Court continues to pass final judgment on what is constitutional.

So if you state that "The Pledge is unconstitutional" and the High Court states otherwise, what do we have? We have a law passed by Congress and upheld by the Highest Court, and a man left standing with his opinion outside of the High Court's.

Newdow and his fellow atheists did just that. They were able to secure a judgment in their favor at an inferior court level, and the most superior Supreme Court dismissed their conclusions on a technical basis, and in addition made comments as to the inferior court's failure to apply the standard legal tests to the case which have been established in determining religion.

I do like the term, "inferior court".... don't you? Unequivocal, plain, simple...and right there in the constitution.

In other words, Newdow and the atheists stepped up to the plate, hit a ball they thought was in play because two inferior umpires of three said it was a fair ball, but the Superior umpires shot them down as it was in their view a foul ball....eight to none.

Lucky for Newdow and company it actually was shot down, for if it were upheld, you would see the passage of a constitutional amendment that would really make the situation worse.

Newdow and company lost.

Boo hoo.

So, try, try, and try again. Keep stating, keep repeating, and keep maintaining your right not to listen to, nor say the legal and constitutional pledge. Keep practicing your belief systems, as such as they are, only belief systems and opinion, not incontrovertible fact.

Hate the Supreme Court if you wish, it would not be the first time, nor the last that people don't agree with the court's ruling. That's the way it goes with law, as law is subject to opinion and interpretation....especially when dealing with the Establishment Clause as written more than 200 years ago.

The pledge is legal and constitutional you know, the High Court has said so....a power granted to them by the U.S. Constitution.

Of course, not being an American citizen living in America would make it easier to dismiss the legal authority and supremacy of the Supreme Court where opinions of U.S. Constitutionality are ultimately determined.

Quote from stu:

It remains unconstitutional according to MY OPINION OF WHAT IS MEANT BY THE WORDS IN the First Amendment of the Constitution. I take it that will be just a minor consideration to you Not by ALL those who actually practice religion it isn't. Many religious leaders consider it unconstitutional and damaging to religion for reasons already described.No surprises there. Of course they would say that. Such people might well say black is white or green is red if they thought it would be in their interests to do so.The High Court's opinion changes on such matters. It has before. It probably will again. That argument doesn't work. The words in the First Amendment are clear and precise. The "Freedom of Conscience"
is again further confirmation if it is anything, not to have the state involving itself in the sponsoring of religion. So then, that leaves the common man who IS engaged in the practice of religion. It should therefore be reasonable to anticipate that this particular brand of common man requires "under God" to be in the Pledge because it is
indeed respecting an establishment of religion.

 

[stu]

Yes, I do know what you think.
You have made that abundantly clear.
God=religion was your statement.

Nope, too late to change the context now. please try to refer to things actually said and not to those you have made up for yourself . You have already said and now stu thinks he is better qualified.... .
Nothing to do with God=Religion. You know I think I am better qualified even though I have said nothing of the sort, nor for your information, do I anyway think that .

A statement only of course, and a statement that the common reasonable man, the High Court, the leaders of all major religions state is false, as religion is more than the word God, or the phrase "under God."

For some religion may well be more than the word God, or for some it may not. But the word God is in usual and common meaning, at least synonymous with religion. To say it isn't is not giving ordinary or usual meaning to the word.

You claim it true, but as a claim only, it is as impotent as any other claim lacking foundation and evidential proof.

What proof would you accept...let's see...

So if stu thinks he wins, or if stu thinks he loses, or if stu mindlessly repeats as a parrot "The pledge is unconstitutional" that does not make it so, any more than the same parrot mindlessly repeating "under God" makes the parrot a practitioner of religion.

Then some proof you would find acceptable would make the words of the Constitution mean something to you, rather than my stating the words themselves as the proof of their meaning and intent. Put a little differently, you do not accept the words of Establishment Clause unless something or someone else tells you what you should think it means…. Ok . let's see if there can be found some proof that might suit you....

What makes it so? What exactly makes a law unconstitutional? The law itself. And where is it written into the law itself who determines what the law means when their is difference of opinion?

So the law itself makes the Constitution unconstitutional. The wording of the Constitution is nothing to do with the fact that a law is unconstitutional? How strange that another law is the only thing that makes law correct and not the Constitution itself. But nonetheless, we are now looking for some Court-law proof for you now so let's see.....

The issue of the pledge is contested of course, and there are differences of opinion. We are not dealing with the 2+2=4. We are dealing with matters of law, which are subject to interpretation.

Ah right...so we are not dealing with what the Constitution says, we are dealing with what the law says the Pledge says. Does that mean you can then go on to interpret law to say anything you want it to ,or you can interpret the Constitution into anything you want, or the Pledge or words of it into any interpretation you feel like at the time. Sounds a little like chaos to me. But never mind, we are looking for some Court-law proof.... so let's see....

What to do about difference of opinion of what is constitutional? Consult philosophers? Consult historians? Consult atheists? Consult religious leaders?

Do I get to guess?

It is written into the law, into the Constitution itself, that difference of opinion on what law means shall be determined by the High, and most Superior and Supreme Court:

Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

We need some supreme Court proof....ok, The Supreme Court has declared certain prayer unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment. Here's one (there are many) ..... the law itself(Engle v. Vitale) A prayer which read: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee.." blah blah" caused the Court to rule such prayer - forced public school students to exercise religion. The word God was enough to =Religion. Verdict of the Supreme Court.

Not being content in telling me what I think, you proceeded to tell everyone else what they think. The Court does not think what you say they do. I would hazard a guess that very few others do either, including religious leaders or the ‘common man’.The Supreme Court rules. God=Religion by your own requirements.

Unlike you, I don't agree that the Court is the proof of whether a law is unconstitutional or not. They are the arbiter and their opinion is accepted at large as the rule. But, and a very big but is, a ruling, the law, the Court, the Constitution, are there to be evaluated by opinion and discussion which does not necessarily agree with the Court. That is one way how good law might be reached. Not by blindly deferring to a Court ruling, as you say is your preference, and thereby barring any discussion of it being changed or altered. But you appear to want it that way only because you happen to agree with an unconstitutional law.

The rest of your rant is unconnected (most of your stuff often is) and irrelevant. More important to you it seems is who wins and loses not what is right and wrong.

Of course, not being an American citizen living in America would make it easier to dismiss the legal authority and supremacy of the Supreme Court where opinions of U.S. Constitutionality are ultimately determined.

Then is it that you are not an American citizen living in America , and that's what makes it easier for you to dismiss the legal authority and supremacy of the Supreme Court ruling which equates God to religion?

• 
  1. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
  2. The Supreme Court has shown how the word God is equated to religion.
  3. “Under God” inserted by law is therefore a law which is respecting an establishment of religion
  4. The law which inserted “under God” is thereby unconstitutional according to the The First Amendment of the Constitution.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from stu:

You know I think I am better qualified even though I have said nothing of the sort, nor for your information, do I anyway think that.

Okay, we appear to agree then, you are not better qualified to render a legal opinion than the members of the High Court.

Given you lack the position to render a better legal opinion than the court on what is constitutional, why would your opinion be of a greater value than the court's? What qualifies your legal expertise to render an expert legal opinion?

Are you suggesting that you are capable of rendering an equal legal opinion as the court on what is constitutional?

If so, on what basis do you make that claim?

What is your training, published articles in Law Review, or professional history that would put you on equal footing with the opinion of the high court legally speaking on rendering an opinion of what is constitutional or not?

You are entitled to a lay opinion, as we all are, but a legal opinion?

For some religion may well be more than the word God, or for some it may not. But the word God is in usual and common meaning, at least synonymous with religion.

Not synonymous, and not equivalent.

If a parrot says the word God, or if a computer generates the word God via programming, that is not religion. The word God itself is not religion.

God to religion would be object of worship to the process of worship. The object of worship, and the process of worship are not synonymous, nor equivalent.

A man could worship the image of Elvis. He could have a shrine in his house. He could dwell on Elvis, sing his songs, dress like Elvis. He could pray to Elvis. Is he practicing Elvis religion? No, he may worship and adore Elvis religiously, but he is not practicing a religion.

So, to then say that Elvis=worship or Elvis=religion would be a false statement, even if there were some recognized Elvis religion out there.

The worship and mental attitude in religion is what makes a religion what it is. An atheist can hate the concept of God but he can use the word God in a derogatory and negative manner. Is he worshiping God and practicing religion by using the word God? He can complain that America is under God, the illusion of God. Is he practicing the religion of anti-God?

No your statement of God=religion is false.

It would be like saying a painting of Van Gogh is equivalent to the one looking at it admiringly. There is an object, there is an observer, and there is a process of observation. There are 3 distinct components involved. They are not synonymous, nor are they equal.

Even if I took an atheist perspective, and declared God to be an imagination, I still could not say that the imagination itself is the same as the process of imagination. They are not synonymous, nor equivalent.

You may believe that God is a product of human mind, and you are entitled to that opinion. You have no proof that it is so though, you only have the absence of proof according to your standards of proof that God is real and not imagination.

In either case, the object of a perception, or the object of imagination, is not the same as the person who perceives or the person who imagines.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from stu:

Unlike you, I don't agree that the Court is the proof of whether a law is unconstitutional or not. They are the arbiter and their opinion is accepted at large as the rule. But, and a very big but is, a ruling, the law, the Court, the Constitution, are there to be evaluated by opinion and discussion which does not necessarily agree with the Court. That is one way how good law might be reached. Not by blindly deferring to a Court ruling, as you say is your preference, and thereby barring any discussion of it being changed or altered. But you appear to want it that way only because you happen to agree with an unconstitutional law.

The high court is the body that judges law to be constitutional or not. They are granted that right in the constitution. They are final judge of an existing law's constitutionality.

The court does not make law. The mechanisms are in place for new laws and new amendments.

So if you don't like their "proof", go ahead, have a public discussion, and put it to a vote. Try to sponsor and pass an amendment to the constitution that prohibits the use of the phrase "under God" or the pledge as it currently stands. You will lose.

Congress would pass legislation to have a constitutional amendment to restore the pledge as it is if the high court ruled it to be unconstitutional as a voluntary practice in schools.

Then the people of this country would ratify that amendment.

Apparently the majority of public opinion has no weight in your book, but in a democracy it is the final arbiter.

If some day the majority opinion swings to your favor sufficiently, then you will get your way. Until then, you are on the outside looking in at the majority and their belief systems.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from stu:

Then is it that you are not an American citizen living in America , and that's what makes it easier for you to dismiss the legal authority and supremacy of the Supreme Court ruling which equates God to religion?

The court has ruled the pledge to be constitutional as it is currently practiced. What don't you understand about that?

I am in fact an American citizen living in America, are you?


1. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Those are the words, true.

2. The Supreme Court has shown how the word God is equated to religion.

False. They showed how a prayer was part of a religion. The pledge has not been shown to be a prayer, nor equal to religion by the Supreme Court. If it were, they would have ruled as such. As much as you want to make the pledge with "under God" into a prayer of some religion, it is not.

3. “Under God” inserted by law is therefore a law which is respecting an establishment of religion.

False. The words "under God" have not been show by law, nor by the high court to be an establishment of religion.

4. The law which inserted “under God” is thereby unconstitutional according to the The First Amendment of the Constitution.

Does not follow because point 2 and 3 are false.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from stu:

The rest of your rant is unconnected (most of your stuff often is) and irrelevant. More important to you it seems is who wins and loses not what is right and wrong.

Lacking absolute authority or agreed upon mathematical caliber rules, right and wrong are relative terms, and the product of personal opinion. So much of the difference of opinion in law comes from the limits of language and the need for context to understand the language exactly as it was meant to be understood. The letter of the law is not as important as the reason for the law, i.e. the spirit of the law.

Law has never been as definitive as mathematics, as it is a product of changing values and social opinion, and the problems with multiple meanings of words and language.

Winning and losing are much more definitive than right and wrong when it comes to determinations of law. Your side lost, my side won.

When a judge says "case closed" there usually is a winner, and a loser.

People sitting in jail claim to be right all the time, and the jury to be wrong.

Were you an American, and an American citizen, you could participate directly in the process by which our laws are generated, determined to be constitutional, and then enforced.

 

[FasterPussycat2]

STU,
YOU ARGUE WITH A COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL ..

I HAVE HAD THE DISTINCT DIS-PLEASURE OF CONVERSING AT LENGTH WITH ZZZZZZZZ/FOFUMFEE AND I ASSESS HER IQ SOMEWHERES IN THE 90 EES RANGE I AM BEING GENEROUS BUT KIND HERE,

HOWEVER,

PLEASE CONTINUE IF POKING A STICK AT A MONKEY AMUSES YOU HAHA

 

[stu]

Optional 777 / Art / zz /fefum / whatever

What the hell ARE you talking about now? There are 10 words in the First Amendment of the Constitution which I say to you are incontrovertible.

All I get in return is anything but a reason that bears any relationship to the actual wording and why the Establishment Clause is not reliable, clear and meaningful.

I get Elvis, Eric Clapton both standing in for God apparently, parrots and computers. Little else relative which would throw doubt on the precise and clear meaning of the First.

This is the only thing from your multitudinous diversions which comes close to any reasoning on the topic (unfortunately for the argument your reasoning fails miserably yet again)....

1. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Those are the words, true.

Glory be !
However, going on past experiences, I must remember that you will reserve the right to later say.. Those are the words, false.

2. The Supreme Court has shown how the word God is equated to religion.

False. They showed how a prayer was part of a religion.

The Supreme Court has shown no such thing. It showed how the word God is equated to religion. The Court's judgement was about religion and not about prayer.

According to your own words you contradict directly that which you state above.

You said in full and in context ....." A man could worship the image of Elvis. He could have a shrine in his house. He could dwell on Elvis, sing his songs, dress like Elvis. He could pray to Elvis. Is he practicing Elvis religion? No, he may worship and adore Elvis religiously, but he is not practicing a religion.
So, to then say that Elvis=worship or Elvis=religion would be a false statement, even if there were some recognized Elvis religion out there."

Replace the word Elvis with the word God and according to you and by your own explanations, the Supreme Court has proved their ruling was not about prayer.

You have stated that you go by what the Court rules. You make your mind up as to what is and what isn't by what they judge, otherwise you say , you put yourself on the wrong side of the law.

Therefore because of your own requirements alone, the only thing left which that ruling could be about , was the word God and that word's direct and immediate equation to and with religion.

Otherwise their ruling was about children talking in school. Now I wouldn't put it past you, but no one is reasonably suggesting the Court is banning speech by children in school.

3. “Under God” inserted by law is therefore a law which is respecting an establishment of religion.

False. The words "under God" have not been show by law, nor by the high court to be an establishment of religion.

You have demonstrated time after time that you are incapable of accepting the words of First Amendment. It is not "an establishment of religion" it is "..respecting an establishment of religion".

Your leaving of words out of the Clause , somehow attempting to alter its meaning to your advantage, doesn't work.

The Establishment Clause is nothing to do with - an establishment - the establishment - establishing - religion. The words are precise. "...no law which respects an establishment of religion".

The Court ruling in 2. above, by your own definition, is not to do with prayer. It was not to do with disallowing speech either. It was to do with religion because the word God is synonymous with religion and was in the recital being made. That is all the ruling could have been.

Confirmed by nothing less than both Elvis and yourself.

The law which inserted “under God” is thereby unconstitutional according to the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Does not follow because point 2 and 3 are false.

It did and still does follow because of points 2 and 3 and most importantly because of the actual wording in the the First Amendment of the Constitution.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

What the hell ARE you talking about now? There are 10 words in the First Amendment of the Constitution which I say to you are incontrovertible.

There are 10 words in the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause, that are subject to the opinion of the reader for their meaning.

If that were not fact, then your opinion would not be in opposition to the High Court's.

Seriously, do you have any understanding of how the law works, and how it is subject to judicial opinion?

No one is challenging the 10 words, the question is what do they actually mean as the law is applied, what was the intent of the Framers, and what is the spirit behind the Establishment Clause.

You have your definitions, the court has different ones when it comes to the term religion and the pledge.

Following is an excerpt from the court's recent ruling, did you take the time to read it? http://members.cox.net/aphie/ElkGrove.pdf

b. This Court Has Uniformly Stated The Pledge is
Consistent With the Establishment Clause and is Thus
Constitutional. Petitioners submit the EGUSD policy is also constitutional because this Court has repeatedly observed that the Pledge is consistent with the Establishment Clause. While the specific issue of whether the Pledge as currently codified is constitutional has not heretofore been expressly decided by this Court, the subject of the constitutionality of patriotic expressions containing references to God, such as the Pledge, have been discussed by this Court for over forty years.
00248850.DOC 30

In Engel, this Court held that state officials could not require
the recitation of a prayer in public schools at the beginning of each school day, even if the prayer was denominationally neutral and students who did not wish to participate could be excused while the prayer was being recited. 370 U.S. at 430-33. In reaching its conclusion, this Court noted: There is of course nothing in the decision reached here that is inconsistent with the fact that school children and others are officially encouraged to express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer’s professions of faith in a Supreme Being, or with
the fact there are many manifestations in our public life of
belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bare no
true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that
the State of New York has sponsored in this instance.
Id. at 435 n.21.

One year later, Justice Brennan examined the allegedly
secular justification behind a statute requiring daily readings from
the Bible noting the justification was to foster harmony and tolerance among the pupils, to enhance the authority of the teacher and to inspire better discipline. Schempp, 374 U.S at 280 (Brennan, J.,concurring). He then questioned why “non-religious means” could not have been used to achieve the noted goals.
It has not been shown that readings from the speeches and
messages of great Americans, for example, or from the
documents of our heritage of liberty, daily recitation of the
Pledge of Allegiance, or even the observance of a moment of
reverent silence at the opening of class, may not adequately
serve the solely secular purposes of the devotional activities
without jeopardizing either the religious liberties of any
members of the community or the proper degree of
separation between the spheres of religion and government.
00248850.DOC 31

Id. at 281. Thus, Justice Brennan did not consider the Pledge to be a statement of religious expression. Justice Brennan went on to explain that certain activities do not have religious meaning due to the fact that such activities have been so interwoven into the fabric of our society that their use “may well not present that type of involvement which the First Amendment prohibits.” Id. at 303.
He found this principle insulates various patriotic exercises and activities utilized in public schools which, whatever their origins, have ceased to have any religious purpose or meaning. Id. As a result, the reference to God in the Pledge merely recognizes the historical fact that our nation was believed to be founded under God. Id.

In Lynch, this Court considered the constitutionality of the
city’s placement of a creche in a Christmas display that was situated in a park owned by a non-profit organization. 465 U.S. at 671. This Court recognized our nation’s history contains numerous official references to vows or invocations of divine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements of the founding fathers. Id. at 675.

Examples include references to God in the national motto (“In God We Trust”) and in the Pledge (“one nation under God”). Id. at 676.

This Court noted that such references to God are consistent with our history and do not violate the Establishment Clause. Id.

Importantly, the Court made this statement while also acknowledging the Pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children each year. Id.

Thus, it is difficult to understand how the Newdow II majority reaches the conclusion that recitation of the Pledge has a coercive effect on objecting students who must listen to willing students recite the Pledge, when this Court has previously acknowledged recitation of the Pledge is constitutional in public schools.

In concurring in this Court’s decision in Lynch, Justice
O’Connor noted that the creche was, [N]o more an endorsement of religion than such governmental “acknowledgments” of religion as legislative prayers of the type approved in Marsh (citation omitted), government declaration of Thanksgiving as a public holiday, 00248850.DOC 32 printing of “In God We Trust” on coins, and opening court sessions with “God save the United States and this honorable court.” Those government acknowledgments of religion serve, in the only ways reasonably possible in our culture, the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society. For
that reason, and because of their history and ubiquity, those
practices are not understood as conveying government
approval of particular religious beliefs.
Id. at 692-93.