Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

Last year the words "under God" as used in public schools in the "Pledge of Allegiance" came under legal question as Michael Newdow sued to have those words removed from the pledge on the basis of unconstitutionality.

There was a quite a bit of flap on this site about it, including a few rants on the matter.

The previous case won its way to the Supreme Court and that court decided to sidestep the case on a technicality (Newdow was not the legal guardian of his daughter in the public school having to say "under God").

Well Newdow vowed to bring it back and have it actually heard on its merits (something the US seems to rarely seek in our era, a decision, agreed with or not, arrived at based on the merits of an issue). He now has re-filed, with several groups of other parents (whom are guardians) along with him.

Now the courts can hear the case and decide if "under God" is constitutional or not.

Well frankly this is still a NON ISSUE. It clearly IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO REFER TO GOD IN ANY SENSE at a publicly funded school (or in any other government area). Its still not a very complicated case. (God does not flatly state the Abrahamic God but it does state monotheism, hence it is discriminatory, along with the obvious that God does mean religion, duh, seems like we should not have to say that but we do.)

Yet it is clear this case will LOSE. 98% of people in the states are cheering (maybe even more) for it to lose. The President has said the God part should stay, Congress took a break from passing laws/rules about "Freedom Fries" and relaxing its own ethics requirements to recite the pledge and emphasize the GOD part. And even various Supreme Court justices have stated that they think "under God" is constitutional.

Whats the rationale for the justices (since they are people accustomed to expressing their rationale, here we leave the President alone ;))? Well they say its more cultural and ceremonial than religious. Its no different than "In God We Trust" on our money or "God save this honorable court" at the Supreme sessions. Hmmmm. Its NOT about religion, the word is �God�? (Lets not rehash to deeply the fact that it was ADDED in the 50's to weed out the "commies", great ceremony and culture to maintain eh?)

On these points the Justices are half right. It is NOT different than money or other official (non personal) references to God in government, on this they are correct. But it is religious, lets not cop out AGAIN. Not religious? What exactly is "God" supposed to mean to these people?

The judges have pointed out a real fact in their argument, we use God in other places in government as well. But does that make it OK? (We are now in third grade circular logic, we did it before so its ok to do it again, we do it that way because we always do it that way.) The judges have not come up with a reason to call "under God" constitutional, what they have done is come up with other areas of government that are ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND SHOULD BE CHANGED TO NOT REFERENCE GOD.

It seems that 98% of the people in the states, including our leaders and judges and so on, are completely ignorant and or knowingly want to undermine the Constitution of the United States (because of a personal belief). (I would rather it were ignorance in this case, ignorance of what the Constitution says and or of what it means, but it seems in many cases it is a willful disregard of knowledge so that a personal feeling/belief can be forced upon all.) It says "no law respecting an establishment of religion". It says it, and its intention is very clear, no religion in government, separation of church and state. And it does so for many very sound and good reasons (separation if Church and State is a very well established essential governance practice for fair governments, its not just correct because the constitution says so, it prevents discrimination and the negatives that come with it in BOTH the government AND the church).

All of this debate should be about the constitutionality of the "under God" stuff, not personal beliefs?

Lets not go astray here, sure 98% of people in the states are religious (ok 98 is my made up number, in reality its 90something percent, in some sort, not just church attendance, based on surveys quoted in "How We Believe" by Michael Shermer) and sure they WANT people to agree with them and say "under God". But that should be a personal decision and not a state mandated one? Lets face it, lets cop to it, lets deal with it, lets be honest with ourselves and our country, lets address the issue as Newdow so correctly and aptly states and deal with it on its merits.

Personally I think the constitution is correct, and essential, and church and state should be absolutely separate. That rules out �God� and �Almighty� and �Heavenly Father� and �Allah� and �Elvis� and a host of others. But I am in the minority.

If by overwhelming majority the people in the states WANT TO REQUIRE people to say "under God" in school and it to say "In God We Trust" on our money and so on then CHANGE THE DAMN CONSTITUTION so it reflects that. Lets not puss out every time it comes up and skip over or around it on a technicality. You cant have it both ways. Its either we want religion in government or we dont. (And God is religion.)

If this nations majority so strongly believes in God (and frankly is so personally insecure that they must have the government require schoolchildren to pledge "allegiance" to a nation "under God" to affirm their own belief system) then we should change the governmental system to reflect that so these views are not at odds with the very document that defines the basis of law in the United States.
  'Under God' foe sues again over pledge