On The Pledge Of Allegience

[JoeyKnothead]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

[East of Eden]

Yes, I'm aware of that decision, thank you. It was wrongly decided, and violates test #2 by inhibiting religion.

Religion is not inhibited by this decision. The propagation and promotion of religion by state paid officials in state run institutions is inhibited.

So why do we have military and prison chaplains?

We've still got a ways to go. I believe that overt the state support for religions in the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and the military should be withdrawn.

That may be your wish, but it is not based on the Constitution. None of your examples consitute the establishment of a state church like the Church of England. There is no such thing as separation of state and belief in our Constitution.

[palmera]

Yes, I'm aware of that decision, thank you. It was wrongly decided, and violates test #2 by inhibiting religion. As Justice Stewart noted in his dissent, how is it that school prayer is unconstitutional but not when done by Congress, the Supreme Court, not to mention government paid military chaplains?

One of the main reasons school prayer was ruled unconstitutional is because of the age of the students. Public school is not intended to be a means of religious indoctrination, but of social preparation. School prayer, however "voluntary" it may be, is not, and has never been voluntary in practice. Government paid military chaplains, however function to allow soldiers the ability to freely practice their religion. Serving in the military cannot, constitutionally, preclude someone from be able to practice their religion.

Yes, I'm aware of that decision, thank you. It was wrongly decided, and violates test #2 by inhibiting religion.

Religion is not inhibited by this decision. The propagation and promotion of religion by state paid officials in state run institutions is inhibited.

So why do we have military and prison chaplains?

We've still got a ways to go. I believe that overt the state support for religions in the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and the military should be withdrawn.

That may be your wish, but it is not based on the Constitution. None of your examples consitute the establishment of a state church like the Church of England. There is no such thing as separation of state and belief in our Constitution.

"Separation of state and belief" is an interesting way to pose this problem. It's vague and seems to miss a crucial aspect of constitutional protections guaranteed to both state and individual. The freedom of religion clause serves both to protect individual/corporate beliefs from government and to protect government from individual/corporate beliefs. As for withdrawing any state support for religion: it is sometimes necessary, as in the case of military chaplains, for the government to support religion as a means to protect religious liberty. Serving the state should not mean one cannot practice her/his own religion. Now, I'm not so much for legislative prayer sessions (arguments from history/tradition are weak to me,] but military chaplains fill an important role in the life of our soldiers.

[East of Eden]

One of the main reasons school prayer was ruled unconstitutional is because of the age of the students. Public school is not intended to be a means of religious indoctrination, but of social preparation.

Which religion is being 'indoctrinated' by a non-sectarian prayer? You could also just as easily call it social prepartion.

School prayer, however "voluntary" it may be, is not, and has never been voluntary in practice.

I disagree. You are overcomplicating this.

Government paid military chaplains, however function to allow soldiers the ability to freely practice their religion. Serving in the military cannot, constitutionally, preclude someone from be able to practice their religion.

Neither do you suspend your 1A rights when you enter a public school building.

[palmera]

Which religion is being 'indoctrinated' by a non-sectarian prayer? You could also just as easily call it social prepartion.

Prayer is still prayer. You can make the prayer as non-specific as you want, but prayer is a fundamentally religious act, and as such has no place being performed corporately in public schools.

I disagree. You are overcomplicating this.

Not according to supreme court justices. It is too much to expect adult decisions from adolescents in the case of prayer in schools. At young ages, (at all ages for that manner) people are prone toward conformity when faced with group decisions and behaviors. It's not right for the government to prescribe words of prayer in the first place, let alone mandate them for children who are still very early in the process of figuring out what to believe in, or even if to believe in any religion. It is not up to public schools to guide youth in their spiritual growth. It is an extremely complicated situation. Perhaps you're reducing it too much?

Neither do you suspend your 1A rights when you enter a public school building.

To be sure, which is exactly why you can't have prayer in public schools!

[East of Eden]

Prayer is still prayer. You can make the prayer as non-specific as you want, but prayer is a fundamentally religious act, and as such has no place being performed corporately in public schools.

What religion is established by a non-sectarian, voluntary prayer?

[palmera]

Prayer is still prayer. You can make the prayer as non-specific as you want, but prayer is a fundamentally religious act, and as such has no place being performed corporately in public schools.

What religion is established by a non-sectarian, voluntary prayer?

It doesn't matter what, if any specific, religion is established. As I said before, prayer is a fundamentally religious act. The constitution doesn't provide for protection from specific religions, but religion itself.

[East of Eden]

It doesn't matter what, if any specific, religion is established.

Yes, it does, establishing a state religion like the Church of England is what the Federal government is prohibited from doing, as opposed to state governments, who had state churches and faith tests well into the 1800s.

As I said before, prayer is a fundamentally religious act. The constitution doesn't provide for protection from specific religions, but religion itself.

The 1A also protects free excercise of religion, which the 1962 decision violates.

As I've said before on this thread, you will find no separation of state and belief in the Constitution.

[palmera]

It doesn't matter what, if any specific, religion is established.

Yes, it does, establishing a state religion like the Church of England is what the Federal government is prohibited from doing, as opposed to state governments, who had state churches and faith tests well into the 1800s.

As I said before, prayer is a fundamentally religious act. The constitution doesn't provide for protection from specific religions, but religion itself.

The 1A also protects free excercise of religion, which the 1962 decision violates.

As I've said before on this thread, you will find no separation of state and belief in the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Now where is any specific religion mentioned? Any establishment of religion is prohibited. It doesn't matter what name it's given. Thanks to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, states are also prohibited from establishing state religions.

How specifically does the 1962 decision violate the 1A? In what way is prayer mandated in public schools not a violation of the establishment clause? While individuals have the right to practice their beliefs, no individual, corporate body, especially in a governmental capacity has the right to infringe upon the free exercise rights of another.

[East of Eden]

"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Now where is any specific religion mentioned? Any establishment of religion is prohibited. It doesn't matter what name it's given. Thanks to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, states are also prohibited from establishing state religions.

You seem to think 'God' is unconstitutional. From Joseph Story, SCOTUS justice appointed by James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution',

1865. How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free government, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;--these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience.

1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

How specifically does the 1962 decision violate the 1A? In what way is prayer mandated in public schools not a violation of the establishment clause? another.

It doesn't establish a state church by the Federal government. Can you really read the Story quotes and think the Founders would have been against a non-sectarian, voluntary prayer? Go ahead and say you don't like school prayer, but don't try and distort history and the intentions of the Founders.

[palmera]

You seem to think 'God' is unconstitutional. From Joseph Story, SCOTUS justice appointed by James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution',

I'm not sure how you concluded "'God' is unconstitutional" from what I've written thus far.... And, quoting a SCOTUS justice from who lived and 'ruled' (in the legal sense of course) over 100 years before anything we're discussing doesn't make your case any stronger. You're appealing to a time in history for authority on a matter it never touched upon. The public school system was just in the infant stages of what we know it to be today at the same time Story's life was ending.

It doesn't establish a state church by the Federal government. Can you really read the Story quotes and think the Founders would have been against a non-sectarian, voluntary prayer? Go ahead and say you don't like school prayer, but don't try and distort history and the intentions of the Founders.

Aside from the fact that we aren't living in the time of the founding of the United States of America, in what way did I "distort history and the intentions of the Founders?" Which founders? Did I distort history by bringing up the application of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment as it relates to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment?

Your appeal to the authority of "the Founders" as though they spoke with one voice on the matter of religious liberty is of little use here because they didn't; nor did all Americans. That aside, the earliest legislators of the USA held prayer in session, and it seems fair to suggest that they wouldn't have been against non-sectarian prayer in public schools.

But, as I said, times have changed drastically since that time, and not all of the same practices, religious or otherwise, that occurred then, are viable options today. For instance (and this is just the tip of the iceberg), "the Founders" would have considered our voting laws today outrageous. Does that mean we should revert back to giving only land owning white males the right to vote?

And no, school prayer does not establish a fully functioning state church, but it's an un-allowable step in that direction. You still haven't explained how the 1962 decision you referenced violates the 1A.

We simply cannot have government officials prescribing prayer for children in public schools.