Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

'under God'

17:10 / 25.03.04

I've been reading the current case being argued in front of The Supremes and I'm stuck coming to any conclusion about this. First, as a friend of mine has argued, it's a case that shouldn't have even been made to the docket. The father has no custodial rights to the child and seems to be arguing independently from any legally recognized parental right of protest. That the Supreme Court seems to have chosen to ignore that fact and opted to pursue the case anyhow seems to almost silence it as a counterargument to Mr. Newdow's brief. Given the hot button issue of this, I'm surprised they haven't taken the safer route.

So... is a phrase that was added to the original form of the pledge circa 1954 and that endorses 'God' a violation of the Constitution? Or is it so innocuous a phrase, and the pledge so non-compulsory, that all this fervor is just an attempt by rabid atheists to erase America's Judeo-Christian history? Is it merely empty tradition? Or is the government getting in the business of weighing in on one set of religious ideas over another?

17:24 / 25.03.04

Well, for what it's worth, the origins of the insertion "under God" are rather questionable:

Hand in hand with the Red Scare, to which it was inextricably linked, the new religiosity overran Washington. Politicians outbid one another to prove their piety. President Eisenhower inaugurated that Washington staple: the prayer breakfast. Congress created a prayer room in the Capitol. In 1955, with Ike's support, Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money. In 1956 it made the same four words the nation's official motto, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." Legislators introduced Constitutional amendments to state that Americans obeyed "the authority and law of Jesus Christ."

The campaign to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was part of this movement. It's unclear precisely where the idea originated, but one driving force was the Catholic fraternal society the Knights of Columbus. In the early '50s the Knights themselves adopted the God-infused pledge for use in their own meetings, and members bombarded Congress with calls for the United States to do the same. Other fraternal, religious, and veterans clubs backed the idea. In April 1953, Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., formally proposed the alteration of the pledge in a bill he introduced to Congress.

Read more....

Newdow's argument really hinges on his assertion that the inclusion of "under God" makes the Pledge a prayer. I believe he's pointed out that the President himself has referred to the Pledge as a prayer. If it is a prayer, then most would agree it has no place in public schools. Is it a prayer, though? What about the counterargument:

Personally, I find the idea that it's a mere historical reference, as the opposing side insists, more than a little dubious. What if it went, "One Nation, in defiance of British Imperialism, with Liberty and Justice for all." Oh, but it's just a quick little historical reference, it doesn't mean we're anti-British now!

18:09 / 25.03.04

Newdow's argument really hinges on his assertion that the inclusion of "under God" makes the Pledge a prayer. I believe he's pointed out that the President himself has referred to the Pledge as a prayer. If it is a prayer, then most would agree it has no place in public schools. Is it a prayer, though?

if it not only mentions God, but also swears loyalty to him, it's a prayer.

it's also worth noting that the idea that it's a "historical reference" is part of the general right-wing attempt to argue that the Founding Fathers were uniformly staunchly religious and strongly in favor of religion in public life, which is basically horseshit.

that said, it's bizarre that this case has made it this far when the guy doesn't have custody.

18:19 / 30.03.04

That said, it's bizarre that this case has made it this far when the guy doesn't have custody.

There's an interesting tidbit here - the Supreme Court has decided that before it addresses the constitutionality of "Under God" in the pledge, it is first going to decide whether Newdow has the right to bring the suit in the first place. If they find he does not, they won't even address the constitutionality of the current pledge.

The "he doesn't have the right" angle has been strongly argued by Newdow's opponents, who desperately want to avoid actually having to address the fundamental question of separation of churdch and state. I'm tremendously disappointed (though unsurprised) to see the Supreme Court playing along. At least Scalia has recused himself - that's one tiny beacon of hope for secularism.

07:34 / 31.03.04

Get Your War On had a nice take on the 'Under God' business.

11:22 / 05.04.04

The.Best.April.Fool's.Joke.Ever. This guy is my new hero!

and...isn't "A guy tried to smuggle plutonium from Tajikistan to Afghanistan or Pakistan" just a fancy way of saying "Live for the moment?" - from "Get Your War On" #33

14:44 / 14.06.04

And so the issue ends... on a technicality.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that California atheist Michael Newdow lacked the right to bring a constitutional challenge to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, avoiding a decision on the key church-state issue.

By an 8-0 vote, the justices overturned a controversial decision by a U.S. appeals court in California that reciting the phrase amounted to a violation of church-state separation.

The ruling by the justices was based on the technicality that Newdow could not bring the case before the court because he did not have legal control over his daughter, on whose behalf he was arguing.

09:19 / 15.06.04

I'd rather be on top. ^^