The inclusion of "under God" is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause due to precedent.
Just to clarify, the Constitution does not explicitly call for separation of church and state - the majority opinion in Everson v Board of Education does. That gives us precedent for the concept of separation.
However, take a look at Lemon v. Kurtzman. This case establishes a test for determining whether or not a statute violates the Establishment Clause. 1 - The statute has a primary secular purpose. 2 - Its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. 3 - It does not create an excessive entanglement with religion. If the statute passes all three prongs of the Lemon test, it does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The federal law that incorporates "under God" clearly fails the Lemon test because it has NO secular purpose. Even if one wanted to argue that its secular purpose was to keep the country united during threats of communism abroad, it would still fail the second prong because its primary effect advances theism.
"Why can't everyone just be free to express whatever their personal beliefs are?" When you include "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, you curtail that right and oppress atheists, agnostics, and secularists. "Everyone who takes advantage of America's religious freedom should respect and be respected by one another." Those atheists/agnostics/secularists are disrespected by the inclusion of "under God."
The media and activists groups don't necessarily oppose the tenets of Christianity - they take issue with the ACTIONS of these groups. I think your argument here is a bit convoluted.
Although your evidence on Sunday laws bring up a good point, these laws, although they align with religious beliefs, promote a primary secular purpose as a day of health and rest for all citizens as decided in McGowan v. Maryland.
Once again, laws may have some basis or alignment with the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't really mean anything. In fact, in McCreary County v. ACLU, the court determined it was unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments in a government building.
I do, however, find it problematic that this employee was fired for wearing a pin expressing his devotion under the Free Exercise Clause. However, your article does not provide enough facts with regards to the Home Depot case for me to make any arguments about the incident.
Finally, the original settlers came to America for religious freedom. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, so the attempts to separate church and state demonstrate the same values our settlers held in terms of freedom.
I would take your arguments more seriously if you gave some sort of constitutional argument or had cited some cases to promote the co-mingling of religion and government rather than whining about how the world isn't fair.
leave a comment
Comments from unregistered users will appear once they are approved. Log in to have your comment show up immediately.
Katherine
Nov 04, 2009
12:12 p.m.
The inclusion of "under God" is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause due to precedent.
Just to clarify, the Constitution does not explicitly call for separation of church and state - the majority opinion in Everson v Board of Education does. That gives us precedent for the concept of separation.
However, take a look at Lemon v. Kurtzman. This case establishes a test for determining whether or not a statute violates the Establishment Clause. 1 - The statute has a primary secular purpose. 2 - Its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. 3 - It does not create an excessive entanglement with religion. If the statute passes all three prongs of the Lemon test, it does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The federal law that incorporates "under God" clearly fails the Lemon test because it has NO secular purpose. Even if one wanted to argue that its secular purpose was to keep the country united during threats of communism abroad, it would still fail the second prong because its primary effect advances theism.
"Why can't everyone just be free to express whatever their personal beliefs are?" When you include "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, you curtail that right and oppress atheists, agnostics, and secularists. "Everyone who takes advantage of America's religious freedom should respect and be respected by one another." Those atheists/agnostics/secularists are disrespected by the inclusion of "under God."
The media and activists groups don't necessarily oppose the tenets of Christianity - they take issue with the ACTIONS of these groups. I think your argument here is a bit convoluted.
Although your evidence on Sunday laws bring up a good point, these laws, although they align with religious beliefs, promote a primary secular purpose as a day of health and rest for all citizens as decided in McGowan v. Maryland.
Once again, laws may have some basis or alignment with the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't really mean anything. In fact, in McCreary County v. ACLU, the court determined it was unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments in a government building.
I do, however, find it problematic that this employee was fired for wearing a pin expressing his devotion under the Free Exercise Clause. However, your article does not provide enough facts with regards to the Home Depot case for me to make any arguments about the incident.
Finally, the original settlers came to America for religious freedom. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, so the attempts to separate church and state demonstrate the same values our settlers held in terms of freedom.
I would take your arguments more seriously if you gave some sort of constitutional argument or had cited some cases to promote the co-mingling of religion and government rather than whining about how the world isn't fair.