Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005 (WITHDRAWN)

[Emsworth]

Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005

The words "under God" shall cease to form a part of the pledge of allegiance of Atlasia.  The new pledge of allegiance shall read as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of Atlasia, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

Sponsor: Sen. Gabu

[Emsworth]

Honorable Senators,

The bill which we are now debating is bound to be controversial. I know that many of you oppose it, on a variety of grounds. Some may claim that the pledge reflects Atlasia's religious heritage, or that it is harmless and inoffensive, and should not be changed. I do not now wish argue the truth or falsity of these claims. Instead, I should like to convince you that the inclusion of the phrase "under God" in the pledge amounts to a violation of the Constitution, and that the phrase should therefore be removed.

The first and foremost guarantee made by the Atlasian Bill of Rights is this: "No agency of government shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion." It is important to realize that this clause does not just mean that the government cannot establish religion. No, the government cannot even pass laws respecting the establishment of religion. Therefore, the extent of this clause is much broader than some may allege: in the words of Thomas Jefferson, it erects a "wall of separation" between Church and State.

The pledge of allegiance asserts that this republic is "one nation, under God." Such an assertion by the government, however, is entirely contrary to the establishment clause. I echo Justice Robert Jackson in saying, If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in religion. But the pledge of allegiance does precisely the opposite: it declares unequivocally that God exists: and not only that, but also that there is only one God.

It is clear that by officially sanctioning the pledge, the government is accepting the assertion that there is only one God. This assertion flies in the face of the establishment clause, which was meant to prevent the government from making official pronouncements as to what is correct in religion.

Consider what the real-life Supreme Court says: "First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion." Now, the inclusion of the phrase "under God" is undoubtedly religious, and not secular. Furthermore, the primary effect of the inclusion of this phrase is to advance and to endorse religion; a positive assertion by the government that God exists can do nothing less. Let me note that the removal of the clause does not in any way inhibit religion; neutrality is not the same as hostility.

Therefore, on the basis of the establishment clause, I urge the passage of this legislation.

[True Democrat]

I would like to express my support for this bill.  I believe this will finally start the process of having the government follow the Constitution with regard to church and state.

[Ebowed]

I oppose this and support abolishing the pledge altogether.

[MasterJedi]

I oppose this and want it to remain the way it has been all along!

[jokerman]

Athiest Jefferson can have his seperation of church and state.  That's not my interpretation of the constitution.

I urge the Senate to defeat this bill.

[Emsworth]

Athiest Jefferson can have his seperation of church and state.  That's not my interpretation of the constitution.

Separation of church and state was the intent of the Framers of the Bill of Rights, including Madison, and is supported by a great number of Supreme Court decisions and other precedents.

[MasterJedi]

Athiest Jefferson can have his seperation of church and state.  That's not my interpretation of the constitution.

Separation of church and state was the intent of the Framers of the Bill of Rights, including Madison, and is supported by a great number of Supreme Court decisions and other precedents.

It's very interesting that "In God We Trust" is on our money and on a lot of federal buildings in Washington. We must leave the pledge the way it is and everything else involved with this the way it is.

[Emsworth]

It's very interesting that "In God We Trust" is on our money and on a lot of federal buildings in Washington.

That is not what we are debating in this bill: it is, therefore, not a relevant point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if it violates the Constitution? And, at the risk of seeming arrogant, I ask: if you disagree, please point out where exactly my constitutional and legal analysis is flawed.

[Colin]

Athiest Jefferson can have his seperation of church and state.  That's not my interpretation of the constitution.

I urge the Senate to defeat this bill.

Jefferson was a Deist not an Atheist as were many of the founding fathers.

On the subject of the bill I am very conflicted as to how I will vote and will probably end of voting Abstain.

[PBrunsel]

We put "In God We Trust" in the pledge to show, unlike the scheming and evil USSR, we had a God. By taking "under God" out of the pledger we lower ouselves to Godless and despicable Communists!

[Emsworth]

We put "In God We Trust" in the pledge to show, unlike the scheming and evil USSR, we had a God.

So it is admitted that the pledge is an assertion that God exists. Such an assertion by the government clearly violates the establishment clause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has nothing to do with communism.

[Joe Republic]

We put "In God We Trust" in the pledge to show, unlike the scheming and evil USSR, we had a God. By taking "under God" out of the pledger we lower ouselves to Godless and despicable Communists!

Communism as a viable threat has been dead for about 15 years.

As for my own position on this....

I oppose this and support abolishing the pledge altogether.

[Emsworth]

The abolition of the pledge is not something I oppose. However, I fear that it would never pass this Senate: hence, this lesser measure must be taken in the meantime, to uphold the establishment clause.

[PBrunsel]

We put "In God We Trust" in the pledge to show, unlike the scheming and evil USSR, we had a God.

So it is admitted that the pledge is an assertion that God exists. Such an assertion by the government clearly violates the establishment clause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has nothing to do with communism.

I assume you know why we put "under God" in the pledge, so  won't re-explain it.

Second of all, I always read that  the establshment clause is around so we can not do something like England did in the 1600's and force everyone to join the Anglican church. Last time I checked this didn't force you to follow a certain STATE ran religion. This doesn't fo that. You are still allowed to worship whoever the heck you want, and that is why we have the establishment clause. It's not arund to protect everyone from "religous."

Well my explosion on this is over.

[Emsworth]

I always read that  the establshment clause is around so we can not do something like England did in the 1600's and force everyone to join the Anglican church. Last time I checked this didn't force you to follow a certain STATE ran religion. This doesn't fo that. You are still allowed to worship whoever the heck you want, and that is why we have the establishment clause. It's not arund to protect everyone from "religous."

That, with respect, is an historically incorrect interpretation, as it is far too narrow. When Congress was debating the First Amendment (in real life), it actually considered phrases like "Congress shall make no law establishing religion," "establishing one religious sect," and "establishing any particular denomination." But instead of all these, it passed the much broader: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

James Madison was the chief Framer of the Bill of Rights. When he later became President, he vetoed two bills on establishment clause grounds. The author of the establishment clause, on vetoing the first bill, said that "governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious function." And when vetoing the second bill, he said that it "comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies."

And Jefferson (who, although not the Framer, is nonetheless an historical authority) claims that the establishment clause erects "a wall of separation between church and State."

The interpretation is also legally inaccurate. The Supreme Court has rejected a narrow and parochial a view of the First Amendment.

[Joe Republic]

I think many of us are also forgetting that we don't abide by the US Constitution here.  Therefore, the relevant clause of the Atlasian Constitution and the intent of its Framers is what really matters here.

[Siege40]

For the record, I support the removal of 'Under God' from the pledge.

Siege

[Emsworth]

I think many of us are also forgetting that we don't abide by the US Constitution here.  Therefore, the relevant clause of the Atlasian Constitution and the intent of its Framers is what really matters here.

The clause was copied almost word for word from the U.S. Constitution; hence, the real-life interpretation of the Supreme Court and the intent of the real-life framers are indeed relevant.

[Colin]

I think many of us are also forgetting that we don't abide by the US Constitution here.  Therefore, the relevant clause of the Atlasian Constitution and the intent of its Framers is what really matters here.

I have to agree with what Joe says. Talk with Peter he wrote the thing.

[Joe Republic]

I think many of us are also forgetting that we don't abide by the US Constitution here.  Therefore, the relevant clause of the Atlasian Constitution and the intent of its Framers is what really matters here.

The clause was copied almost word for word from the U.S. Constitution; hence, the real-life interpretation of the Supreme Court and the intent of the real-life framers are indeed relevant.

I realize that, but our own 'Founding Fathers' could just as easily have removed the clause when making the new Constitution.  It doesn't really matter anyway, as we're here now.

[Emsworth]

I realize that, but our own 'Founding Fathers' could just as easily have removed the clause when making the new Constitution.

If they did, yes, you would be right. But, I feel that as it so happens that they didn't, the rulings of the real-life courts are indeed precedents.

[Joe Republic]

I realize that, but our own 'Founding Fathers' could just as easily have removed the clause when making the new Constitution.

If they did, yes, you would be right. But, I feel that as it so happens that they didn't, the rulings of the real-life courts are indeed precedents.

You're the boss. 

[Emsworth]

Sorry if I was too forceful there, Governor.

Talk with Peter he wrote the thing.

The view of Framer Peter Bell (unless it has recently changed) is:

If you want to pledge allegiance to your country, it is a legal requirement for fulfilling the pledge to invoke the existence of a God. To me, that is a clear establishment prohibted under whatever our version of the first is.

[Joe Republic]

Sorry if I was too forceful there, Governor.

Nah, don't worry.  I realized we were talking Constitution, and suddenly I was in over my head.