Question: Isn't this in violation of the law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wisdom
  • Start date Start date
W

Wisdom

Guest
Taking out "God" in the pledge of allegiance, isn't that promoting secularism? And is that not against the law?
I didn't ask this in the religious section, because all I would get is hateful remarks.; I really want to know.
The word "God" can mean anything a person want's it too, and if they don't believe, it's been said that they don't have to say it.
I was told by a teacher that they are allowed to talk about a religion, but they can't promote one over the other. Isn't taking the word " God" out of the pledge a violation of that?
 
No-one is taking "God" out of the pledge of allegience anyway, so the question is moot.

The lawsuit filed in CA by an atheist parent would, if succesful, merely have prevented public schools from requiring students to say the pledge if it included "under God". The lawsuit was dismissed, so it doesn't matter.

Richard
 
No, actually, it isn't promoting secularism. It is simply not promoting religion. "God" can mean anything a person wants it to - but they have to believe in "God" for it to mean anything at all. Some people do not believe in "God" in any way. Talking about religion is okay - but by using the word "God", it promotes religions that call their deity "God". It endorses those religions over the others that use "Goddess", "Allah", "Great Spirit", and countless other names for deities.
 
The pledge of allegiance didn't originally have 'under God' in it. Taking it out would only restore it to its original state.

Yes, it doesn't say Jesus or Allah, so it doesn't endorse a particular religion. But many people also do not believe in God, and that's their right too, isn't it? It's the state endorsing religion in general, which I agree is not as bad as establishing an official religion, but it is still endorsing religion in general, which I see as being a violation of the establishment clause.

The Supreme Court ruled that this -does- violate the 1st amendment, also 'In God We Trust' on the money. But, they said, it was 'de minimis' which means that it's such a small violation that it doesn't actually deprive anyone of his rights. It -is- a technical violation, though.
 
Back
Top