Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005 (WITHDRAWN)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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Emsworth]

I feel, Senator, that this proposed amendment merely trivializes the issue. The question is not at all related to fantasy or forum affairs. It is rather an attempt to delve into issues of real life; bringing in fantasy politics seems to trivialize it, to ignore the fundamental question: is the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge constitutional?

On those grounds, I respectfully oppose Senator Spade's amendment, and request its rejection.

[Emsworth]

Considering the term "Dave" is present in our oath of office as such...

I, (underlined signator) do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of (fill in) and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, so help me Dave.

I do not find the use of it in the Pledge of Allegiance trivial, but find it very respectful to the man who created this forum and who created the place where Atlasia exists.

Which argument, I feel, ignores the great object of this bill: to restore the separation of church and state (a question addressed by the platforms of various organizations) by introducing some new and non-germane point.

[Emsworth]

Saying "under God" does not create nor imply an organized state religion of any sort...

The assertion by the state that a a single God exists implies the endorsement of monotheism.

The contrary view flies in the face of numerous Supreme Court precedents, and also the views of the Framers of this clause, both real and fantasy.

[Emsworth]

It is very much to the point, considering that this language, whenever used in jury trials, consists of "so help me God".

The inclusion of "so help me God" in oaths is extra-constitutional. If one looks at the real-life Constitution, the phrase "under God" is found nowhere in the presidential oath: it is added only by tradition, and has been omitted by some Presidents.

In the same way, "under God" would cease to be a part of the pledge, but it (or "under Dave," or whatever else) can be added by private individuals, by tradition.

[Emsworth]

Let me ask you this Sam, if your amendment doesn't pass how would you vote on this bill?

Yes?

On mature reflection, it appears that the proposal seems to be a somewhat reasonable compromise. It removes a constitutional abomination ("under God") from the pledge of allegiance, and establishes in its stead something factual, not religious and unverifiable. Therefore, if the Senate would agree to pass this amendment, I will not be opposed to the ultimate passage of the bill.

But in any event, I feel that it would still be better for the phrase to be altogether excluded.

[Emsworth]

Honorable Senators,

When I suggested this bill, I held the view that it would be effectively impossible to convince the Senate and the People to abolish the pledge. Hence, I held that removing "under God" would have to suffice.

Yet, it would appear that the People are indeed in support of the abolition of the pledge. Why, they ask, is a pledge even necessary? Why, they ask, shall the government prescribe what is orthodox in matters of nationalism and opinion? Why, they ask, shall the government enforce nationalism? I am of the same mind as the People on this issue.

Therefore, I humbly request a Senator to introduce the following amendment to the bill:

The pledge of allegiance to the flag of Atlasia is hereby abolished.

[Emsworth]

You know you have the right to say or not to say the pledge, you don't have to say it if you don't want to so your right is not being taken away.

That is not (with all due respect) a particularly relevant issue. The government is still trying to regulate and legislate patriotism. It is attempting to impose its brand of patriotism and nationalism on the country, which it ought not to do. The government is telling the people what they must believe in in order to be patriotic, which is utterly wrong.

[Emsworth]

You are free to not say the pledge so it's not "forcing patriotism on you". If it was mandatory to say then I wouldn't mind changing that. They'd like you to say the pledge and be patriotic that way, I'll agree with you on that but they can't force you to do it.

Yes, of course it cannot be forced on anyone. However, the questions still are: what purpose does it serve? And, why should the government legislate patriotism?

[Emsworth]

It's to try to give one, concrete way to express patriotism.

That's exactly my problem with the pledge. I see no reason for the government to say that there is one "official" way of expressing patriotism. The government should not seek to dictate what officially constitutes patriotism and what does not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is, I'm afraid to say, a very flawed argument. We're not trying to take away anyone's free speech rights.

[Emsworth]

It's to try and give one way but it's not trying to make it the only way.

It is, however, according to the government, the official way: which the government has no authority to do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The amendment just removes the pledge's official status. People can say it if they want to, unofficially.

[Emsworth]

Senator Gabu, since there seems to be a misunderstanding about the intent of the "abolition" of the pledge, I request that you disregard the previous amendment and replace it with the following instead:

There shall be no officially sanctioned pledge of allegiance to Atlasia, its flag, or its government.

[Emsworth]

To give people the chance to show their patriotism during the times when the pledge is currently done now.

Let them decide how to show their patriotism themselves. There is no need for the government to tell them how to do it; I'm sure that citizens are perfectly capable of being patriotic.

[Emsworth]

I government is asking not "telling" but you just want to abolish the pledge and not really listen to what I'm saying.

Not abolish. I wish to remove the official sanctioning; if people wish to say the pledge, they shall still be free to do so.

[Emsworth]

Straw polls are informal, so you can feel free to ask the Senate, if you like.

[Emsworth]

An interesting sidenote:
I would like to ask which clause of the Atlasian Constitution authorizes the Senate to legislate patriotism in the first place.