>
Nothing to do with feelings here (and, I have to ask, given all this push about feelings in your messages, are you sure you're not really DD writing these messages <g>).
<

ROFL. You may be the first one to link DD and I on this topic. I believe I referred to him as a "raving bible thumper"!!

<<
The first amendment says, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." When Congress makes a law that says that we are "one nation, under God," they are establishing that this country has a religion that is monotheistic, albeit a generic one.
<<

That is one heck of a leap you are making here. The fact is, the pledge IS NOT a law. It may be sanctioned, but it is not a law. If it were a law, there would be consequences for not following it. I need go no further on this point.


>More to the point, as Tracy pointed out, there have traditionally been several tests as to whether a particular act is an establishment of religion. Here's a summary of these tests (from findlaw):
>
>...three standards that could be stated in objective fashion emerged as tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two standards were part of the same formulation. ''The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.'' The third test is whether the governmental program results in ''an excessive government entanglement with religion. ...
>
>It seems pretty clear to me that the addition of "under God" has no secular purpose. I guess we could argue about whether it advanaces religion, but, in my view, having schoolchildren recite it daily, does so. The third test is, to me, the hardest here, and, in fact, the article talks about it being an issue of degree.
>
>Regardless, this has nothing to do with my feelings in the matter, but with the interpretation of law.
>

1. How does "Under God" advance or inhibit a specific religion?
2. How does the prase 'Under God' equate to a governmental program?

>
You, as an individual? Sure, you can, just as you, the individual, can pray in school. You, as the teacher or principal, leading a group of students, however, is another story. Just as you, in that role, can't lead students in prayer, neither, under this decision, can you lead them in the Pledge, including that phrase.
>

Then it would seem a line exists between prayer and the pledge.

><< Also, in your explanation above, you have intertwined your rights with my rights. Somehow, you have managed to make the leap that my excercise of rights I have somehow infringes on your rights. >>
>
>No, you did that in a previous message. You suggested that my insisting on my rights was infringing yours. So I responded to that issue.
>
>TG >>However, a public school is a governmental agency, and thus must follow the laws that restrict the government's behavior.
>>>
>
>JVP >It is? It must? Because you say so??? Schools are better characterized as quasi-gov't institutions. A lot turns on when the school day occurs and when non-school activities occur. The SCOTUS has held that during off-school hours, religious programs CAN be held in public schools. I could go on about this, but suffice it to say our "analysis" here is flawed and wrong...
>
>But, again, that's not what we were talking about, and I'm pretty sure you know it. We were talking about the context of this case, which was schools operating as schools. I know that every public school I went to, and the ones my kids go to, begin the school day with the recitation of the Pledge. What the Girl Scouts do when they meet after school is irrelevant.
>

It is not irrelevant, especially when religious programs *can* occur on public school property after school hours. I think you will find the "Under God" issue is not the real issue. I believe in separation of church and state. And I believe the risk of abuse exists. This risk however, does not rest with the pledge...