Meaning of "Under God"

[Dellinger, Walter]

I am surprised that there has been (to my knowledge) so little expressly
conservative opposition to the Pledge itself -- with or without 'under God'.
Such opposition might have taken several forms.  (1) Some adherents to the
current Court's view of 'state sovereignty' might object to the fact that
the pledge, adopted after the Civil War at the behest of northern unionists
some say,  was apparently intended to bring the South to its knees.  Just as
the Confederates to be pardoned had to swear an oath to the Union, the
children in the South were to be led in proclaiming and pledging in unison
allegience to "the Republic, One Nation Indivisible" -- which I believe was
intended as a repudiation of 'dual sovereignty' views of the South  (Can the
Chief Justice take this pledge?  If it were written by today's Congress,
would it not speak of the states, which were, perhaps deliberately, omitted
from the current pledge.)  (2) Libertarian conservatives, of course, might
object to the government setting up a system of having children stand and
recite any government scripted message.  To them, the footage of kids saying
the pledge and the footage of Ilian Gonzalez back in Cuba standing and
reciting a government message might look all too similar.  (Of course, maybe
in Cuba dissenting children are shot rather than excused from reciting as
they are here.)  (3) Wholly apart from the phrase 'under god' the Pledge
might be offensive to at least some religious conservatives as appearing be
close to worship an object or idol. (This was the Jehovah's Witness
position, with citable support in the Old Testament).  The pledge is only
secondarily "to the republic for which it stands" and primarily to "The
Flag" and involves actual salute to an object.  (4) Finally as noted by
Sandy, those who take their religion seriously may well object to government
officials defining a Federal definition of what is meant by 'under God' --
whatever that definition might be.  (5) There is one conservative strand
that would support the Pledge -- a Burkean view that long traditions should
not lightly be cast aside.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Levinson [mailto:SLevinson at mail.law.utexas.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 6:09 PM
To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Meaning of "Under God"




Robert Sheridan writes:

It is interesting to see that in order to oppose Newdow's objection to
"under God," S-G Ted Olsen had practically to de-nature God, as though
saying "under God" is okay because God or the idea of God is of so
little import or just nonsense anyway, sorta like "In God We Trust," this
historical anachronism that means nothing in terms of profession of
faith....  


I strongly commend Peter Steinfels column in today's New York Times (I will
leave it to the savants on the list to set up the link to the article), in
which he notes the insulting implications of Olson's argument.  I am
curious.  Would Rick Duncan and other devotees of retaining "under God"
prefer to win under the "Olson theory" or lose with the Court writing an
opinion saying that it really does mean something important to affirm that
the nation is "under God"?

sandy

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof