Meaning of "Under God"

[Scarberry, Mark]

With regard to Walter's point 4, there need be no federal definition of the
meaning of "under God." The term "God" is very broadly used by people of
very different beliefs, including many who would not fall within the Jewish,
Christian, or Muslim traditions. We do not all need to mean the same thing
when we say the phrase "under God." The key here is that the state needs to
allow each of us to recognize that there is something above the state. (See
Tom Berg's article in the current edition of the Texas Review of Law &
Policy.) I think the phrase "under God" allows the vast majority of
Americans to do so with integrity. It's a mistake to suggest that the phrase
has little meaning; one reason why it's such a good phrase is that it can
mean so many different and important things, so that each person who says it
can say it with integrity.

Those who cannot say it with integrity may simply omit the phrase or opt out
completely from saying the pledge (or possibly, if a workable approach can
be found, be permitted to say a phrase in keeping with their views).

Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law


-----Original Message-----
From: Dellinger, Walter
To: 'Levinson'; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Sent: 3/27/04 3:32 PM
Subject: RE: RE: Meaning of "Under God"

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

_______________________________________________
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