[gallo]

Quote by: belverron This should clear up the constitutional issues we're talking about, I think, even if you just want to read the introduction and conclusion.

Thanks, belverron. This certainly supports just what I have been saying. It seems that this issue generates a certain amount of cognitive disconnect in certain individuals.

Note that the clause is absolute. It allows no law. It is also noteworthy that the clause forbids more than the establishment of religion by the government. It forbids even laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Yep. Just as I said on several occasions only to be met again and again with "it's not a law."

In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process clause. From that point on, all government action, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause.

As I explained several times, only to be met with continued claims that schools are not Congress.

Others, including a majority of the justices of the current Supreme Court, believe the term prohibits the government from promoting religion in general as well as the preference of one religion over another.

Indeed as I have explained.

From Everson: “The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion... . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'"

I guess I should have just quoted Everson. But still, with the cognitive disconnect surrounding this issue, it probably wouldn't have made a difference.

Although the Court’s interpretation of the establishment clause is in flux, it is likely that for the foreseeable future a majority of the justices will continue to view government neutrality toward religion as the guiding principle. Neutrality means not favoring one religion over another, not favoring religion over non-religion and vice versa.

We can certainly hope so.

I notice, belverron, that the article goes into some detail about the Lemon Test that both you and I tried to explain - to no avail. Although lower courts still use the Lemon Test routinely, the Supreme Court has been moving away from it towards a less restrictive interpretation.

I notice that in the cases and resources it lists Newdow v. United States, 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002), the case in which recitation of the Pledge with the words "under god" was found to be unconstitutional that was overturned on the grounds that Newdow lacked standing. It also mentions Santa Fe I.S.D. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), the case about prayer at football games that I mentioned.

Quote by: belverron If laws must have a legitimate secular purpose, as established by the Lemon Test, what is that purpose for the insertion of "under God"?

According to Eisenhower, "These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded." It is absurd that fuzzy thinking christians continue to insist that the words "under god" aren't religious.