well all largely religious wars campaign fought in the Middle East
the United States is not entirely been spared although
we haven't broken out the guns yet with regard to
one nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance there is a third are lively
conversation going on about this right now
the deputy general counsel love the back at fund for religious liberty and the
lead attorney on a case in which that funny is
suing the state of Massachusetts if I have this right is
a with the Sirius Eric Rosse bach yeah back at fund .org is the website
Eric welcome to the program I A give us a
give us a background the a little background on what's going on here
sure so actually I'm I'm
a I'm I'm undecided the school district in the case
school district okay yet so needed to get what happened is it that you for
many years there's been
and lawsuits brought against and the words under God in the Pledge of
Allegiance
a at primarily by Michael Newdow a
but that some others as well and does have typically been rejected
and by the federal court system saying that it is not
and violates separation of church and state have have that it
in in the pledge and immense based
is that position school district and that's a position as a school district
in at in
that's my position to this just case
is a little bit different because it's in state court and it's also
a relying on the equal protection clause
the Massachusetts Constitution mmm though it's
taking a little bit different tak as in the previous
yeah there sir in that by saying under God instead of under a law
a we are specifying a judeo-christian
deity sorry I didn't catch the first for the question
there at my understanding the way this lawsuit is being framed
is that this atheist couple who are suing you are saying that because this
is under God rather than
under a law are under Sheeva or under Buddha
it is it basically um
specify a particular religion giving preferences one religion over another
yeah i think is I think there's the to be fair to their position I think
they're just saying that because it contains the word that is often uses
no in a religious context the word God in
a that it then is thereby making
making a theological claim that is its it's making a theological claim about
the existence of God
and that a you know even though these kids have the right to
the absolute right to opt out seeing the pledge and that that is the
that's a problem I'm assuming you're familiar with the history the pledge
allegiance
and when under God was added why
so it was it was originally proposed
just by a private citizen in the 1880s
and at every maybe the 1890s
it was never 11 enacted into law on from nineteen forty
Hill and it did not have under got in at that time
it did not happen you're getting at that time it to go undergo a huge
amendments prior to that time
the first time I went into federal statute was in nineteen forty
she'll and shortly thereafter there
number what losses concerning Jehovah's Witnesses
and because Jehovah's Witnesses don't don't say the Pledge are because they
believe it
its the its idol worship right and so
at they'll fly flags for the same reason I mean that it's almost a date
digression
from the but in the under God was was the the response my recollection my
understanding is that it was
was a response basically to the mccarthy era to the godless communism you know is
a
you know we're gonna push back against the godless communists and say that were
under God
well it's actually I actually think this is the way it is
at it came into the pledge in in in the fifties whereas
days it was the same time dressing and
United States and the Soviet Union but it was actually at trying to make the
point that
near that we have rights to precede the state that is that we have absolutely
man writes
United declaration independence as rent out their creator with certain
inalienable rights which means
right that can't be taken away from us even if we wanna
alienate them and take them yes send them away from ourselves a
on around we can do that we can get rid of our right to free speech which he can
bring a very
irate freedom of religion doesn't say that it says one nation under God with
freedom in
Liberty actually the term under gaddis it's a legal term
and a legal phrase nuisance to 1200 cynical
American tradition it for shows up in
a racked in the which is basically the first
English legal treatise so are you personally I've the opinion
that that a ser Heene
the existence over deity by a government entity
is not a violation love
up the other the first amendment's assertion that the Government shall not
select any particular deity for our country
well I i don't think the pledge my position is that the pledges actually do
that the pledge doesn't
say at it doesn't say there's a guy that it doesn't say that there's a
Holy Trinity or that there's a processor licenses a god like that this week we
could be under one up there wasn't one
what that again we couldn't be under a god if there wasn't 1i mean it certainly
says that there's a God
it it does it does and then a single got a is a
it as a presupposition as opposed to a proposition
yeah but I 80 why isn't there an ass on the and why why businesses under God's
well because I think because I think it's actually a philosophical statement
can also add
that no its a monotheistic statement and sorry when
it's a monotheistic stay benefit if we wanted to make a philosophical state we
could say under God's and that would include
Sheeva and and Buddha and why I don't think because even think about is a guy
but he
you get my point and a law on sand and who again was the property is not God
but you know
well let me put it to you this way: do you think that the
creators it's referred to in the declaration independence
added at should be creators were
no I i think that the Declaration of Independence people
that came from different religious backgrounds at that time including DS
for example act could agree on as a as a
a formula for what we and as a philosophical ideas no i i know i you
have
the declaration independence is not a legal document
in the United States is not part of our jurisprudence it's not part it's not
part of constitutional America its
I founding document it's a declaration of independence from Great Britain
but not you know it a the the COE
it isn't yeah whatever the declaration independent says is not law in the
United States so I don't think that'd
matters the fact that only one decoration in this isn't actually part
is actually free willy is by the Supreme Court you figure out what the law means
in the United States and obviously still in operation when not
an appropriate written anywhere when has the Supreme Court reference the
declaration of independence in anything other than a rhetorical way
I I there's a number cases in actually I think we've
we'd said seminar briefing in this case could you name want to go back to the
I have to go back and look at my briefer say and have in front of the pollen
but beyond that I don't even if the supreme court says it that doesn't make
it so but
but yeah I gekas again how can fact I'm saying and hear about that ha
bad Bowl yeah actually I you know I'm with Thomas Jefferson Abraham Lincoln on
this constitution and
what the consumer reports said Julie you know the constitution actually article
three section to the constitution says that the Supreme Court has to operate on
a regulations established by Congress
not the other way around yeah access to the Constitution isn't in Paris have
been here for a list
you know the congress said say supreme court cantana
you know never review a free-speech case because we don't mean like free speech
in the morning
at to be where we basically say sorry you know the Constitution
requires us know they would not they could not you can I find that the
Constitution
you can I find judicial review in the constitution it's not there
it was a surge in 1803 in my reverses Madison
by George Marshall and and there was such a blowback from Thomas Jefferson
that he
that that court never again used judicial review in fact that next time
was used was in 1854 in Dred Scott
which just worked out wonderfully for the country but
we've digressed if it's a recross by
I will have to apply for getting the conversation all the time but I find it
fascinating I i'm
I'm personally opinion this time to undo the mistakes we made in the fifties and
take under God out at the pledge
um but and your buchanan this is fine there and
I guess what be that isn't gentleman's disagreement back it find out what is
the website thanks for being with us here
thank you down
move this is the Thom Hartmann program
is it time to rewrite the Pledge of Allegiance maybe we could slip some
stuff in there
like you know not under the supreme court