From where does General Bradley get his determination that the court system is to be the weakest of the 3 branches of government?

Where does everyone get the idea that all of our founding fathers were christians? I have read that many were deist, they believed in a higher being but were not christians.

I was ridiculed in school in the 50s and 60s because my family didn't go to church. I think the prayer in school at that time led the teachers to feel free to expound on their personal religious beliefs. It was hurtful and embarassing. In 5th grade, every Monday morning we were asked "Who went to church yesterday?". They were praised and favored. I was asked why I didn't go one Monday after Easter. I was also told by a diferent teacher that I got sick because I didn't go to church. This was a middle class public school. I pray privately in my own way and that should be enough religious freedom for anyone in a public school or government building.

I know the show is already over, but perhaps it wouldn't hurt for me to leave a comment as well. I was listening to the debate today while I was on my lunch break, but sadly there was no way to call in and express my views. I think the problem that we continually have with this debate is the fact that almost all Christians believe theirs is the only, valid religion. You can see this in comments by almost every pro-religion-in-state politician/judge/public figure when they state that this country does not force you into a particular religion. Why do I say this? General Bradley said, several times, "The government does not tell you that you must be Catholic, or Protestant, etc." These are not religions, but are denominations of a single religion. This is why they consider "Under God" and "In God We Trust" to be universal, because all Christians believe in this god. This is also why Allah or any name for any other deity seems to not be tolerated, because it's "specific". Anyway, just my thoughts. I think people should be allowed to practice their religion in their own way in their personal time. When you're a government official, a teacher, or whatever, you need to put your personal religion aside and concentrate on your job.

Our Founders felt so strongly about keeping religion out of our government, that they did not mention the word “god” even once in the Constitution. In fact, no subsequent Amendment contains the word “god.”

Their strong belief in excluding religion from our republic is shown by their mentioning the word “religion” only once. That word is in the Bill of Rights as in “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, . . ..”

People wrongly argue that eliminating “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would require us to remove any, “mention of “God” from the public arena . . ..” What they fail to realize is that none of the “benign” uses of "God" require action on my part, making them truly innocuous. I do not have to say “In God We Trust” when I hand over my money just as I am not required to shout praise or bend my knee in supplication when “God” is mentioned in the Congress, the Supreme Court, or the “public arena.”

The Pledge, though, is different. It requires personal action. To say the Pledge properly, I stand, I place the palm of my hand over my heart, and I recite the words, including, by law, “under God.”

Why say the pledge? Because, like Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, I think that:

"The flag is the symbol of our national unity, transcending all internal differences, . . . the emblem of freedom in its truest, best sense . . . it signifies government resting on the consent of the governed, liberty regulated by law; the protection of the weak against the strong; security against the exercise of arbitrary power; and absolute safety for free institutions against foreign aggression.” (Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 1940)

That is the flag, of the republic, for which I stand and pledge my allegiance!

Yet, the words “under God” prevent me from expressing my patriotism because they force me to violate my religious beliefs. Supporters of "under God" would probably prefer that I respectfully abstain.

But, I don’t want to abstain!

So, instead of uniting us, the Pledge divides us. Instead of transcending our differences, the Pledge reinforces our differences. Instead of being an emblem of freedom, the Pledge becomes a chain binding us to orthodoxy.

When the Court made the Pledge voluntary, it reminded us:

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials . . .. [Rights] depend on the outcome of no elections.” (West Virginia State Board Of Education v. Barnette, 1943)

Our Founders, wisely, left the religious wars in Europe. General Brady and others who want to retain “under God”, would want to bring those wars to our shores.

That was not what our Founders intended!

general bradley's insistence that the majority has to be followed ignores the reason that we are a republic. the founding folks were very aware of the "tyranny of the majority" (read the federalist papers) and designed the government to protect the USA from that tyranny. i had to chuckle when general bradley said that the populist vote should govern - if that is the case is he saying that GW bush should not be president since he did not win the populist vote but won by a structure that our founding folks put in place (to protect the USA from the "ignorant masses")

While looking at the Flag.

I pledge allegiance to the constitution of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it governs, one nation under Law, indivisable with Liberty and Justice for all.

Would either guest object to this pledge?

Thanks for the discussion.

In the first place, the Pledge of Allegiance is not an official document. It’s a poem, written for

children by a minister. Reciting it should not be mandatory in any setting ... it should be a

privilege. If you want a God in your government, feel free to put it there. But don’t persecute me

or anyone else for choosing to leave it out. And if you choose to include the word God within

the Pledge, be prepared to accept that I might put in Goddess, as is in my religion. Freedom, on

which this country is built, is choice. So allow us, as citizens of this country, to have that choice.

Also, I’d like to comment on the phone call from the woman who said, “Tell the Devil hi.” She

needs to grow up. That came across as something that a fifth-grader would say.

~Derek

My son and I are members of a minority religion. I have told him that he doesn't need to stand for the pledge, and have left the choice up to him.

I feel that having any religious verbiage or statuary in public buildings is offensive. I also am offended when I open my door to christian folk trying to save my soul. I am offended when those of my faith gather to celebrate our faith and are approached, many times with great rudeness by christians. Or when I wear symbols of my faith in the form of jewlery or clothing and I am told that I will be going to thier hell.

This country opens it's doors to many different people. We should respect the beliefs of these people and not shove a loud and very visible religion down thier throats.

I really enjoyed the program. I was very troubled by the position of the general that the majority should always rule, and that the courts should follow the majority rule (as opposed I guess to the constitution or the law.)

With majority rule we would never have had many of the great decisions of our time, such as Brown v. Board of Education.

I have received requests to sign petitions to support the reversal of the pledge case. I find it to be increditable that some people believe that a judge would be influenced by a petition. If any judge was influenced by the majority will, that judge would violate their duty as a judge.

Finally, the pledge case decision of the ninth circuit is a very well reasoned decision, that applied the Supreme Courts tests to determine whether any government action steps over the line to promote religion. None of the people I know that want the decision reversed have even read the decision that they disagree with.

I really enjoy the Justice Talking Programs. Keep up the great work.

Are we not presumptuous to assume that our lives are controlled by a "God" that we can conceive of and exists in our three dimensional space. Current cosmological theories such as "string theory" are formulated in such higher dimensional spaces. Need our "God" have a human form of a sort that we can picture. If we say "under God", does this allow for such an abstraction? Is a belief in such concepts a religion? Might we worshop a theory or a complex equation as being our deity? Could we have a term that would be less polarizing than "God" that might allow for such possibilities.

I am a public school teacher, newly reitred. I have been given awards for most influencial teacher and techer of the year. I refuse to say the pledge. It is a poorly written document because it states pledging to the flag and to the republic. I will pledge allegience to my country but not to a piece of fabric. The pledge does not state one is pledging to the flag which represents the US. The pledge specifically states that one is pledging allegience to two diffent things. I am amazed at the number of people who place such importatnce on this but never or rarely vote in elections. I am a productive atheist citizen of my country and saying the pledge has nothing to do with my living as a committed citizen of MY country. Actions speak louder than words. I would bet that less people vote today than when we added the words "Under God". Where are our citizens priorities?

It is an incorrect statement to say that the majority of voters rules this country; the voters rule this country within the guidelines of the constitution. The duty of the courts is to rule whether a law generated by congress is in line with the constitutuion; if not, it is overruled, and thrown out. The constitutiuon can be amended, but that is a separate process.

The Pledge of allegiance should ideally be administered but once in a citizen's life, upon reaching voting age. It is meaningless to have a minor make such a pledge, as it is not legally binding.

The words "under God" should not be included in the pledge, not just because of the conflict of church and state, but because it debases a deity to a national property.

From the commentaries so far, it appears that the American people have a great deal of common sense. I found it difficult to understand the General's logic.

I believe in one God. I am not a Christian but would personally have no objection to saying the 'God' word. But it not just about me. It is about everybody with their own beliefs and understandings. Athiests have as much right as anyone who believes in God.

Life for some is fluidic, based on experience there are phases in believing God and not believing so phrasing needs to be neutral.

The General's insistence that courts have gone beyond their bounds by defending the rights of the minorities shows his fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. Although majority rule is part of our government, as the judge in the audience commented, many mechanisms were put in place to protect the minority voice. The two most important protections as Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Franklin pointed out were the Bill of Rights and the courts.