EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David Habecker who sat during pledge)

ESTES PARK - Estes Park residents voted Tuesday to recall a town trustee who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before board meetings.

The final vote was 903 to 605 in favor of recalling David Habecker. The turnout was much higher than for a typical municipal election.

Some voters, like Trudy Hewitt, said they though Habecker was being unpatriotic. "When you sit down during the Pledge of Allegiance, which is to our flag, which is about patriotism, which is about our country, you dishonor everybody that has fought and sacrificed for our country," she said.

"I think his constitutional rights should be supported so I voted (against the recall)," said Linda Medley.

Habecker has been a trustee for 12 years, but the issue didn't arise until last year when the town board began reciting the Pledge before meetings. Habecker chose to sit out these sessions, calling the "under God" clause unconstitutional.

The recall election was original scheduled for Feb. 15, but Habecker went to court and had it blocked. Earlier this month, a federal judge lifted the injunction.

"I don't think it's a sad day for me," said Habecker after the votes were counted. "I stood ...or sat.for what I believed in and I still believe that way and the vote of the town of Estes Park isn't going to change my mind."

"What it means is that the people have a voice in their government and that's what the state statute was set up for," said Richard Clark, the recall organizer.

Estes Park Town Trustee David Habecker remains seated as the board recites the pledge.

This is the second letter to the Trail Gazette editor I sent on March 15th. It is still longer than their submission standards but, at half the length of my first letter, is no longer than some they published. Again it didn't make it into print. I don't know if I can boil it down anymore than this. It's a subject that requires, and I think deserves, more than a superficial treatment. To me it is the essence of how and why this country came to exist. May it be of use.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editor,
I know this well exceeds your maximum but this is a difficult and important subject, especially for Estes right now, and this is as concise as I could make this and make it understandable. I hope you will consider it. Thank you, ~~real name~~ (TigersEye)
Mr. Habecker says he is patriotic and doesn't oppose the pledge's meaning but the phrase "under God" violates his religious beliefs and is at odds with the separation of church and state. Not so! The phrase "under God" is not religious in content or in context. Read the Pledge carefully and ask yourself what thought "under God" refers to. The context is simple enough; a pledge of allegiance to Flag and Country. What then is its content? What does it mean in context?
"Under God" signifies the intent expressed in the Declaration of Independence that men are created with inviolable rights such as life and liberty. The DoI invoked those rights as the authority to break with Britain, form a new government and write our Constitution. The Constitution was written on that premise, that those rights were inherent in every individual regardless of religious belief, or any other aspect of human life, apart from life itself. The phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is nothing more than a tip-of-the-hat to that principle around which every law in this nation is supposed to revolve. We can see without prejudice that "under God" is the basis of our nation in the sense that this nation's reason for being rests on the ground that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are sacrosanct human rights. Rights beyond bestowal or retraction by governmental authorities.
It is certainly spiritual in nature, calling to mind the sanctity of life and liberty, but it is religious only in its phraseology which is in keeping with the spiritual lives of our Founders. It is an authentic colloquial metaphor for inalienable rights perfectly in keeping with their Christian heritage. That's an appropriate affirmation to those men who risked everything to establish the Bill of Rights for the protection of us all. That the majority of our Founders were Christian, as the majority of citizens still are, is a fact. It is a fact of historical and current significance that is worthy of recognition in the passing reference of the poetic phrasing of two words in our pledge of national fidelity. Two words whose meaning sum up the uniquely American concept of individual sovereignty. The individual as governor of his life, in union with others, pledged to defend the same for all. If the quarrel is with any spiritual connotation whatsoever in the Pledge then there is a quarrel with the premise this nation was founded upon. The concepts of sanctity of life and the right to follow one's conscience cannot be separated from every notion of spirituality. Either the government recognizes life and liberty as sacred or it does not. If we can't admit that the premise embodied in the phrase "under God" (the sanctity of life and liberty as recognized by law) isn't specifically religious aren't we being a little arrogant and self-righteous? The premise is not entirely secular but it goes beyond the interpretations of any religion speaking directly to the universal condition of the human desire of every individual to seek freedom in mind and body. The liberty to experience life to its fullest in the way each man or woman's conscience leads them to. It might be a truism to say that all religions speak to that condition, each in its way, but no religion can claim to "own" that condition of human experience. Recognizing sovereign rights by reciting "under God" doesn't bestow ownership of that condition to any religion either. That would be a contradiction of meanings. It is really quite the opposite.
"Under God" reaffirms the intent of the DoI and the DoI affirms the inherent sovereignty of the individual and that is the nut of it all. Thanks to that overarching premise we are all free to choose what God or gods to serve. We are free to say that we serve no god. We are even free to say we reject the principles of life, liberty and freedom for all but if you do then you are declaring your opposition to the Constitution. It is, naturally and literally, un-Constitutional to hold office in this land without swearing an Oath to defend the Constitution.
Is Mr. Habecker oblivious to the context or does he reject the premise? Whether he is ignorant of the basis of our Independence and Constitution or he is coyly hostile to it should be of no importance to the voter. In either case his position threatens the principles of life and liberty for all which renders him unfit to hold any office of trust. A man can't serve a principle he doesn't understand and he won't serve a principle he is hostile to even if he loudly invokes it for his own benefit. Before you vote ask yourself if it benefits you to hire a public servant whose actions undermine that principle. It's not God's life that the Constitution protects it's yours.
~~real name~~ (TigersEye) - Montpelier, VT - resident of Estes Park - 1982-2002

---------------------------------------------------------------

As with the first letter I sent this to the Mayor and Town Trustees also. Including Habecker. Here is his response to me.

~~real name , misspelled~~ (TigersEye)
I read your essay, (again?), and found it to be a lousy read and a pompous ignorant bore. Your logic is lacking and you fail to identify or make a point.
David Habecker

Hey, I’ve always had trouble making a point. /sarcasm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.