Trustee recalled in Estes Park--refused to say the Pledge

Below is a letter to the editor of the Estes Park Trail Gazette that I submitted on Oct. 25th last year. It was never published but I sent it to the Mayor and all the Town Trustees save the one who had no e-mail addie on the Town website. It's probably because it was too long, some 1,700 words, but they published some long ones from other people as well as suspending their "one letter per person per month" rule. They published several out of state letters and a number of letters from Habecker himself.

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

I now live in Montpelier, VT with my wife, but as a former longtime resident of Estes Park (1982 - 2002), I try to stay in touch with what is happening there. It has been with some interest that I have watched the story of Trustee David Habecker and his refusal to recite the pledge of allegiance unfold.
Mr. Habecker says that the words "under god" in the Pledge are a religious test and as such prohibited by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. But are they a religious test? Or are they simply a reiteration of the principle that our Founding Fathers rested all their justifications for our nation upon? The principle is that the authority for all our rights-including the right to dissent-is the untouchable, unchangeable and unquestionable "Creator" of all life. There are many names for that concept throughout the world and in the English language 'god' is a very generic one.
The point here is that the Founders laid everything we now know as America on that concept. If the right to break from England, defy its laws, wage war against them, form a new nation and create a Constitution to establish law here does not come from a "Supreme Ruler," as the Founders put it, then the only other possible source for that right is from man himself. A right given to men by man can be changed by man; this means it is not inalienable and therefore not really a right but a privilege. Privileges can be revoked. This is why the Founders invoked the authority of "the Supreme Judge of the World" instead of man.
There are those who argue that the Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution and therefore not binding on the law of the land. There are, however, Constitutional scholars who refer to the DoI as the "organic Constitution." There is good cause for that. The DoI was the first document ratified by a Congress of Americans independent of the authority of Great Britain. It outlines in detail the grievances Colonial citizens had with England but more importantly it gives justification for breaking political bands with England and states unequivocally that the right to break from their authority and form a new nation of laws, by men, comes from "our Creator."
I hope that all of you who are interested in this controversy have a copy of the DoI and the Constitution of the United States of America so that you may follow not only what I am about to say but you may decide for yourselves what our Founders meant.
The first paragraph of the DoI says that sometimes men have to break with one another politically; out of respect they will explain why. It specifically cites "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God" as the source of the right to make such a break. The second paragraph of the DoI further delineates the rights of men and states that the oppression of those rights creates the justification for breaking political bands. It claims that a decayed state of affairs existed then between the Colonists and England. The source of man's rights is reiterated again with the phrase "our Creator." The DoI then lists a litany of abuses followed by a paragraph explaining their attempts to appeal to the British government and a paragraph explaining attempts to appeal to the British citizenry. It says that both failed. The final paragraph states their dissolution with Britain and their intention to stand independently. It also states twice who or what they will depend on for their justification. The first says "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions," and the second, "with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence."
This was the basis for establishing our Constitution. The Preamble to the Constitution does indeed say, "We the People...do ordain and establish this Constitution," but clearly the right to do so rested on the authority of "our Creator," "Nature's God," the "Supreme Judge of the World," not on man's authority.
Mr. Habecker has written a very persuasive bit of sophistry, based on the Constitution, to support his crusade against the Pledge of Allegiance-but sophistry it is. He would like us to believe that Article VI makes his case that the phrase "under God" is a religious test and thus illegal. He quotes, "no religious Test shall be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." But he conveniently left out part of the sentence that precedes what he quoted. After precisely naming who the subject of the sentence is it says "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, but no religious Test shall be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Why does it say "but" before Mr. Habecker's favorite part? Because it signifies that what follows is a clarification of the previous statement, which is the main purpose of the clause as a whole. Public servants "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, but no religious Test shall be required...." In other words it is recognized that the Oath or Affirmation is in essence a promise made to an authority higher than man, for the purpose of declaring allegiance to the country “but-“ no “Test-“ of faith or belief can be administered. It is not a "religious Test" to require an Oath or Affirmation made to a higher authority; no allegiance to any god, gods or religion is asked for. The Oath or Affirmation made is a declaration of a willingness to be subject to the judgment of "our Creator" on this one promise and that promise is a requirement of Office or public Trust. What cannot be required by the government is proof that you believe in anyone or any thing that will hold you accountable for that promise. The promise to support and defend our country, flag and Constitution.
Why would an atheist object to making an Oath to 'nothing'? From the atheist's point of view he has nothing to lose. From a believer's point of view the atheist has made his solemn promise to "the Supreme Judge of the World" and will be held accountable in spite of his disbelief. For our Founders this was eminently practical. No more could be asked of a man, by other men, without imposing a tyranny of opinion on him, and anything less was no promise to defend our nation at all.
So what of this Pledge of Allegiance thing? What is the Pledge of Allegiance? It is not required of any public official, of any member of the military or of any citizen to be recited with any specified frequency or at all for that matter. It is not an official Oath of office or of service. It is not recorded in anyone's record as a "Qualification for Office, public Trust or of citizenship." It is not a crime to refuse to participate in reciting it when others are and I don't think it should be. In structure it is an affirmation of loyalty to our country but in essence it is a symbolic gesture. "Under God" in the Pledge is not a profession of faith or belief or an act of religious piety or ritual it is simply a recognition of the principle stated in the DoI that this country is founded on the belief that our basic human rights come from a higher source than man. I am one Buddhist who is quite thankful for that. I can think of no living man or group of men that I would trust to be the grantor of my rights. I am thankful that our Constitution was written with that thought in mind. The alternative makes me shudder.
There are no laws or regulations or even guidelines for what reasons a citizen may hold for how he or she votes. The Constitution only prohibits the government from making a law requiring a "religious Test." The voter, however, may apply any standards he or she chooses to any or all candidates.
No, "under God" is not a religious test. It is only a symbol of the Declaration of Independence and the right our Founders had to establish the Constitution that Mr. Habecker claims to uphold his Oath to - a right they recognized as pre-existing and exceeding the thoughts of men. If you plan to recall him because he offended your religious beliefs you are no friend of the Constitution. If you plan to recall him because he won't go along with the majority then you are no friend of the Constitution. You should recall him because he doesn't understand the Constitution, in fact, he is antagonistic to its true intention.
You should recall him because he doesn't stand behind the idea that your rights are not granted by any man or any government decree. That is the idea our Founders had for establishing a constitution in order to protect those rights from infringement by our government made up of men, government under God. It has nothing to do with what one man does or does not believe about God. It is about placing the authority of our rights out of the reach of men so that it can not be said that our rights have been rewritten or stricken from some document. In the Pledge the phrase "under God" reflects that idea. David Habecker swore an Oath to defend that Constitution as it is, not as he would like it to be. He says that what he believes about religion is not the issue and is no one's business. He's right about that. But what he believes about the Constitution is our business and it is the issue.
~~my name~~(TigersEye)
PS: Mr. Habecker took the occasion of his newfound self-made notoriety to make another disturbing statement, quoted in the Trail Gazette. He said, "The way this country's going now - when you're looking at George Bush the crusader, evil versus good - we're going down the path that we don't want to go down." Without being partisan about it at all this statement is very disturbing coming from a public official. In that context the evil he speaks of must be terrorism and the crusade must be the war on terror. Am I to understand that terrorism isn't evil in Mr. Habecker's opinion? Should I take it that Pres. Bush is wrong to pursue terrorists? I see no other way to understand this statement.
You should recall Mr. Habecker because you cannot afford to have a public servant in any office who is unable to judge good from evil in the context of terrorism. What other security risks of a lesser local nature, but nonetheless vital to the citizens of Estes Park, would he have trouble defining? Local issues are sometimes more complex than the ability to call suicide bombings evil.

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.