Posted on 06/27/2002 9:40:42 AM PDT by ZGuy
I would much prefer to do today’s show without any reference at all to the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday. That decision involves religion. In fact, that decision is seen by many (if not most) Americans as an attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular.
I’ve been doing this talk radio stuff for one-third of a century. During that time I have learned one thing for an absolute certainty: Most Americans are psychologically and emotionally incapable of engaging in conversations about religion in a logical, calm and open matter. In fact … let me expand that remark. Make that most “people.” This observation isn’t confined to Americans, nor is it confined to Christians. Today, for instance, you can’t lodge a protest against Islamic terrorism without someone surfacing to accuse you of “bashing Muslims.”
When I started doing talk radio in Atlanta in the late 1960’s it was illegal in some jurisdictions it was illegal to purchase a get well card on the way to visit someone in a hospital on Sunday. Why was it illegal? It was illegal because the law in these counties presumed that you, as a good Christian, should be in church on Sunday rather than running around buying get well cards. When I protested this absurdity on the radio in 1969 I was branded as being “anti-Christian.”
It continues to this day. If you make any criticism of any type of any action of any person who professes to be action on behalf of God you are “bashing Christians.” When the Southern Baptist Convention held meetings in the Mormon stronghold of Salt Lake City, Utah they went door-to-door trying to convert Mormons to Christianity. I expressed disagreement with this effort. Here came the calls and letters --- I was “bashing Christians.”
So … as I said, I would just as soon take to the airwaves today to discuss the efficacy of a liberal arts education in a largely technological society than I would to discuss whether or not the Ninth Circuit ruling is defensible.
Here we go though. The subject can’t be ignored. It comes with the territory, I guess.
First and foremost, this man seems to be a publicity hound. He’s a professional victim and guilty of emotional and psychological child abuse. He professes to be an atheist. I don’t believe in atheists. Let’s just call him a contrarian. I believe him to be a typical California leftist bedwetter. His animosity toward religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is probably based in some sort of an association he makes between people with deeply held religious beliefs and conservatism. Conservatives are more open about expressions of their religious beliefs and their love of God. Michael Newdow can’t figure out how to use our laws and our Constitution to suppress conservative speech, so he concentrates his efforts on trying to suppress expressions of faith. Further – he has decided to use his daughter as a tool in the furtherance of his efforts.
This morning Michael Newdow was asked whether or not his daughter came to him and asked him to pursue this case on his behalf. His response was that he would rather leave his daughter out of this. “This is my case,” he said.
Wait a minute! This isn’t his case! He wasn’t a student in that school. He wasn’t required to sit there while that pledge was being recited in school. His daughter was enrolled in that school, not him. Now he says that his daughter should be left out of this?
Get real! This man has used his daughter as a tool in his fight against religious conservatism. Now he wants to protect her from the backlash. Someday she may well hate her father for this exploitation.
You do know, don’t you, that this is the most overturned Federal Appeals Court in our country. It is also a Democratic Appeals Court. The overwhelming majority of the Judges on this court were appointed by either Bill Clinton of Jimmy Carter. Right now the Democrats in the Senate are engaged in an intense effort to prevent confirmation of Bush appointees to the federal bench. The Ninth Circuit may be an anomaly right now … give the Democrats the power and the Ninth Circuit will become the norm. This is California – the land of Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and Gray Davis; the land of the Hollywood Left, Barbara Streisand and Alec Baldwin. California is not America, nor is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Rest assured. This decision declaring our Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional is going to be short-lived. It’s toast.
Having said that … wouldn’t it be interesting here to try to understand just why the court ruled as it did?
The First Amendment to our United States Constitution reads:
Just what does “respecting an establishment of religion” mean? I believe that this means that our founding fathers didn’t want the Congress to make any law that could be construed as elevating any particular religion or religious belief to a position superior to that of any other religion or religious belief. In other words, the Congress should not make a law that could be seen as endorsing one particular religious belief over another.
This brings us to this question. Do the words “under God” serve to endorse one particular religious belief over another? The Ninth Circuit ruling says that this is exactly what those words do. I’ve read the decision – several times. Let me try to take what the Ninth Circuit said and put it into laymen’s terms.
The Pledge of Allegiance can be truncated to read: “I pledge allegiance to the United States as one nation under God.” Here’s what the court says:
"In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The Court is saying that to recite the Pledge is not merely to describe the United States as a nation founded by people with deeply held religious beliefs; instead, it is to actually swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and – since 1954 – the reality of monotheism.”
So, can “monotheism” be defined as a particular religious belief? Well, since there are religions out there that promote a belief in not one, but several deities – the answer seems to be yes. At the very least the words “under God” would seem to endorse the idea that there is one God, not many. So, can you see that to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is to state that you are pledging your allegiance to a nation that was founded under one particular religious belief, that being a belief in one God … a belief in monotheism?
This, by the way, is not the same as carrying a coin or paper money in your pocket which contains the words “In God We Trust.” You are not required to pledge your allegiance to the thoughts and ideas expressed on that coin when you stick it into that slot on a Coke machine.
Personally --- I have no problem whatsoever with making that pledge, for that is how I believe. The question, however, is whether or not a government agent in a government institution should be in a position to instruct children in the care of that government institution to affirm that particular belief.
Note, please, that confrontation between our religious beliefs and how our children are taught would be avoided if Americans weren’t so eager to turn over the most precious things in their lives, their children, to the government to be educated. Just though I would drop that in.
Many times when a court tries to determine whether or not a particular law is constitutional or not that court will seek to determine, from the official record, the legislative intent of the people who introduced and voted on the law. In the case of the 1954 law adding the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, that isn’t a tough task.
What was the big threat in 1954? Godless Communism, that’s what. Democratic Congressman Louis C. Rabaut from Michigan was the House sponsor of the bill which added “under God” to our Pledge. Rabaut testified before a congressional committee in support of the legislation. He said “the children of our land, in the daily recitation of the pledge in school, will be daily impressed with a true understanding of our way of life and its origins.”
Now … the bill sought to accomplish one thing. That thing was to add the words “under God” to the pledge. Rabaut clearly stated that the purpose of adding those words was to cause children in our government schools to come to an understanding that our nation operates and exists under God. The purpose here was to differentiate America from the Soviet Union. The purpose was to show that while Communism was godless, The United States was most assuredly NOT Godless, and to reinforce that idea in the minds of our children during their daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Can you see where some judge might get the idea that the purpose of this bill – the purpose of those two words – was to establish and reinforce a belief in a particular religious dogma?
Rabaut wasn’t the only person who indicated a religious purpose to the 1954 legislation. We also have the words of the President of the United States in 1954, Dwight Eisenhower. When he signed the legislation he said “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.”
Come on folks. Do we have to get hit over the head with a hammer here? The 1954 legislation adding “under God” to our Pledge of Allegiance was specifically directed at our children in government schools! Congressman Rabaut wanted them to understand that our nation was founded under God. Eisenhower wanted them to proclaim their dedication to the Almighty!
As the court ruled yesterday “”the legislative history of the 1954 Act reveals that the Act’s sole purpose was to advance religion, in order to differentiate the United States from nations under communist rule.”
Need more? This excerpt if actually from the official legislative history of the 1954 Act:
“The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual.”
So – it’s plain. The very purpose of the 1954 Act was to establish a religious element in the Pledge of Allegiance. The First Amendment to our Constitution says that this we do not do.
So – if this is “bashing Christians,” so be it. This isn’t going to make many of you love me … but the Ninth Circuit was right. Petty, but right.
This is where he goes tragically wrong. The founding fathers wanted to prevent what happened throughout Europe prior to and during our birth as a nation - the establishment of a single religion as the ONLY valid religion in that nation. This is to protect the people's right to be a believer in any religion they chose...a right which was, and continues to be, absent in many nations (Saudi Arabia comes to mind first). In China, only the brand of Christianity endorsed by the state is allowed. All others are banned.
This notion of people somehow feeling left out or in the minority because they practice something other than Christianity is ludicrous. Nobody is trying to forcibly proselytize them, nor are they being threatened with imprisonment should they chose to believe in something else.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag...."
Well, that's kind of absurd. How or why should one pledge their allegiance to a piece of cloth? Strike it.
"...of the United States of America..."
A recent poll in Mexico showed that 57% of Mexicans believe that the Southwestern region of the US -- Texas, NM, Arizona, California -- is actually part of Mexico, so anyone of Mexican descent living here would be offended at the idea of pledging allegiance to a nation that illegally occupies Mexican territory in the Southwest. And since the most important value in our society is that no one should ever feel offended about anything, out of deference to our Hispanic neighbors, we should drop this reference as well. Also, a significant number of our friends in the deep south still pledge their allegiance to the Confederacy, and believe the Civil War was a war of northern aggression. So, strike it.
"...and to the republic for which it stands..."
Wait. Republicans don't even constitute a majority among registered voters. More are actually Democrats. So we shouldn't refer to our nation as a republic. Strike it.
"...one nation..."
Violates the concept of diversity. Strike it.
"...under God..."
The 9th District Circuit Court of Appeals has already address this offensive phrase. Stricken.
"...indivisible..."
Well, not really. There are countless issues which divide this nation: abortion, environmental regulations, affirmative action, school vouchers, you name it. We are a highly divided populace. This "indivisible" concept is not tied to reality. Strike it.
"...with liberty and justice for all."
A nice thought, but we know that liberty can be abused and turn to license, and license breeds chaos. And everyone who watched the OJ trial knows there is really no justice in this nation. Strike them both.
I don't think there's anything left. But, pledging allegiance to nothing is probably more consistent with many people's actual values, so perhaps we're better off.
I believe that this means that our founding fathers didn’t want the Congress to make any law that could be construed as elevating any particular religion or religious belief to a position superior to that of any other religion or religious belief.
Garbage. The Constitution forbids Congress from ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION as the English King Henry VIII had done previously. This was a nod toward RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, not religious PROSCRIPTION.
Who is "God"? I have my own idea as a "Mormon" and many others, Christian and other religious faiths, have their OWN ideas. The exact definition of God is not addressed in the founding documents of this nation--the authors of which represented a variety of religious and philosophical viewpoints. The only acknowledgement is that of a "higher power," of Deity. (Note that even Hillary Clinton has managed to figure out that there is likely something higher than herself).
Rather than seeking to "free" us all from the restriction of one state-authorized religious faith, this ruling seeks to elevate ONE, SINGLE PHILOSOPHY above all others: Atheism.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does nature's God. If you expel, expunge, erase and historically revise any mention of God from our official national record, then there is only one philosophy left: Nihilistic Atheism.
The vast majority of Americans recognize this apparently, judging from the near-uniform reaction, including a 99-0 Senate vote, etc.
Boortz is just an iconoclastic jerk--as usual. He seeks to have us believe that the mere position of "contrarian" somehow endows one with principle. Bullsh*t.
People like you, who don't understand the way our Government works, really scare me.
However, I am willing to put up with "indivisible" in the pledge.
No, it doesn't say that. It says nothing about "endorsing religion." It says that Congress shall make no law respecting the *establishment* of religion.
In other words, Congress shall make no law establishing (or setting down) the basis for a particular religious practice in America at the federal level. It says nothing about the states; it says nothing about "the public square."
By endorsing something one does not establish it. By allowing religious practice, one does not establish a state religion.
This kind of "reasoning" is so shallow that it seems to support the idea that by allowing the practice of religion that one is establishing a religion itself.
It covered everything. And then it came to the CORRECT conclusion that the words "under God" which were added by zealots, need to now be removed again, by the rational Americans of the 21st century.
Today the Pledge of Allegiance, tomorrow he plans to have the words In God We Trust removed from our currency.
The typical lawmaker of today is a man devoid of principle -- a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology, or cannibalism.
--H. L. Mencken
Wow, you are really easily frightened. Perhaps you should see a shrink.
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.