Posted on 06/27/2002 10:05:46 PM PDT by plato99
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
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, ABOUT MICHAEL NEWDOW 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 her 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.
AND A COMMENT ABOUT THE NINTH CIRCUIT 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?
MOVING ON TO THE CONSTITUTION The First Amendment to our United States Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
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.
MOVING ON, NOW, TO LEGISLATIVE INTENT 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.
Would you like to read the entire decision? Here's your link:
Link (Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)
Boortz is a fairly intelligent man. He couldn't have gotten through law school or passed the bar exam in his day without some intelligence.
Which is why it's so odd that he misses the point about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. Boortz, as a trained lawyer, should know something about matters such as evidence and proof.
He's right in quoting the First Amendment. OK, you don't have to be a trained lawyer to quote the First Amendment. But here's the deal: In the past 50 years there is no evidence that the words "under God" or the entire Pledge of Allegiance containing these words have, anywhere, at anytime, within these United State established a religion or respected an establishment of religion.
Where's the respecting an establishment of religion, Boortz? Huh? Where is it? If 50 years of saying the Pledge is not enough time to establish, or respect an establishment of religion, then how much time would it take?
Well, an intelligent man such as Boortz should understand this:
There has been no respecting an establishment of any religion as a result of the Pledge of Allegiance or from the additions of the words "under God" to it in the 1950s. There's no evidence of any such respecting an establishment. None whatsoever. You'd think a man trained in law like Boortz was, would understand this, and would reason through it and wonder about the evidence, and the stunning lack thereof in this case.
But Boortz makes his money as a talk-jock these days, not as a person who reasons out matters such as evidence. He can quote the First Amendment, but that's no reason to believe he understands it, or that he understands there never has been any damage done to it by millions of Americans reciting the Pledge of Allegiance replete with the words "under God."
I thought at the time that the 1954 change was done by a bunch of self-righteous, pompous boobs, and now the same crew of pompous boobs are decrying the decision to change it back to what it was before the pompous boobs in Congress got hold of it the first time back 1n 1954.
This whole issue is nothing but a lucky excuse for pompous boobs to declare their love of God and make political hay.
Neil, I'm with you.
Fine but you are wrong about why the two words were placed there and so is Neil.
Your point being? The communist block was devoutly atheistic. Do you endorse that model? Silly me of course you do.
From each according to his ability (Jim Robinson) to each according to his needs (DD, TP, et al)
When did "GOD" become a religion?
Yeah Christians appear to be the only religion in this country that can be attacked with impunity. So what else is new? Come on TP you didn’t answer my question. When did GOD become a religion? For you and Neil to have a case the two words would have bee, “under Jesus” not “under GOD. Once again you are grasping at any straw to bring the facts into line with your own twisted world view.
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.