Posted on 07/01/2002 3:54:43 AM PDT by Liz
By revealing the foam-at-the-mouth hostility to religion that grips our elites, the 9th Circuit's "under God" decision is a godsend, though the two judges in the majority would probably insist that we refer to it simply as a "send."
The decision was such a howler that even many of those whose mouths usually foam decided to cringe instead. Much of the cringing comes from narrow political calculation. The court ruling obviously could help Republican candidates and judicial nominees. This is especially so since it recalls the political hay that the first George Bush made in 1988 by attacking Michael Dukakis' card-carrying American Civil Liberties Union membership.
At the white-hot center of the ACLU flap were the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Republicans created an explosive issue by tying Dukakis to ACLU National Policy No. 84: "the insertion of the words 'under God' are [sic] unconstitutional and should be forbidden."
The Democrats and the Washington press corps had no clue that the issue was a potent one. This time around they will get it.
To religious conservatives, "under God" is a crucial symbol, the last religious reference left in the schools since the separationist makeover of education. But two of the three ruling 9th Circuit judges thought the phrase "under God" was a dangerous endorsement of monotheism.
In fact, "under God" is in line with "In God we trust" on currency, "God save this honorable court" at the Supreme Court. Some see the "God" in these messages as a heartfelt reference to a living deity. To others, it is a vague expression of ceremonial deism or content-free, as in the catch phrase "God bless you" after a sneeze.
The two-man majority also made the mistake of employing the hurt-feelings argument. The "under God" phrase allegedly made the young daughter of the plaintiff uncomfortable. In dissent, Judge Ferdinand Fernandez disposed of this pop-therapy concern nicely: "Some people may not feel good about hearing the phrases recited in their presence, but then others might not feel good if they are omitted."
That's the problem with feelings. Since everybody has them, they can't very well serve as a clinching argument.
The ruling opens the door to a serious discussion of the aggressive ideological campaign against religion. As Christopher Lasch wrote in "The Revolt of the Elites," the elites' attitudes toward religion "range from indifference to active hostility," which is not much of a gamut. While using high-road rhetoric (safeguarding church-state separation allows all faiths to flourish, etc.), the elites have pursued low-road policies, relentlessly working to drive religion from the public square.
In schools, the anti-religion campaign is often hysterical. When school children are invited to write about any historical figure, this usually means they can pick Stalin or Jeffrey Dahmer, but not Jesus or Martin Luther, because religion is reflexively considered dangerous in schools and loathsome historical villains aren't.
Similarly, a moment of silence in the schools is wildly controversial because some children might use it to pray, silently, on public property. Oh, the horror.
The overall message is that religion is backward, dangerous and toxic.
That's why we have decisions like the one from the 9th Circuit.
E-mail: johnleo@usnews.com
Thi is political correctness gone too far. Liberalism run amok. Plaintiff Dr Newdow is being promoted as liberalism's fair-haired boy, "the tolerant and compassionate type who is so, so sensitive to feelings."....... Phony liberal "tolerance" doesn't extend to those who want to utter the word God.
Nine out of ten Americans polled think the Ninth Circuit decision was wrong. Call Speaker Hastert at 202-224-3121 to introduce a constitutional amendment to imbed the pledge under God in the US Constitution. It will pass through the required 2/3 states like wildfire.
But so are all of the other "establishment of religion" decisions following Everson.
If you were a judge of an inferior court hearing this case after the Supremes had ruled the Lord's Prayer (a non-coercive Lord's Prayer, BTW) at a football game to be an Establishment of Religion, on exactly what grounds would you find against the plaintiff?
I expect the Ninth Circuit en banc to do exactly what you want them to do-to say, "Oops, we really didn't mean it-Mr. Newdow, despite the fact that all Supreme Court precedent is in your favor, we don't want to hurt the Democrats at the next election, so, you lose".
Seriously-can you articulate any reason that this decision is wrong on its own terms?
That may be all it is, a ploy to boost Bushs' position.
Thank goodness that American's responded very negatively to this test.
But a few more generations in government schools may produce good subjects who would just go along.
This time American's sent a message that may slow down the globalization of our country.
But like many messages, this one will be put aside and forgotten about by the majority.
A Free People MUST be ever vigilant. Our only chance at Peace and Freedom is Jesus Christ.
We must work to get past man's corrupt laws. The only way to do that and secure a future for our children is to put God back above man, and follow Gods' Laws.
Instead of accepting the paganism that is destroying our country. Politics will never free us, it's a rigged carnival game and we can't win.
But "We" hold the trump card, and I know He would Love to help us.
It's Your play.
We have a culture and heritage in this Country, it's a Christian heritage. Because the Public School gets a small amount of government funding, does not make it an arm, branch, or agent of the Federal government. Or it shouldn't. These entangling strings that Washington attaches to OUR money, needs to be cut. We sure don't demand silence about God from the countries we give foreign aid to. And it darn sure should not be demanded of the citizens of this country. It is an invasion of community, and an imposition on the majority of a community. It is an attack against their norms.
One nation under God, is very generic, I refuse and will be civily disobediant to any arm of government tampering further with a heritage, culture, and history that has served us well in making us the greatest nation on earth. Everyone is tired of the tyranny of the minority. This is us, it's who we are, and until we are swamped under with immigrants or atheists running things their way, it stands as far as I am concerned. The government should not be in the business of making the USofA some Shangrila for the offbeat and the knuckle head and our government needs to stay out of the business of muzzling Americans and their culture so some interloper will feel comfy with his ability to stifle other's free speech and belief.
The Constitution says, that the government shall not establish a religion, it hasn't. There is no Church of the Bald Eagle, now they need to shut up and step off, and stop stepping on everyone's first amendment rights and let us be who we are, and enjoy the benefits and blessings that have been poured on us because of who we are, and that is a people who have a respect and appreciation for their GOD given freedoms, and have built that appreciation into their agencies, government and otherwise.
If God has made you free, no man can touch that, it is a right of birth. If man, or a mere Constitution of man has granted your freedoms, then man can take your freedom back. Thus the extremist attempts to wrest from American's a freedom the majority believes is a God given inherent right that no mere man or agency has a right to tamper with. Well they are tampering with it, for their own ends, and you better wise up and fight it.
LOL. As good a reason as any I've heard.......whatever hurts the Dems .........
Right, absolutely right. That's why we need to imbed the pledge under God in the Constitution.......so it is not subject to the vagaries of mere judges and courts. Even if the Supremes did decide for the pledge under God, a later court could revisit the issue and decide against the pledge. A constitutionalized pledge under God is the will of the governed and cannot be changed.
Remember, our greatest right as Americans is the right to have the US Constitution express our will......the will of the majority.
No. You first. Look up the word "establish" in your dictionary, and tell me what religion the pledge establishes. Where does it meet? Who is it's CEO?
That would settle the hash of the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court, and the recent federal trial court decisions that the Ten Commandments are unconstitutional on public property.
Click below to find out more.
Congressman Billybob
Click for: "Supid is as Stupid Does, Even Among Federal Judges."
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.