Replies

What the heck, I will post my 'counter column' that is coming out in the college newspaper tomororrow (at least I don't resort to the same tired arguments):

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a decision by a panel that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional. The court’s ruling is ridiculous and the First Amendment has been greatly misinterpreted, but more than that, no person can justifiably claim harm by the Pledge.

First, in reading the original debates on the First Amendment, it becomes clear it was not intended to be as broad as currently thought. In the Annals of Congress, it is recorded that when James Madison, the father of the Bill of Rights, introduced the First Amendment, “Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” Also, many different amendments were proposed to the original language of the establishment clause before legislators agreed upon the current form. A consistent form was developed in the proposals: they referred to an “establishing” of a national religion specifically. Thus, it seems to me that no valid reason exists for believing “respecting an establishment of religion” means just any law touching religion; it is narrower.

Also, Thomas Jefferson, supposed strict separationist, attended church in the capitol, a public building. In a letter to Elbridge Gerry, Jefferson said he simply opposed the “legal ascendancy” of one religion over another. The Deist Jefferson signed legislation multiple times giving federal funds for Christian missionary work with Indians.

The First Amendment was only intended to prohibit a national religion or situation with such an unbalanced scale of governmental fairness that non-favored religions were hurt by the federal government. Indeed, this was the interpretation of state supreme courts and the Supreme Court until the twentieth century, when legislating from the bench began (largely due to FDR’s attempts at destroying the judicial branch by court packing).

While the establishment clause has been misconstrued horribly, the other part of the First Amendment’s religion section, the free exercise clause, rightly has received great emphasis by the judiciary. The Supreme Court made it clear in Minersville School District v. Gobitis that no person can be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, for that violates freedom of conscience and in some cases, the religious conviction that it is idolatry to say it. No question exists in my mind about Minersville being true to the founders, for Washington, Madison, and Jefferson all talked extensively of the right people have to worship God according to their own consciences.

However, since this right is settled law, it is quite humorous to see people suing over the Pledge and alleging harm from a voluntary rite. In the case brought to the Ninth Circuit, a father sued on behalf of his daughter, who, we later found out, actually likes the Pledge. She is a strong Christian and did not agree with her father. In any event, people offended by the Pledge have the option to simply not say any objectionable parts. Yet, the First Amendment does not prohibit people from saying the same words around an offended person. If it did, majority rule would be replaced by the tyranny of the minority.