Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul today condemned a federal appeals court ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance cannot be recited in schools because it contains the phrase "one nation under God."
"The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment," Paul stated. "It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it."
"The tired assertion of a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis," Paul continued. "Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to "Almighty God" in our founding documents. It is only in the last 50 years that the federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights."
Paul previously introduced "The First Amendment Restoration Act" to reassert true First amendment religious freedoms and end the kind of judicial overreach exhibited today. The bill becomes especially timely now, as it clarifies that federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over matters of religious freedom. It also restores real religious freedom by making it clear that the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, the Ten Commandments, or reference to God in both public and private life.
Next, the LP announcement....
Libertarians applaud federal court ruling striking down mandatory Pledge of Allegiance
WASHINGTON, DC -- Libertarians are applauding Wednesday's federal court ruling striking down the mandatory Pledge of Allegiance, because a nation in which a government can coerce religion or patriotism is no longer free.
"America is made great by its freedom, not by a flag," said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party executive director. "Our children should have the freedom to pledge or not to pledge, and the freedom to worship or not to worship."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday struck down a California school district's policy of requiring teachers to lead children in the Pledge of Allegiance. The court found that the reference to "one nation under God" -- added to the pledge by Congress in 1954 at the height of the Cold War -- amounts to an official endorsement of monotheism.
Though the ruling specifically addressed only the religious aspect of the pledge, the debate quickly broadened to one over the pledge itself as America struggles with the war against terrorism. On Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats universally deplored the ruling. The Senate unanimously approved a resolution expressing support for the reference to God in the pledge, and House politicians gathered on the front steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge en masse.
"Libertarians have enormous respect for the values that the U.S. flag represents, and we understand that the way to honor those values is by preserving liberty, not by limiting it," Dasbach said. "Real religious freedom includes the right to not be religious, and true political freedom includes the right to not pledge allegiance to a political symbol.
"Politicians who rail against this ruling and claim they're defending the flag are confused by the difference between a symbol and the freedom for which it stands."
Dasbach conceded that during a national crisis, it's natural for politicians to sacrifice individual freedom in favor of government coercion.
"Interestingly, politicians were much more tolerant of dissent before September 11," Dasbach noted. "In 1998, for example, a proposal to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning garnered 114 'no' votes in the House, and was killed in the Senate. But today they're unanimous in their protection of the flag. Have that many politicians suddenly discovered 'patriotism' -- or are they trying to exploit an anguished American public?"
After all, politicians frequently try to use national crises as an opportunity to expand the power of the government, he noted.
"One way to do that is to suggest that anyone who criticizes a government action -- such as a government-mandated pledge in a government-run school -- is somehow unpatriotic. But there's a big difference between criticizing your government and criticizing your country, and it's a difference that politicians would like for you to forget.
The way to quell the controversy over the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is to extricate government from the schools, Libertarians say.
"It's no accident that the lawsuit that led to Wednesday's decision involved a government-run school," Dasbach said. "Naturally, parents get angry when their tax dollars are being used to force their child to do something with which they disagree vehemently.
"But no such problem exists at private schools. Parents who want their child to attend a school where religious worship and political pledging are mandatory are free to do so, and have every reason to pay the tuition. Parents who are opposed to such policies don't have to resort to a lawsuit to get what they want; they can simply find a school that shares their values.
"But as long as all Americans are forced to fund government-run schools, we will be forced to watch the Pledge of Allegiance controversy -- and forced to watch opportunistic politicians try to cash in."
First question....were children in public school required/forced to say "under GOD"? If so, the ruling is correct IMO.
Conversely, if the children were voluntarily reciting the POA and all its words, the ruling is a sham and is in fact a limitation on freedom of religion.
So which was it? Were the kids being forced or not? If it wasn't then the LP lied outright and my donations/votes are going elsewhere.
EBUCK