Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Put down your torches and pitchforks; Pledge ruling was right
The Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg, Va.) ^ | June 30, 2002 | Jim Lakely (seamus)

Posted on 07/01/2002 4:20:03 PM PDT by seamus

jlakely

JAMES LAKELY

James Lakely's archive
E-mail James Lakely

Date published: Mon, 07/01/2002

THE HOPELESSLY LIBERAL judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sure picked a great time to declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional—when we are at war, and just a week before the first post-9/11 Fourth of July celebrations that promise to be the most patriotic and heartfelt in a generation.

But bad timing—and the near universal screaming and rending of clothing over this decision—doesn’t mean it is necessarily wrong.

Granted, whenever any decision is handed down by this loony bunch, the proper initial reaction is contempt and ridicule—such as when it ruled in 2000 that a cross-dressing illegal Mexican immigrant was entitled to political asylum.

And these judicial geniuses have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court more than any other circuit court—often unanimously—for decisions that tend to invent new laws out of whole cloth, or set free the obviously guilty on the grounds that police got lucky when searching for evidence.

So it was entirely predictable to hear every politician in America—no matter their political stripe—denounce the ruling when it was handed down Wednesday.

No politician in his right mind could behave in any other way. They all have nightmares of endless campaign commercials saying, “My opponent doesn’t want your kids to be able to pledge allegiance to the land our fathers died to protect.”

That’ll end a promising political career faster than being caught having an affair with an intern who later turns up murdered.

But in the days that have passed since the decision, I have yet to hear a cogent explanation as to how this ruling is inconsistent with years of Supreme Court precedent regarding the separation of church and state. And as one who thinks most Supreme Court decisions regarding the separation of church and state are way out of line with common sense, I was hoping to hear one.

Instead, the outrated ask, “What’s next, taking ‘In God We Trust’ off our currency? Ending the practice of saying prayers before every session of Congress?”

Well, if the Supreme Court wants to be consistent, yes.

The Pledge of Allegiance states that we are “one nation, under God.” No amount of bluster about patriotism, currency, or the singing of “God Bless America” at a baseball game changes the fact that such a statement refers to theism—belief in a single supreme being.

While the pledge does not refer to a single religion—be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or even tree worshipping—it is still a reference to the belief in a single god. And the First Amendment tells Congress it “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Not a religion, but religion in general. One could argue that such a vague reference to theism—which our Founding Fathers adhered to and even referred to in the Declaration of Independence—is no big deal. But in a basic sense, the pledge’s “under God” clause seems to violate—if only a smidgen—the separation of church and state. It “establishes” a state-endorsed view in theism.

Don’t get me wrong. I abhor the attempts by oversensitive civil libertarians to cleanse public society of all public religious expression lest atheists become offended. We have no “right” to escape offense, even though many courts—even, sadly, the Supreme Court—have used such a standard in many important free-speech cases.

And it doesn’t even really matter that this case was brought forth because an atheist in California was offended that his child might say “under God” in a public school or be stigmatized for not saying it (the irony is that the little moppet actually liked saying those words).

When someone can prove to me that the government is not behind the recitation of the pledge, then I’ll change my mind. As of this writing on Friday morning, I’ve yet to hear any of the outraged multitudes leap that logical hurdle. And stating that kids can “opt out” of saying the pledge is a nonstarter. Individual participation is irrelevant; the state’s participation and direction—which is undeniable here—is the key question.

This is not to say that our courts have always been right on church–state issues. To the contrary, I thought the Supreme Court’s ruling forbidding valedictorians from invoking God during commencement addresses, or football players saying prayers in the locker room before a game, did not breach the unholy firewall.

In both instances the students, acting independently, were trying to enjoy their First Amendment right to the “free exercise” of religion.

The idea that we all must become atheists while standing on the grounds of a public school actually violates our freedom of religion rather than protect it.

The state should not be allowed to tell anyone, even public school students whose “rights” are regularly trampled by courts, that they cannot express their belief in God—even to a captive commencement audience.

In fact, this pledge ruling does not mean that little Kaitlyn can’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school. She could even form a “Pledge of Allegiance Club,” and walk out to the flag pole during recess and recite away, the “under God” included, to her heart’s content.

The court merely stated that the words “under God,” which endorse a religious belief—theism—can’t be in the pledge led by the state.

This decision is entirely consistent with a citizen’s constitutionally protected right of religious freedom, and the prohibition of state endorsement of religion.

JAMES G. LAKELY is assistant editorial page editor of The Free Lance–Star.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: pledgeofallegiance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last

1 posted on 07/01/2002 4:20:04 PM PDT by seamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: seamus
Lakely is historically and legally challenged, and is in fact, the pitch-fork-wielding peasant of the new Communist Man. A more complete ignoramus would be difficult to find...although Alexander Cockburn, Al Gore and Alan Dershowitz both come to mind.
2 posted on 07/01/2002 4:29:30 PM PDT by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus
Seamus dearie,

You've got it all wrong from head to foot, and your article has gone horribly pear-shaped. You have rendered an opinion whose pedigree cannot go back before the 1950s for any sort of grounding in the Founders or the received tradition of the nation. From the beginning Congress provided for chaplains, and the legacy of America embodied in laws, rulings, and the various papers of the Founding Fathers and the speeches of the presidents all show you and the bright eyed wonders of the Ninth Circuit Court have it all wrong. For shame, Seamus.

3 posted on 07/01/2002 4:30:31 PM PDT by Siobhan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus
The statement that this is a nation "under God" is less a statement of faith than it is a statement of historical fact. The foundational principle of the nation – and it may be a unique foundational principle among nations – is the supposition that "all men are CREATED equal," and are "endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights" – rights not created or granted by the state, but rights bestowed upon man by God. Since they are bestowed by God, these rights that are absolute; they are not based on the subjective or capricious whim human rulers. This is a critically important distinction. Eliminate this concept of God-given rights from the basis of our society’s political values and what we have to revert to are rights and liberties that are derived from the power of the state – and the state will always have the power to take those rights away. God-given inalienable rights cannot be taken away; and where they are denied by the state, the state has lost its legitimacy to exist (so says our Declaration of Independence).

The founders clearly acknowledged that this was a nation founded "under God" or Providence. Many people today may not acknowledge God, but this dependence and acknowledgement of God is an important part of our national heritage. The atheists may not like it, but this is historical fact, and as Americans who love their country, they should be willing to acknowledge that historical fact.

4 posted on 07/01/2002 4:32:38 PM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamus
The congress that passed the First Ammendment had a day of Thanksgiving to commemorate the passage of the First 10 Ammendments. The first congress had bibles printed.
Someone has the wrong interpretation of the First Ammndment and I don't think it is the folks who codified it and sent it to the states for ratification.
5 posted on 07/01/2002 4:34:42 PM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Thanks for articulating this so clearly. It is the one and only argument that makes sense to me. I am bookmarking this thread so that I can return to your comment as needed.
6 posted on 07/01/2002 4:37:27 PM PDT by PLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: seamus
Interestingly, Vince Carroll of the Rocky Mountain News made the same point but drew a different conclusion. The Ninth Circuit decision is perfectly consistent with the Supreme Court's Lemon decision and similar cases because the Supreme Court has prohibited "entanglement" or "promotion" of religion instead of enforcing the Constitutional prohibition agains an establishment of a religion. The Supreme Court made this mess, and ought to clean it up by overturning its precedents and enforcing what the Constitution actually says.
7 posted on 07/01/2002 4:37:51 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Well said.
8 posted on 07/01/2002 4:38:25 PM PDT by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
I don't disagree with what you said. My point was that the 9th Circuit was merely following the precedent of the Supreme Court. In fact, they cited three separate decisions by the Supremes to bolster their point.

I think the ideal situation would be for the case to get to the Supreme Court, and have the court clarify the Establishment Clause to allow the Pledge, allow valedictorians to recite a prayer during their speeches, etc. But the Court has created such a mess with stupid Establishment decisions over the years, this is unlikely. Instead, they'll probably declare the Pledge Constitutional and pretend it doesn't conflict with their previous decisions -- further muddying the waters rather than making them more clear.

9 posted on 07/01/2002 4:39:55 PM PDT by seamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: seamus
Your thought is a good one: let the Supreme Court decide a constitutional allowance for the recognition of God, one that clarifies the constitutional ability for the pledge, valedictorian speeches, prayers by high school athletes, etc.

Perhaps in the long run, the 9th Circuit has done the nation a favor.

10 posted on 07/01/2002 4:42:29 PM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Beautiful!

Well said.

11 posted on 07/01/2002 4:42:40 PM PDT by Jagdgewehr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Do you also read the Denver Post? I'm asking because I had a letter printed a few weeks back to my friends in the Denver area and I was wondering if you might have seen it. Does "liberal neurosis" ring a bell?
12 posted on 07/01/2002 4:42:47 PM PDT by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
I do read the Post, but usually just scan the editorial page because it's so slanted. When was your letter published?
13 posted on 07/01/2002 4:44:55 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: seamus
Dangerous article, sad so many aren't seeing your point. But you're right. Given the current standing SC rulings the 9th was right. The bad part of a system based on jurisprudence is one bad decision makes more. We all know the original seperation decisions by SCOTUS were wrong, but since they're still standing the 9th was right. . The good news is this thing is garaunteed to go to SCOTUS now and here's a good chance for them to actually reverse those bad decisions from before. But it's gonna be ugly. 2 generations have been raised to believe something blatantly untrue about the Constitution and they're gonna freak if SCOTUS rules properly on this case when it goes before them.
14 posted on 07/01/2002 4:45:57 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
I don't remember exactly, a couple of months ago. It was just a little humor because they were getting into the habit of diagnosing conservatives with all kinds of phobias. LOL, I thought a little taste of their own medicine would be appropriate.
15 posted on 07/01/2002 4:48:34 PM PDT by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: seamus
This debate will never end as long as public schools exist. Everyone has their own agenda they want taught, or want excluded.
16 posted on 07/01/2002 4:48:49 PM PDT by Fast 1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Thanks. I'm still waiting for arguments in support of the Pledge staying in there based on the law, and not "tradition." I'm not so certain this will make it to the SC, though. When a judge stays his own decision the day after he writes it -- has any sane judge done that -- that bodes poorly for its survival. This will probably get back to the full 9th Circuit for review, and I'd give it a good chance for reversal.

Unfortunately, I think we'll be stuck with a poor interpretation of the Establishment clause for quite some time.

17 posted on 07/01/2002 4:51:15 PM PDT by seamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
The Supreme Court made this mess, and ought to clean it up by overturning its precedents and enforcing what the Constitution actually says.

True that the Supreme Court made the mess and has the power to clean it up. But it is also possible to clean it up through a constitutional amendment overruling the Supreme Court decisions since Everson that have misinterpreted the First Amendment.

18 posted on 07/01/2002 4:54:26 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents; 24Karet
Hear hear! My2Cents, your .02 cents are worth a dollar in my estimation.
19 posted on 07/01/2002 4:59:24 PM PDT by Notforprophet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: seamus
But in a basic sense, the pledge’s “under God” clause seems to violate—if only a smidgen—the separation of church and state. It “establishes” a state-endorsed view in theism.

I don’t see how. The amendment doesn’t say anything about prohibiting a “state-endorsed view” anyway – it states that congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” “Under God” does not constitute an establishment of anything.

IMO, if you want to imagine a nation establishing a religion, think along the lines of the Church of England, complete with the Queen as its Supreme Governor who appoints church officials. That is an example of an establishment of religion.

20 posted on 07/01/2002 4:59:32 PM PDT by thatsnotnice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson