JAMES LAKELY
James Lakely's archive
E-mail James Lakely
Posted on 07/01/2002 4:20:03 PM PDT by seamus
|
|
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.
Brown vs. Board was not a first amemdment case. The first amendment is the only one that specifically says it applies to Congress, although some would argue, including those who held that none of the amendments applied to the states. Arguably all but the first do apply to the states, since the Constitution is a contract setting up the relationship between the Federal government, the state governments and the people. The other 7 of the first 8 amendments do not have the "Congress shall make no law" language. Nor does the 9th amendment. The 10th really only applies to the federal goverment since it is a limitation on the Federal power only, saying to the federal government, in effect, "you've got the powers listed here, and no more".
Yes?
Certainly not, it hummed along quite well before 1954, when those words were added. Even if they were dropped from the "official" pledge, most people would continue to say them anyway, don't you think?
He is also a simpleton.
The Supremes re-wrote the rules in the 50s making a ruling based on a letter Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Virginia. There is no substance to the contemporary establishment questions because the precedent only goes back to the mid 20th c. A court of a slightly more conservative complexion can rewrite the whole shebang. One can see the Ninth Circuit's decision as the nadir of the development of a "freedom from religion" interp. of the First Amend. It won't take much to put the cart back behind the horse.
Kudos to you. Meanwhile, compulsory prayer to an entity is not what this country was meant to be, no matter how much your feelings tell you so or your heart strings pull you to believe. For a group of people who claim that Freedom of Religion is of the utmost importance, you sure seem to be damn quick to cram your religious beliefs down others throats.
Sometimes their "our view" editorials are horrid. Not just in conclusion, but in tone. Sometimes they're okay. At least you get surprised once in awhile with a moderate view. Here at the Kansas City Star, and we have no other paper, it is all loathsome, militant liberal all the time.
I have written Sue O'Brien a couple of times. She is good about writing back. She says she describes them as "militantly moderate". I said "Isn't that an oxymoron?". Anyway, I kinda like her on a purely human level, but I hate her politics. The endorsement issue you mentioned sounds really wrong, but Knight is pretty conservative and I like him. He did a good job defending the Boy Scouts the other day.
I look for liberals I can stomach because I need to know what they think. If you read her archives she has some pretty decent moments here and there. I don't have enough history reading those pages to offer too much input. They were good sports printing my "liberal neurosis" letter. I said they were "opinion Nazis" and everything. I got them pretty good.
I like to live by the motto, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." So in that vein I offer the following to my conservative friends in the Denver area:
The Doctor is in. The diagnosis is complete and the prognosis grim. The editorial board at The Denver Post is suffering from a serious but common form of liberal neurosis bordering on psychosis. It is a common development brought on by extreme ideological paranoia after years of participation in opinion nazi practices where you will frequently see them uncontrollably blurt out forceful phrases like "No views for you" when they get agitated.
It is also common to see them develop a psychological diagnosis obsession with words like "homophobia," "xenophobia" and "polisophobia." This is a direct result of their problem with systematized delusions of conservative persecution and hallucinations of liberal grandeur. You will also notice they will be excessively and irrationally suspicious and distrustful of conservatives because they view them as their enemy.
The prognosis is very poor so the best thing you can do is love them in spite of themselves and be sure you get a healthy dose of balanced opinion from another source. I recommend the Internet. And, please, don't call me in the morning.
The secondary point of the article, that Americans have no constitutional right never to be offended, by anything, or anyone, is also correct. If that were a constitutional right, we would all be required to stay in our homes with the shades drawn at all times, no none of us would offend anyone else, in any way.
What this columnist lacks is the ability to use the facts he knows to reach a competent and consistent conclusion. The Ninth Circuit decision is going down for the count. It is going down for reasons that Mark Twain explained in a single sentence: "Let me write a nation's customs, and I care not who writes its laws."
Finally, the judicial nonsense has gotten down to core, cultural beliefs, and messing with those is something we will not tolerate. For a far more rational discussion of this subject than the gentleman in Frederick was able to muster, click below:
Congressman Billybob
Click for: "Stupid 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.