Pledge
is an integral part of U.S.
Jason
Garthoffner
I've
lately been finding myself constantly wondering
what it is upon which we base our legal
decisions. One thing I did come to realize
is that it is not the Constitution.
If
this was true the term "separation
of church and state" wouldn't exist.
Especially when considering whether the
words "under God" in the Pledge
of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
The
first amendment starts with "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibit the free exercise
thereof..."
This
means two things: The government cannot
create or endorse a single religion, and
they can't stop us from participating in
religion. The first amendment doesn't call
for a church-state separation, we know this
because that's not what it says.
Are
the words "under God" in the pledge
unconstitutional? The Democratic National
Committee answer is, John Kerry fought bravely
in Vietnam. For the rest of us, the answer
is no.
The
1954 law putting those words into the pledge
was not an act in which the government was
establishing a religion, and the god is
not specific. All religious people in this
country, from Jews, to Christians, to Buddhists,
can take those two words to mean whatever
god they worship.
Instead
of arguing about why the Pledge of Allegiance
should be constitutionally upheld, how about
we get to work on a psychological profile
of atheist Michael Newdow, the man who started
this whole mess with a zeal not seen since
the Crusades.
Is
he egotistical? Narcissistic? Bored? Going
through a midlife crisis? Or is the case
he has pushed to the Supreme Court the final
chapter to his copy of "The Idiots
Guide to Screwing Up America," by Bill
Clinton?
Newdow
is fighting the pledge on behalf of his
daughter, who is actually in the custody
of his ex-wife, Sandra Banning, who supports
the pledge. She is far from alone.
One
poll reported by CNN found that almost 9
in 10 Americans believe the words "under
god" should remain in the pledge. Furthermore,
84 percent said any reference to God and
religion in public places should be allowed,
so long as the god or religion is non-specific.
In
1776 the United States was more split on
deciding whether not it should become the
United States than it is now on whether
"under god" should remain in the
pledge.
In
fact, it is likely the only other time in
history Americans reached such a consensus
was when we figured out the Clinton's marriage
was a fraud.
Interestingly
supporters of Newdow have been seen showing
their faith in his cause with signs saying
"Democracy not Theocracy."
This
country lost its mind and called for the
Electoral College's head on a pike when
Al Gore got .5 percent more popular votes
than President Bush. Liberals cried that
democracy was on its deathbed, and Bush
was not their president.
Now
the country is almost unanimous on the issue
of "under god" being in the pledge,
and one man thinks we need to have a debate
about it. If the atheists want to wrap themselves
around the flag of democracy on this issue,
the will of the people is the last thing
they should be clamoring for.
Then
again, luckily for them they won't need
it. When liberals don't need to lie about
their agenda for America they are using
sympathetic activist judges in the courts
to have their ideology shoved down our throats.
In
Newdow's case, he's using the courts to
impose his will on 90 percent of America,
because he is tired of putting up with their
belief in God's will.
What
the atheists should really do is leave America
and find a land where their faith that there
is no God is more widely accepted. If only
time travel was possible, they could try
the palatial Soviet Union.
That
is one church-state separation I would root
for.
Jason
Garthoffner is an art major at Cal State
Long Beach.
|
