America has gone nuts!

It’s scary enough that the paranoids, kooks, and assorted right-wingers are running around like the ignorant, crazy bastards they are, polishing their jack boots, practicing their goose step, sending out their best brown shirts to the cleaners, and preparing for civil war against “liberals.”

What’s even scarier is that they’re actually setting policy in this country!!

But perhaps the scariest thing of all in what is being seen and heard is not the people running around calling for a Final Solution for America’s Liberals, but rather the traditional liberal himself trying to elbow out his philosophical opponent in an effort to show himself to be the better American in condemning the decision of the court. Little does the liberal realize that his effort is one that hands his opponent the axe, an effort that sharpens the guillotine’s edge. For there is no persuading the person who has fallen into the obsession that “once a liberal, always a liberal, and the only good liberal is a dead liberal.”

The actions of the anti-liberal are understandable.

But the actions of the liberal must be attributable to some kind of post-traumatic stress syndrome related to 11 September 2001.

Patriotism has now given way to an ugly kind of nationalism. Where are Himmler and Goebbels und der Fürher himself to appreciate all of this?

---

The practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has rightly been declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court obviously too far ahead of its time. The court declared it unconstitutional because the phrase “under God” is, without any question whatsoever, a reference to the God of Abraham. It is an expression with the most sacred, religious significance.

Any oath or solemn utterance made part of a daily or even infrequent classroom experience is intimidating to those who do not share in the faith of those who are pleased to see the “non-believers” so intimidated, whether or not their ends are also toward proselytization. And it is precisely for this reason that the Pledge has been deservedly scorned.

Of course those who have roundly condemned the members of the Ninth Circuit Cout of Appeals, who joined in the majority opinion that mandated recitation in a public school is unconstitutional, have come out of the woodwork. It is practiced understatement to say that these people are outraged, indignant, and completely bent on mob action.

America’s McCarthyites and their Republican Party patrons have rallied to call those who made and who support the decision of the judges “un-American” and treasonous, not to mention godless and even Satan worshippers. It is noteworthy that those very words themselves, “under God”, were added to the Pledge in 1954 at the urging of control freaks who would impose their religion upon those who would rather not be so oppressed. At that time, Senator Joe McCarthy was leading all “good and true and decent” Americans in the fight against “godless Communists,” even though not a single one of these pinheads McCarthy and his mob had ever read a word of Karl Marx (for you public school graduates, he's the man who wrote Das Kapital and advanced the virtues of communism).

Elected officials of the Democratic Party are no less guilty of the offense of deciding who is a decent and honorable American and who is not. The United States Senate voted 99-0 to condemn the ruling of the appeals court on the matter of the Pledge, almost certainly without having read one word of the majority opinion. Every member of the Senate who voted for that resolution should consider himself or herself a scoundrel unworthy of the office they now hold.

Indeed, let’s name names.

Here’s Tom Daschle, a senator and Democrat representing South Dakota: “This decision is just nuts.”

Sure, Tom. I wholeheartedly agree: the decision of the voters of South Dakota to send you to Washington is absolutely mind boggling, at least to my mind.

Of course, the reader needs some context here: the decision is rendered in the late June of 2002, an election year, and one which finds the Democrats trying to appeal to the overwhelmingly large number of dead-from-the-neck-up Christians who happen to make up a significant voting bloc.

Daschle makes what he believes to be a cost-free attack on the court in an unprincipled bid for ballots. But it is, in fact, not cost-free. For now his words only encourages the completely unhinged, who are likely to do more than vent their anger and frustration with loud words. Was Tim McVeigh content in making known in a wholly legal manner his contempt for this or that body of government he disagreed with?

The senile old fart representing West Virginia in the senate, Robert Byrd, had this to say: “I hope his name never comes before this body for any promotion, because he will be remembered.” He was referring to the judge on the appeals court who wrote the opinion. I frankly hope Byrd’s own name never comes to my ears again, lest I wretch from becoming overly nauseous.

Perhaps proving true the claims of Republicans in 2000 that he was unfit for the office of the vice-presidency, Joseph Lieberman, who dares say he has the honor to represent the state of Connecticut in the senate, opined: “There may have been a more senseless, ridiculous decision issued by a court at some time, but I don’t remember it.” That statement rings more true if you substitute the word “court” with “legislative body,” and the decision refers to the 99-0 resolution.

Predictably the Republicans were just as vocal, and in greater numbers.

Kit Bond, with clear indication that he ignominously represents the state of Missouri in the senate, had this to say: “Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok. What’s next? Will the courts now strip ‘so help me God’ from the pledge taken by new presidents?”

Why not, Mr. Bond? Is there any godly reason why new presidents should say it? It sounds wholly natural to strike those words out. People will get used to it, and maybe God won’t mind. If God does mind, let God make plain God’s position to all of us, and leave no doubt.

Bond’s colleague, the other senator from Missouri, Roy Blunt asked this: “Will our courts, in their zeal to abolish all religious faith from public arenas, outlaw ‘God Bless America’ too? The great strength of the United States is that we are and will continue to be, despite the liberal court’s decision, one nation under God.”

Roy, Roy!

Listen up! No one has “outlawed” the recitation of the Pledge under any circumstance. Outlawing it would certainly violate one’s First Amendment rights.

But the government is not a person. And the First Amendment bars the government from engaging in any activity that establishes or even touches upon a religion anyway.

Get a grip, Roy! You have a problem with the First Amendment? Well then for Christ’s sake—and I intend the use of that in all apostasy—abolish it!

John Warner of Virginia, who it is believed has a reputation for being one of the more slow-witted members of the senate, proved himself worthy of that reputation with this rash comment: “Let us not wait for the Supreme Court to act on this. Why don’t we go ahead and formulate this amendment [to make the words of the Pledge part of the Constitution], put it together, have it in place, presumably with all 100 United States senators.”

And the slick leader of the minority opposition in the senate, the Mississippi Republican Trent Lott, certainly acting on instinct, saw political opportunity in all this: “This highlights what the fight over federal judges is all about. We feel that putting men and women on the appellate courts who would make this kind of decision is bad for America.”

George Bush’s response, although certainly just as predictable, was more measured as the response was early and reaction to the court’s decision clearly hadn’t been polled: “The president’s reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous” said Ari Fleischer, White House spin artist extraordinaire.

---

Many arguments have been put forth by those who are bereft of any sense whatsoever, and are probably bent on their views no matter how much reason is used to lay bare their contradictory nonsense and expose their paranoid agenda.

One person named Becky called into a talk show hosted by a right wing paranoid and broadcast by the radio station KFBK in Sacramento on 26 June (the appellate case actually involves a Sacramento public school student). This caller to KFBK expressed her contempt for the father of the child in whose behalf the case was brought before the court. Caller Becky's contempt was for this father having brought public attention to the identity of the child, whom she supposed would now be a target of ridicule and object of derision.

What everyone here ought to find more contemptible is not the actions or attitude of the father who rightly made a federal matter of the obvious fact that the Pledge is religious, but rather the attitude of Caller Becky, and Caller Becky herself, for allowing that others would feel free to attack this father or his child for standing on principle, and for a good principle at that.

How dare this imbecile Caller Becky in Sacramento not applaud the father for actually being an example to his child, of showing that one should stand up for what one believes in, and to avial one's self of the court system when a grievous wrong is committed and needs to be made right.

This unconscionable bitch Becky would shame the persecuted for bringing upon themselves the wrath and the vindictiveness of the persecutors, failing herself to stand in defiance against any thug who takes his case to the mob. She gives no thought to standing with the father of this child, who is the most American of Americans, and one who takes his case before a judge, as any decent American is admonished to do. The tone of Caller Becky's remark seemed a not very subtle call for a tree and rope as well.

Kathy, also of Sacramento, calls this same radio station to say that the motto on the coinage of this nation is “In God We Trust.” Her intention obviously is to argue the all-too-frequently used Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right fallacy.

Of course, two wrongs have never made a right. It’s rather hard to believe that on some given day years ago that two wrongs started making a right.

And for this reason, the courts should also move tomorrow to demand that this motto be removed from all coinage. It only takes a strong will and probably deep pockets to see that justice is finally done...a justice that dares tell the truth that “In God We Trust” is just as unconstitutional as that phrase in the Pledge.

Yet another fallacious argument is that this country was founded on “Judeo-Christian” principles.

Really?

This government was also founded on institutionalized slavery, and where the wife and children were the property of their husbands and fathers, and with only privileged white men of letters having the right to vote and hold office, no matter what else you may think.

The historical record describing our forefathers clearly shows they had no intention leading the flock down the paths of a righteousness that is the wholly owned subsdiary of Protestant Christianity. Quite a few of our forefathers were not merely heretical, but downright unrepentantly sinful. Almost certainly they would stand with the court’s majority in condemning the Pledge as it was modified, and they would most certainly be horrified to learn that the appellant has been the subject of death threats!

[The Sacramento Bee in an editorial dated 21 March 2004 pointed out that “under God” should be struck from the Pledge, and that the First Amendment and an article of the Constitution that no officer of government shall make an oath based on religion to hold office is proof enough that the forefathers wanted religion kept out of government and vice-versa.]

It should be noted that the words “under God” were never a consideration of the original authors of the Pledge, and probably with good reason.

The United States Supreme Court will finally take this matter into its consideration soon. Of course, the wisdom of the Court demands that it uphold the appeals court finding. But does the Court have this kind of wisdom?

A so-called court liberal Justice William Brennan had ruled earlier that a non-intimidating or -threatening use of religious terms represented something like a “ceremonial deism” that did not violate the church-state separation principle. Count on Scalia, with lap dog Thomas in tow, making reference to that among his points and authorities. The other members of the Court are not so predictable. This could very well be a unanimous decision against changing a pledge that has been around for 50 years. What justice at the end of distinguished career will want to acknowledge the obvious that “under God” was penciled in clearly to have religious significance, and possibly be known as the lone vote to commit a sacrilege?

Mavi Gözler
American Patriot

This document will be in continual revision so long as this topic remains hot, and in the press and public debate. To be added to its content will be the arguments put forth by those who claim reason is on their side that the Pledge is wholly constitutional.

first written June 2002
revised March 2004