The Joy of Being ‘Under God’

The Pledge of Allegiance Is Absolutely Unconstitutional: Page 2

Page 1 addresses the issue of the unconstitutionality of the pledge and contains the main points.

This page and any that may follow respond to criticisms and questions of the points made at this web site, or direct the attention to points made by others, or merely interject the random thought relevant to the subject.

The Ignominy of California's Politicians

One would hope that the words "principled politician" were not always an oxymoron. It would be especially surprising to find one in an election year.

There should be no failing to note that the 99-0 resolution in the U.S. Senate condemning the wise decision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals included the two votes of the representatives of California, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.

Neither of these two women, members of the Democratic party, is up for re-election in November 2002. But their vote shows they are clearly party loyalists. The Democrats, as the party in opposition, have decided that it is just not worth taking a principled stand for the truth when they know full well that the voting, unenlightened, slow-on-the-uptake masses—the ones that gave George Double-U his winning minority popular count—react according to their own prejudices. These are the prejudices, of course, that say that if you are not a Christian—the Protestants will even allow you to be a member of that cult Roman Catholicism—then you are simply not an American. (It used to be that you were not a true American unless you were a "white Christian," but the training of the ignorant masses has proceeded sufficiently to make them aware, if not sensitive, to the race issue.) One needs no more proof of the prejudice of the utterly common people of America than by asking a Muslim if he dares express publicly the fact he is a Muslim. Especially in these days after 11 September 2001.

Feinstein's vote is less surprising. When was the last time this woman ever took a principled, unpopular stand on anything? Most who might call her the "ultimate political survivor" will say that as a compliment. I only use those words when I want to be derogatory. Feinstein herself might respond to the charge that she is a Republican in Democrat's clothing by saying that this is proof that she is centered, a true moderate, with the implication that such characterization makes one worthy of elected office.

The Naked Opportunist Davis

Gray Davis, the governor of California, wasted no time in erecting a microphoned lecturn with the seal of the governor affixed prominently, and then blasting the decision of the court. I was considering whether to hold my nose when marking an "X" near Davis' name this November. Davis is the Democratic party's nominee for governor of California, and is very confident of re-election to his second four-year term after managing to spend a chunk of his campaign money not to support his own campaign, but rather to derail the chances of the Republican party's only serious opposition to his incumbency, in the person of Richard Riordan. It helped

Required Reading

Read Pledging Allegiance: Wrong for the Right Reasons by E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post writers group.

FAQs, FBCs, and FUIs

(Frequently Asked Questions, Frequent Braindead or Boneheaded Criticisms, and Frequently Uttered Inanities)

What's the big deal? In arguments before the Supreme Court about this case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said there are "so many references to God" in public affairs, noting "In God We Trust" was on U.S. currency and coins. O'Connor also said that the Court itself opens its proceedings with "God save the United States and this honorable Court." Justice David Souter also said that, even if the words "under God" represented religion "in actual practice, it's an affirmation in the mindset of a civic exercise." Souter added the Pledge "is so tepid, so diluted, far from a compulsory prayer." And Justice Stephen Breyer finally said "God is so generic in this context as to be a neutral" expression of belief.

“Neutral expression of belief”? Imagine someone who goes to church service every Sunday. You ask the church-goer the meaning of some of the words he recites. Or what the preacher spoke about in his sermon. The church-goer stares at you with that vacant expression of "what are you talking about?" or "why are you asking me this?" Of course, he may be trying to hide the embarrassment of why he wasn't paying attention to what was going on in the service. He dismisses your having exposed his failure to listen attentively with words that leave you with the impression that he only attends church because it is a "civic exercise." His religious conviction is "so tepid, so diluted, and far from...compulsory."

Or so would the Supreme Court justices of the United States would have you believe.

If you're a church-goer or otherwise someone who worships a deity under some belief system that is a religion, ask yourself if this is just an empty "civic exercise" or if it is the sincere act of a believer.

Be careful in your answer. For if you are argue that a profession for a belief in the existence and power of “God” is a sincere one, then the Pledge of Allegiance thus contains a profession in a belief of a deity, and a government-compelled recital of the Pledge thus violates the First Amendment.

The Founding Fathers would be shocked to see the godless communists who are trashing the Pledge.

It's clear that whoever makes a statement like this and who claims to be an American citizen born and bred is a liar and/or an idiot...at least one who did not pay attention in United States history class.

The Founding Fathers never created or established a pledge to the Flag.
Those who did create the Pledge never put the words “under God” into the Pledge. And it was not an oversight on their part: they were clearly conscious of the traditions respecting a separation from a duty to the state and a duty to religion.
It was hysterical Republicans and assorted other criminal paranoids under the influence of the disgraced senator Joe McCarthy decades later who demanded that the words “under God” be put into the Pledge, largely in order to browbeat the citizens of the United States with whom they disagreed politically.

Right wingers and Republicans for years have been attempting to gain power and control over society by exploiting strife, conflict, and division. And these are the very ways in which they achieve these things. The means by which they achieve these things are through an unsuspecting, often ignorant and uneducated public.

Mavi Gözler
American Patriot