this bjturk.commentary:
a pledge unholy

Like many Americans, I was a bit disturbed by the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. That is, I was disturbed, until I looked further into it. If we believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land (which the Constitution says it is), and if we believe that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is proper under that Constitution (which the Constitution also says it is), then we must conclude that the justices did the proper thing under the Constitution, however unpopular that may be. And the barest evidence, obvious even to those unschooled in constitutional law, makes it clear that their decision was, after all, correct.

The original complaint was filed by a man whose daughter was required to recite the pledge in a California public school. The man asserted that neither his daughter nor anyone else should be compelled to recite a pledge in a publicly-funded institution requiring reference to a "God" in which all people may not believe. He asserted that this was a violation of constitutional protections of freedom of religion.

The fundamental freedoms protected by the Constitution appear in its First Amendment. It is this amendment that protects freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition for redress of grievances. Specifically, it states that Congress shall make no law relating to the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The liberties enumerated in the First Amendment are the cornerstone upon which the United States was built.

The Supreme Court ruling covered a law passed by Congress during the Eisenhower administration in the 1950's. The law overturned by the Court added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, so it would read: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

If one can set aside the emotions surrounding the ruling, it becomes immediately obvious to the layman that this law MUST have been unconstitutional. It was only a matter of time before it was judged to be so. After all, there are those who believe in a god other than the Judeo-Christian "God" clearly intended, as well as those who believe in no god of any kind. To incorporate any deity into the Pledge by definition excludes all others, which the First Amendment clearly does not permit. Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from making such laws.

In the uproar following the Court's ruling, members of Congress came together on the steps of the U. S. Capitol building, holding flags, reciting the Pledge, singing "God Bless America," and vowing to introduce a new amendment to the Constitution to protect the language of the Pledge. While I can agree with and appreciate the sentiment, I cannot agree with the action. Amendments to the constitution that do not expand freedoms should be avoided. A study of American history shows that only two ratified amendments restricted freedoms (Prohibition and the income tax), and one of those was repealed not long after its ratification. I expect that, as usual, the Pledge amendment will most likely go nowhere, so we may once again be saved by congressional apathy.

One of the greatest treasures of the United States is the freedom to be different. It seems that every time that the Supreme Court protects somebody's freedom to be different, Congress wants to amend the Constitution to prevent it. This time, it's the Pledge of Allegiance. Last time, it was burning the flag. The time before, it was prayer in schools. On and on it has gone, and on and on it will go.

These politicians who seemingly live and die by sound bites fail to recognize a simple fact common to all of these alleged offenses against America: each of these acts glorify and celebrate the freedoms we enjoy. Imagine for a moment if you were to burn another country's flag in front of its capitol building. Your punishment elsewhere might range from immediate arrest to summary execution. In the United States, you might get a ticket for violating enviromental restrictions on burning, but probably not even that. That's pretty amazing, when you stop to think about it. Whole nations have official religions that insist that all be practitioners. Imagine defying such an edict. In many non-Christian countries, Christian missionaries are persecuted if they dare to openly espouse the glory of Jesus. One friend of my wife went on a mission to Romania during the Ceaucescu regime and had to perform almost all of her missionary work while in hiding for fear of arrest and imprisonment. China routinely jails those who dare to openly oppose the government, while anti-government rants appear in American newspapers every day without retribution. There are other examples.

As an ordained minister, I believe that God permeates our lives, and we should never allow ourselves to forget that for even a moment. However, the Bible teaches that we should treat others as we would like to be treated. If we want our beliefs to be respected, we must respect the beliefs of others. As such, to require nonbelievers in God to recite a pledge that contains the words "under God" should be every bit as objectionable as if Christians were required to recite a pledge containing the words "under Allah," "under Buddha," or even "under Satan." It is simply wrong, and, to be frank, it flies in the face of what is proper under the Judeo-Christian beliefs held by most of the Founding Fathers who built this nation and wrote its Constitution.

Let me leave this topic with a rather interesting side note. All officers of the United States are sworn in, from the President, to Cabinet officers, to members of Congress, all the way down to the lowest levels of the military. The oath taken by these people can vary, but that of the President is fixed in the language of the Constitution itself. Even so, every President upon his inauguration, and most of the others, adds four words to the end of the oath, which would not sound complete without them: "so help me God."

August 26, 2002

You'll always be broke if people don't pay you attention!
Your feedback is welcomed.

just vote no | political charities | irresponsibility | favors make enemies | patriotic profiteering
arpaio, enough! | a royal slant | where are the flags? | role models | the race lost | 9/11 + 2 years
unfinished business | mortal combat | a pledge unholy | america and war | defense ministry
pride or patriotism? | we still stand | in God we trust | five weeks of indecision | credibility counts
harry potter and the scrivener's consequence | father's day 2000 | the passage of time
modern customer service | a tale of two families | how will you spend the millennial new year?
what wisdom of corporate america? | what about the info-dictator? | alternative education or ripoff?
the olympic spirit | is joe arpaio america's toughest sheriff? | re-election '98

     [home][web design and development][writings][stores][about us][donations]

copyright © 1994-2006 bjturk.communications. all rights reserved.
privacy policy and legal notices   contact the webmaster   site map