AGirlWithACoupe
07-14-2002, 02:46 AM
Neal Boortz' Notes on this topic. Read on if interested...
(Note: Boortz is an attorney)
http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
I would much prefer to do today’s show without any reference at all to the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday. That decision involves religion. In fact, that decision is seen by many (if not most) Americans as an attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular.
I’ve been doing this talk radio stuff for one-third of a century. During that time I have learned one thing for an absolute certainty: Most Americans are psychologically and emotionally incapable of engaging in conversations about religion in a logical, calm and open matter. In fact … let me expand that remark. Make that most “people.” This observation isn’t confined to Americans, nor is it confined to Christians. Today, for instance, you can’t lodge a protest against Islamic terrorism without someone surfacing to accuse you of “bashing Muslims.”
When I started doing talk radio in Atlanta in the late 1960’s it was illegal in some jurisdictions to purchase a get well card on the way to visit someone in a hospital on Sunday. Why was it illegal? It was illegal because the law in these counties presumed that you, as a good Christian, should be in church on Sunday rather than running around buying get well cards. When I protested this absurdity on the radio in 1969 I was branded as being “anti-Christian.”
It continues to this day. If you make any criticism of any type of any action of any person who professes to be action on behalf of God you are “bashing Christians.” When the Southern Baptist Convention held meetings in the Mormon stronghold of Salt Lake City, Utah they went door-to-door trying to convert Mormons to Christianity. I expressed disagreement with this effort. Here came the calls and letters --- I was “bashing Christians.”
So … as I said, I would just as soon take to the airwaves today to discuss the efficacy of a liberal arts education in a largely technological society than I would to discuss whether or not the Ninth Circuit ruling is defensible.
Here we go though. The subject can’t be ignored. It comes with the territory, I guess.
FIRST, ABOUT MICHAEL NEWDOW
First and foremost, this man seems to be a publicity hound. He’s a professional victim and guilty of emotional and psychological child abuse. He professes to be an atheist. I don’t believe in atheists. Let’s just call him a contrarian. I believe him to be a typical California leftist bedwetter. His animosity toward religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is probably based in some sort of an association he makes between people with deeply held religious beliefs and conservatism. Conservatives are more open about expressions of their religious beliefs and their love of God. Michael Newdow can’t figure out how to use our laws and our Constitution to suppress conservative speech, so he concentrates his efforts on trying to suppress expressions of faith. Further – he has decided to use his daughter as a tool in the furtherance of his efforts.
This morning Michael Newdow was asked whether or not his daughter came to him and asked him to pursue this case on his behalf. His response was that he would rather leave his daughter out of this. “This is my case,” he said.
Wait a minute! This isn’t his case! He wasn’t a student in that school. He wasn’t required to sit there while that pledge was being recited in school. His daughter was enrolled in that school, not him. Now he says that his daughter should be left out of this?
Get real! This man has used his daughter as a tool in his fight against religious conservatism. Now he wants to protect her from the backlash. Someday she may well hate her father for this exploitation.
AND A COMMENT ABOUT THE NINTH CIRCUIT
You do know, don’t you, that this is the most overturned Federal Appeals Court in our country. It is also a Democratic Appeals Court. The overwhelming majority of the Judges on this court were appointed by either Bill Clinton of Jimmy Carter. Right now the Democrats in the Senate are engaged in an intense effort to prevent confirmation of Bush appointees to the federal bench. The Ninth Circuit may be an anomaly right now … give the Democrats the power and the Ninth Circuit will become the norm. This is California – the land of Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and Gray Davis; the land of the Hollywood Left, Barbara Streisand and Alec Baldwin. California is not America, nor is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Rest assured. This decision declaring our Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional is going to be short-lived. It’s toast.
Having said that … wouldn’t it be interesting here to try to understand just why the court ruled as it did?
MOVING ON TO THE CONSTITUTION
The First Amendment to our United States Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Just what does “respecting an establishment of religion” mean? I believe that this means that our founding fathers didn’t want the Congress to make any law that could be construed as elevating any particular religion or religious belief to a position superior to that of any other religion or religious belief. In other words, the Congress should not make a law that could be seen as endorsing one particular religious belief over another.
This brings us to this question. Do the words “under God” serve to endorse one particular religious belief over another? The Ninth Circuit ruling says that this is exactly what those words do. I’ve read the decision – several times. Let me try to take what the Ninth Circuit said and put it into laymen’s terms.
The Pledge of Allegiance can be truncated to read: “I pledge allegiance to the United States as one nation under God.” Here’s what the court says:
"In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The Court is saying that to recite the Pledge is not merely to describe the United States as a nation founded by people with deeply held religious beliefs; instead, it is to actually swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and – since 1954 – the reality of monotheism.”
So, can “monotheism” be defined as a particular religious belief? Well, since there are religions out there that promote a belief in not one, but several deities – the answer seems to be yes. At the very least the words “under God” would seem to endorse the idea that there is one God, not many. So, can you see that to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is to state that you are pledging your allegiance to a nation that was founded under one particular religious belief, that being a belief in one God … a belief in monotheism?
This, by the way, is not the same as carrying a coin or paper money in your pocket which contains the words “In God We Trust.” You are not required to pledge your allegiance to the thoughts and ideas expressed on that coin when you stick it into that slot on a Coke machine.
Personally --- I have no problem whatsoever with making that pledge, for that is how I believe. The question, however, is whether or not a government agent in a government institution should be in a position to instruct children in the care of that government institution to affirm that particular belief.
Note, please, that confrontation between our religious beliefs and how our children are taught would be avoided if Americans weren’t so eager to turn over the most precious things in their lives, their children, to the government to be educated. Just though I would drop that in.
MOVING ON, NOW, TO LEGISLATIVE INTENT
Many times when a court tries to determine whether or not a particular law is constitutional or not that court will seek to determine, from the official record, the legislative intent of the people who introduced and voted on the law. In the case of the 1954 law adding the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, that isn’t a tough task.
(Note: Boortz is an attorney)
http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
I would much prefer to do today’s show without any reference at all to the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday. That decision involves religion. In fact, that decision is seen by many (if not most) Americans as an attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular.
I’ve been doing this talk radio stuff for one-third of a century. During that time I have learned one thing for an absolute certainty: Most Americans are psychologically and emotionally incapable of engaging in conversations about religion in a logical, calm and open matter. In fact … let me expand that remark. Make that most “people.” This observation isn’t confined to Americans, nor is it confined to Christians. Today, for instance, you can’t lodge a protest against Islamic terrorism without someone surfacing to accuse you of “bashing Muslims.”
When I started doing talk radio in Atlanta in the late 1960’s it was illegal in some jurisdictions to purchase a get well card on the way to visit someone in a hospital on Sunday. Why was it illegal? It was illegal because the law in these counties presumed that you, as a good Christian, should be in church on Sunday rather than running around buying get well cards. When I protested this absurdity on the radio in 1969 I was branded as being “anti-Christian.”
It continues to this day. If you make any criticism of any type of any action of any person who professes to be action on behalf of God you are “bashing Christians.” When the Southern Baptist Convention held meetings in the Mormon stronghold of Salt Lake City, Utah they went door-to-door trying to convert Mormons to Christianity. I expressed disagreement with this effort. Here came the calls and letters --- I was “bashing Christians.”
So … as I said, I would just as soon take to the airwaves today to discuss the efficacy of a liberal arts education in a largely technological society than I would to discuss whether or not the Ninth Circuit ruling is defensible.
Here we go though. The subject can’t be ignored. It comes with the territory, I guess.
FIRST, ABOUT MICHAEL NEWDOW
First and foremost, this man seems to be a publicity hound. He’s a professional victim and guilty of emotional and psychological child abuse. He professes to be an atheist. I don’t believe in atheists. Let’s just call him a contrarian. I believe him to be a typical California leftist bedwetter. His animosity toward religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is probably based in some sort of an association he makes between people with deeply held religious beliefs and conservatism. Conservatives are more open about expressions of their religious beliefs and their love of God. Michael Newdow can’t figure out how to use our laws and our Constitution to suppress conservative speech, so he concentrates his efforts on trying to suppress expressions of faith. Further – he has decided to use his daughter as a tool in the furtherance of his efforts.
This morning Michael Newdow was asked whether or not his daughter came to him and asked him to pursue this case on his behalf. His response was that he would rather leave his daughter out of this. “This is my case,” he said.
Wait a minute! This isn’t his case! He wasn’t a student in that school. He wasn’t required to sit there while that pledge was being recited in school. His daughter was enrolled in that school, not him. Now he says that his daughter should be left out of this?
Get real! This man has used his daughter as a tool in his fight against religious conservatism. Now he wants to protect her from the backlash. Someday she may well hate her father for this exploitation.
AND A COMMENT ABOUT THE NINTH CIRCUIT
You do know, don’t you, that this is the most overturned Federal Appeals Court in our country. It is also a Democratic Appeals Court. The overwhelming majority of the Judges on this court were appointed by either Bill Clinton of Jimmy Carter. Right now the Democrats in the Senate are engaged in an intense effort to prevent confirmation of Bush appointees to the federal bench. The Ninth Circuit may be an anomaly right now … give the Democrats the power and the Ninth Circuit will become the norm. This is California – the land of Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and Gray Davis; the land of the Hollywood Left, Barbara Streisand and Alec Baldwin. California is not America, nor is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Rest assured. This decision declaring our Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional is going to be short-lived. It’s toast.
Having said that … wouldn’t it be interesting here to try to understand just why the court ruled as it did?
MOVING ON TO THE CONSTITUTION
The First Amendment to our United States Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Just what does “respecting an establishment of religion” mean? I believe that this means that our founding fathers didn’t want the Congress to make any law that could be construed as elevating any particular religion or religious belief to a position superior to that of any other religion or religious belief. In other words, the Congress should not make a law that could be seen as endorsing one particular religious belief over another.
This brings us to this question. Do the words “under God” serve to endorse one particular religious belief over another? The Ninth Circuit ruling says that this is exactly what those words do. I’ve read the decision – several times. Let me try to take what the Ninth Circuit said and put it into laymen’s terms.
The Pledge of Allegiance can be truncated to read: “I pledge allegiance to the United States as one nation under God.” Here’s what the court says:
"In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The Court is saying that to recite the Pledge is not merely to describe the United States as a nation founded by people with deeply held religious beliefs; instead, it is to actually swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and – since 1954 – the reality of monotheism.”
So, can “monotheism” be defined as a particular religious belief? Well, since there are religions out there that promote a belief in not one, but several deities – the answer seems to be yes. At the very least the words “under God” would seem to endorse the idea that there is one God, not many. So, can you see that to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is to state that you are pledging your allegiance to a nation that was founded under one particular religious belief, that being a belief in one God … a belief in monotheism?
This, by the way, is not the same as carrying a coin or paper money in your pocket which contains the words “In God We Trust.” You are not required to pledge your allegiance to the thoughts and ideas expressed on that coin when you stick it into that slot on a Coke machine.
Personally --- I have no problem whatsoever with making that pledge, for that is how I believe. The question, however, is whether or not a government agent in a government institution should be in a position to instruct children in the care of that government institution to affirm that particular belief.
Note, please, that confrontation between our religious beliefs and how our children are taught would be avoided if Americans weren’t so eager to turn over the most precious things in their lives, their children, to the government to be educated. Just though I would drop that in.
MOVING ON, NOW, TO LEGISLATIVE INTENT
Many times when a court tries to determine whether or not a particular law is constitutional or not that court will seek to determine, from the official record, the legislative intent of the people who introduced and voted on the law. In the case of the 1954 law adding the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, that isn’t a tough task.