« The Daily Memo - 7/21/06 | Main | Wade Blasingame, Attorney at Law »
Good to know all our problems are fixed!
The folks in the State of Arkansas aren’t the only ones convinced that there are no societal or economical problems that need governmental attention. Apparently, the House of Representatives agrees. First, they spent time on Wednesday focused on the problem of a pesky little Korean War memorial in San Diego. The memorial, a cross, sits on a small mound of public land and has been attacked for almost two decades by those who believe it’s acting as state-sponsored religion. A federal court recently agreed, ordering the cross removed. However, the Supreme Court stepped in, issuing a temporary stay to that order. Now, the House has passed a bill that would have the land seized and given to the Defense Department, under the rationale that a a war memorial, even a cross, is unquestionably constitutional if it is sitting on federal property.
They also took time out of their busy Wednesday schedules to address the pledge of allegiance. Representatives were apparently tired of the attacks on the pledge and the attempts to have the “under God” language pulled out. It would seem that the 9th Circuit’s 2002 ruling that it was unconstitutional to make kids recite the pledge in public schools has stuck under the Representatives’ collective craw (and the Supreme Court’s reversal did nothing to alleviate their concerns because it made its decision on a procedural ground). So the House passed legilsation that would prevent federal judges from ruling on whether the pledge is constitutional.
Now look. Although it’s for rather different reasons, I’m actually on the “social conservative” side of both of these issues - I have no problem with “under God” in the pledge (and making kids recite it in public schools), nor do I have a problem, even as a Jew, with a publicly sponsored cross memorial. And even putting aside the legal issues raised by both of these bills (especially the second one), it just seems to me that there are far more pressing matters to be addressed by our elected representatives (well, not my elected representatives, since D.C. is still subject to “taxation without representation”).
Comments
If Congress were to pass a law prohibiting the federal judiciary from ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance wouldn't that run into some sort of problem with the seperation of powers? Can Congress pass a law prohibiting the judicial branch from conducting its work??
The "One Nation Under God" portion really bugs me, especially since I have two kids in public school where they have to line up and recite it every morning of every school day. If it was "One Nation Under Allah" or "One Nation Under the Flying Spaghetti Monster" people would be outraged. In reality, we live in a country where we have LOTS of religious/spiritual (and lack of) beliefs so why is the state making my kids pledge that our country is "Under God" when nobody in my family has any inclination to feel that way? The 9th Circuit had it right.
Posted by redwoodfish | July 22, 2006 11:10 PM
As I can best recall, the costitution provides for a freedom OF religion, not a freedom FROM religion. Allah is a god, and if you belive so, then The Flying Spaghetti Monster is also a god.
Posted by Trigga69 | July 24, 2006 11:49 AM
So, by your logic, every citizen must subscribe to a religion? And what if we don't? I was under the impression that it was my constitutionally-granted right not to subscribe to any religion and I could still be a full-fledged citizen thus free to persue my individual happiness while not having to recite names of the religious idols of others. Freedom FROM religion is a brand of religious freedom. And, its not "One Nation Under A God" or "One Nation Under Some Sort of God"...it really is just plain "One Nation Under GOD" (not even G-d) which really means one nation a religion which uses a book they call the Holy Bible.
Posted by redwoodfish | July 25, 2006 1:30 AM
What bothers me about the "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is that it was added to the pledge during the communist paranoia of the Cold War. This is not a 200-year-old piece of national heritage, it's a remnant and a reminder of a very dark period in this nation's history, and should be treated as such. To be true to the pledge, Congress should vote to remove the words once and for all, restoring the pledge to its original form.
Posted by Iris | July 28, 2006 5:48 AM