The ridiculous ruling of the
The ridiculous ruling of the 9th district court of appeals (that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional) made me bristle. Maybe it's just me, but I always understood that the “separation of church and state” provision of the Constitution (well, actually the Bill of Rights) was intended to prevent the government from creating an official state religion. The verbiage isn't quite that specific, though:
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.
But, I note the following:
- “law respecting an establishment of religion” – The words “under God” hardly establish a religion. They may ACKNOWLEDGE a religion, but they don't go so far as to establish a state religion.
- “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” – Again, nothing in the law (believe it or not the Pledge is part of The Flag Code – Title 4 U.S.C Chapter 1 Sec 4 – so it IS law) prohibits the free exercise of religion. In fact, the law simply prescribes the WORDS of the pledge and how they are to be delivered.
- Didn't each of the judges who handed down this ruling swear to uphold the responsibilities of their position by placing their hand on a BIBLE and uttering the phrase "SO HELP ME GOD"???
So that's it. My interpretation of the First Amendment (Aside: remember, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. I used to be a Criminal Justice major, but my degree is in Political Science. I used to be a Police Officer, too, but I knew a lot more about the laws of the State of Georgia than I did about the Constitution) is that we are guaranteed freedom OF religion…not freedom FROM religion.
I note that Newdow (the guy who brought the suit) has been up to this for a while. (Oh, and I'm not sure what to make of these guys, but I think they scare the heck out of me)
