Editor's note: Friday's normal column, Loud and Obnoxious by Ben Mendelsohn, will not appear in today's newspaper.
Never before has such a good idea gone so horribly awry.
On Wednesday, a federal court judge ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance contradicts the U.S. Constitution because the phrase under God violates the rights of public school children to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.
Please pardon me while I try to swallow the logic behind that pearl of wisdom.
Even before discussing that issue, it is imperative to put aside the misnomer that uttering the phrase under God
as children mindlessly do at the start of their school day, is somehow coercing the impressionable youth into developing a belief in the Judeo-Christian creator. More likely, children are silently mouthing the words, reciting a clever rhyme about a disgraced celebrity to the rhythm -it was Michael Jackson in my day -or simply remaining silent.
Instead the debate about this atrocious crime -perpetrated by former President Dwight D. Eisenhower when he allowed the phrase to be inserted into the pledge as a means of enslaving non-Christians in future generations -must start with the document so many desperate individuals cling to when trying to solve all of their problems: the U.S. Constitution.
The established practice of the separation of the church and state is a remarkable idea but has consistently been used to adjust minor, semantic conundrums. Yet, to the chagrin of anti-pledge advocates, uttering the words under God does not violate the accepted separation between religion and the state. Upon careful examination of the Constitution, which is surprisingly something not too many people actually care to do, there is no logical base for banning the pledge in public schools.
The First Amendment explicitly states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. From the actual words it is impossible to justify the court's recent ruling. The words under God do not have the power to legally establish a national religion nor to prohibit an individual from rejecting God, embracing God or denying the existence of God. And considering there is no other section of the Constitution that makes reference to religion, the argument should be concluded at this time.
But the debate about the offensiveness of the pledge rages on, fueled by America's ultra politically-correct, crazed, litigious culture. If parents spent more time talking with their kids about different views on religion than trying to safeguard them from governmental brainwashing, the pledge would be a non-issue. What's the next target, the White House Christmas tree?
Oh, that's right, the president should not be allowed to broadcast his religious beliefs (feel free to ignore the free exercise clause) even if it would not result in a U.S. policy that reflects conservative-Christian dogma. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, folks, because someone is trying to hijack your child's spirituality.
Aside from analyzing the Constitution -and not trying to interpret the document's meaning with regard to a minor problem our forefathers would have never wasted their time addressing -the issue is not important enough for court case after court case. It is barely even important enough for say, 650-700 words. Instead of occupying a spot on the jam-packed court agenda, citizens could try the novel idea of replacing under God with another phrase.
Say it with me now: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands
one nation under ______ with liberty and justice for all. For those keeping score at home, answers such as God, Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, Vishnu or the sun are all acceptable. That's the beauty of fill-in-the blank; there is never just one correct answer. Well, unless you answered Lucifer. At that point you are just a cynic and should become Bill O'Reilly's apprentice on Fox News.
Despite the irrational fear that the government is trying to condition your child to believe in God, the Pledge is no more harmful to children than righteous, overzealous parents with an ax to grind. No court case is needed to ban the Pledge, just responsible individuals to explain that God is just another word for Creator.
Damn, that's in the Declaration of Independence. Guess it is time to take out the Sharpie and start rewriting history.
-Dan Rinderle is the Associate Editor of The Post. Send him an e-mail at posteditorial@ohiou.edu.
17
Archives
Dam Rinderle
