Earlier this year, Steve Adams, president of the Colorado AFL-CIO, complained that Coloradans were sick and tired of “Republicans bashing gays, toting guns and worrying about the Pledge of Allegiance.”
You could debate the merits and truth of his screed, but it’s difficult to understand how the Pledge of Allegiance could be lumped in with these critical issues.
As for his question: Why do so many Republicans worry about the Pledge? That’s easy.
While Democrats contend that the whole brouhaha is a “wedge” issue, it’s far less complicated than that.
(By the way, a wedge issue is any issue a politician doesn’t want to be on record opposing.)
The Pledge debate isn’t only about a patriotic ode; it’s a debate about God in the public square.
And when you begin debating God, folks get all worked up.
Recently in Estes Park, locals decided to recall a town trustee named David Habecker, who refused to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance before board meetings. His case garnered national media attention.
Then there was Margo Lucero, a Jefferson County guidance counselor who, in a spasm of political correctness, substituted the words “under God” with “under your belief system” while leading the Pledge of Allegiance earlier this year.
Honestly, it’s gotten to the point where if someone happens to sneeze in a government building, a government employee will be expected to respond, “Bless you under your designated belief system.”
One thing at a time, I guess.
Last week, a district judge in Sacramento, Calif., followed the 9th Circuit’s previous decision, holding that a public school district’s recitation of the Pledge, with the inclusion of words “under God,” violates the Constitution’s establishment clause.
Last year, when the Supreme Court got a hold of this issue – brought forth by one Rev. Dr. Newdow: atheist, doctor, lawyer, popinjay – justices sidestepped it on the technicality that the plaintiff had no standing.
Next time, the Supreme Court is unlikely to be able to dodge the case, since Newdow has actually recruited some plaintiffs who clearly have standing
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales vowed to fight the decision, saying the Supreme Court “has affirmed time and again that such official acknowledgments of our nation’s religious heritage, foundation and character are constitutional.”
For me, at least, it’s common sense that the words “under God” in no way establish a religion. Our money, after all, says, “In God We Trust.” Every president in my lifetime has signed off with “Thank you, and God bless.”
Last I looked, no one was forcing me to pray or attend a church or synagogue.
Thank God. Or rather, “thank my chosen belief system.”
Atheists, agnostics, civil libertarians, constitutional purists and the rest of us should be concerned with the other part of the First Amendment. Particularly, the phrase that reads “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Right now, reciting the Pledge is voluntary. If it’s found to be unconstitutional, the Pledge may be outlawed in schools.
Which one of those options truly impedes free speech?
The question isn’t whether we’re under God or not. I’ll find out soon enough. It’s whether the establishment clause is violated or whether a minority wants to expunge the word “God” simply because it makes the few (parents) uncomfortable.
Speech is protected by the Constitution; your comfort is not.
Now, if your position is that religion should be a private matter and play no role in government-run schools, that’s fine. Then Colorado should extend vouchers so everyone can send their kids to the type of schools they choose.
As for the innocent, coerced children, let’s give them a little bit of credit. One day they’ll make up their own minds about God’s existence.
You did.
David Harsanyi’s column normally appears Monday and Thursday.
He can be reached at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
