Jog Around the Blogosphere: The Pledge of Allegiance Unplugged

For the second time in three years, the Pledge of Allegiance has been found in federal court to be unconstitutional because of the inclusion of "under God" in the oath. Robert Longley, About.com's Guide to US Government Info explains the nuances and background of these claims, as well as the surprising history of the Pledge.

In a nutshell, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates public school childrens' right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." This case, filed by attorney Michael Newdow, will surely be appealed, and likely decided by the US Supreme Court. Let's take a jog around the blogosphere for a sampling of views on this case.....

Journalist Joe Gandelman at his well-read blog, The Moderate Voice, believes that ,"These days everything is political and a federal judge's ruling that reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional will most certainly mean one thing: it'll further boost to the almost certain confirmation of John Roberts as Supreme Court Justice.....

It puts into focus the whole idea of core values of judges — and that'll solidify Roberts' support....Indeed: this will give impetus to Robert's almost certain confirmation. It'll be interesting to see if it also creates the kind of climate nationally where President George Bush feels it's a lot easier to opt for a more conservative replacement for Sandra O'Connor — one who can be sold as being ready to staunchly defend longtime values and traditions."
------------------------------
Blogger Screaming the Loudest has a pragmatic view of the controversy: " 'I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

The original pledge of allegiance, No mention of god, no mention of the United States. Either way, a judge from wherever decided that the Eisenhower bastardization of the work of art is no longer constitutional, Kudos. However, I think instead of worrying about whether or not the pledge is unconstitutional, I think we need to worry more that we make pledges to a flag....

I think we as a country focus too much on the object and (too) little on the meaning behind said object....Stop worrying about a flag, or a poem , and worry about an idea."
------------------------------
Plenty of conservatives are worked up over this issue.

From the Florida Masochist: "Today's winner is Federal District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. This knucklehead masquerading as a judge ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it violates the separation of church and state."

Christopher Fotos at PostWatch huffs: "It's not unconstitutional to be a jerk....Mike Newdow will be invited to none of my dinner parties."

And leading conservative blogger Glen Reynolds at Instapundit sees perfectly-timed political advantage in this court decision: "KARL ROVE MUST HAVE ARRANGED THIS: Just as John Roberts is being quizzed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, another court declares the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional."
------------------------------
My opinion, you ask? It seems to me that a minority is attempting to violate the First Amendment rights of free speech of the majority by not allowing them to utter "under God". At the same time, it's clearly coercive and immoral to force the minority to recite allegiance to a God that they don't believe in. That violates the free speech rights of the minority.

Here's my simple, common sense solution: make reciting the phrase "under God" optional and at the discretion of each student. Some say it, some don't, and everyone's freedom of speech is honored.

We could then stop wasting energies and judicial resources on this superficial non-issue, and focus on the Iraq War, helping survivors of Hurricane Katrina, filling the two Supreme court vacancies, boosting our ailing economy, and other urgent business of our great nation.
------------------------------
Technorati Profile