Hopefully, since the ruling by the Federal Appeals Court Panel that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, more people will finally get it that judicial appointments are important. If people are concerned about the ruling and feel that the courts might be eyeing the Declaration of Independence and some favorite patriotic hymns for censorship, then now is the time to contact the Senators who are sitting on judicial nominations and tell them to do their job . . .or find another one.
But what is very interesting about the finger pointing in this 2 to 1 vote is that the democrats are quick to point out that the wackiest explanation for the ruling, came from a Nixon appointee. That means this guy has been there for over a quarter of century and was appointed when the Senate understood the mandate of Advise and Consent. He was there before religious profiling was common place with judicial appointees and a president’s choice was considered the prerogative of the victor. Neither party was trying to ’’stack’’ the court by providing a litmus confirmation process. He was obviously considered, by President Nixon, a fellow Californian, to be a good, honest, competent judge.
So what happened in 25 years to make an otherwise sane man, think that a pledge that millions of Americans have been reciting for over a hundred years, is suddenly unconstitutional? What has happened in America that a second grader complaining about being taught about the legitimacy of alternative lifestyles is silenced and ridiculed, but another who complains that just hearing the word ’’God’’ is offensive can have her day in court?
Where is the American Civil Liberties Union to express outrage at this court sponsored censorship? Remember, they are the ones that feel that libraries should not have any filters on their computers in case perverts want to come in and download porn next to your little girl. She has no right to be offended by that. Her rights are silenced. But if that someone says the pledge of Allegiance in that same library, uttering those very offense words, ’’under God,’’ then somehow she should be protected from this horrible act.
Where are the Hollywood elite who still write their movies about the McCarthy blacklisting era where people’s views were inspected, dissected and silenced if they did not conform to the views of a small group of bullies. They are incensed that not only were views silenced, but that freedoms were denied of people who, by association, were considered to be enemies of the state. Is God not worthy of their righteous indignation? Are words that have been uttered by millions of American citizens for almost 50 years not worthy of their usual rhetoric of First Amendment protection? No one is ever forced to say the pledge . . . so to determine that it is unconstitutional calls into question every utterance in this land of the word God or the use of a reference to His deity. God Bless America could become outlawed in public buildings.
We have been there, done that, and have dozens of tee-shirts from communist countries who went down this same, dead end road, only to find that the gods they erected for themselves were gods that determined who was more valuable, and considered by the state, to be worthy of life. We have seen people imprisoned for their beliefs, their faith, the color of their skin, the political party they belong to, what books they have in their homes, whether they wear glasses and can read . . . etc. And it all begins with the government deciding that it knows best, above any and all, imagined or real, Supreme Being, and that all reference to said Being must be outlawed so that the perfectible man might have final and complete control over his own destiny. Except that, to insure this happens properly, it is only a handful determining what that destiny should be for the rest of us. It is one father determining that his 2nd grade daughter is somehow offended, because HE says she is, therefore the rest of the class, and the country should be summarily silenced. If I am offended by him, can I have him silenced? Where does it end?
This decision is a wakeup call to Senators who have been playing fast and lose with the constitution themselves, and taking on as their constitutional duties, the selection of judges. But it should serve as a much bigger wakeup call to the rest of America that has slipped into a state of complacency on issues that seem on the surface, benign inconveniences, while the foundation of their very liberties, freedoms and . . . country are being eroded and reconfigured in the image of a handful of people who arrogantly believe they know what is best for everyone. That is demagoguery which leads to tyranny, which leads to people on their knees praying to God for liberation from this man-made hell.