Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Reverse Colors

Common Sense – On “Under God”

-by Leslie Johnson, Phoenix, AZ USA

I think we’ve gone mad sometimes. The Supreme Court is hearing an appeal to decide whether the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional. The lunatics in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled that it is. Justice Scalia will recuse himself because he has publicly criticized the Ninth Circuit’s decision and it is considered a no-no to have an opinion publicly stated before a case comes before the court and arguments are heard. Justice Scalia is an honorable man in doing so. Now if the other eight justices would do the same thing that would be the truly honorable thing to do. If the court begins each day with a prayer, as it does, does that not imply that the justices may have a prejudice in this matter? To believe that personal beliefs and experiences do not affect your decisions is psychotic. They do whether they are publicly stated or personally held. That is why it is so important to put reasonable people in these positions to begin with. A reasonable person can hold a position, listen to cogent and compelling arguments and change their opinion. This is how we educate ourselves.

Unfortunately, if the Supreme Court rules in a 4-4 tie, the bad ruling of the Ninth Circuit stands and the Pledge will be changed in the Western United States, spawning a lawsuit for every other jurisdiction east of here at taxpayer expense.

The basis of the Ninth Circuit’s decision is the currently destructive belief that our founding fathers intended to maintain a iron clad separation of church and state that has become popular. Hogwash. If the founding fathers had intended that, they would have clearly stated exactly that. They didn’t. Having left England where the Church of England had been imposed upon the populous, they said in their usual eloquence that there would be no state imposed religion. Each person would be free to practice the religion of their own choosing, including no religion. To quote the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It seems the court has already ruled that prayer in school is unconstitutional and that the ruling itself violates the second part of the Establishment Clause by prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

How is it that these “experts” can be so sure that the founding fathers meant men and woman in the phrase “all men are created equal” and that they also meant by that both citizens of the country as well as illegal aliens are included but there is so much indecision on something that is so clearly stated.

I think this smells of the diversity and inclusion dementia that currently infects the politically correct crowd. We have somehow adopted along with this drivel the belief that if one person is offended then it’s wrong. I can’t find this concept defined anywhere in a democracy. It looks more like totalitarianism. The will of one, imposed on all. Lydgate’s (1430) Minor Poems is the origin of the famous quotation “You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.” Few would argue the common sense of this statement and fewer would even try to please all of the people all of the time. It’s futile. We call them politicians.

Diversity and inclusion have their good points in theory. Practice is another story. With diversity comes a wide spectrum of opinions and experiences to draw from. That’s a good thing, but diversity also divides. In theory, you are accepting that all viewpoints are valid and therefore can’t exclude any. In today’s lingo you would be “disrespecting” someone and not being inclusive. In practice, it’s Malarky. Of course, you accept and reject viewpoints. You do it in every aspect of your life. It’s called decision-making. Then the square off occurs. Just look at partisan politics as a good example of diverse opinions in action. The best diversity has to offer is the think tank approach. Throw all the ideas out there and decide which one is best.

The current version of inclusion is also divisive. You see if you can’t say “under God” because an atheist is offended you must choose the atheist's right over the constitutionally granted right of the religious. Somewhere there is a compromise that has been in effect for many years. There is no gun to anyone’s head to say those words to begin with. Say the pledge and if you can’t utter the words “under God” then don’t, just pause. Use some common sense not a lawyer.