TruthNews Commentary, July 4, 2002

We're not sure which is worse about the recent court attempt to strike down the Pledge of Allegiance: the sheer stupidity of the court's ruling or their frivolity in even considering this case to begin with.

Let's examine the frivolity of the case first. Students in California aren't required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In classes where the pledge is recited, students are allowed to "opt out." But this wasn't enough for Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who didn't want his daughter to hear the pledge because it mentions God. The Bible says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God (Psalm 14:1)." So Newdow said in his heart, "There is no God," and brought a lawsuit to keep his daughter from hearing even the mention of God.

According to Brit Hume of Fox News, "The atheist activist... claimed in the suit that he was trying to protect his grade school daughter from being forced to sit and listen while her teachers led other students in the pledge. But Newdow told FOX News that his eight-year-old daughter voluntarily says the pledge along with her classmates. He also said, 'This is more about me than her. I'd like to keep her out of this.'"

So if all of this was about Newdow, rather than his daughter, why did he bring the suit in the first place? He didn't have to sit and listen to the pledge.

There was a time when the courts would dismiss frivolous lawsuits without even wasting time hearing arguments. Not in this case, though. The case went all the way to the 9th Circuit of the U.S. appeals court where a judge ruled that Congress had acted unconstitutionally in inserting "under God" in the pledge to begin with. This occurred in 1954, when America was face to face with godless communism in the Cold War. Well it took 48 years, but now that we've defeated the godless commies, the courts have finally rectified the Congressional error.

Even the court's reasoning was frivolous. "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel. We wonder if Judge Alfred T. Goodwin was named after Alfred T. Newman of Mad Magazine fame -- it would be appropriate for this case.

The ruling was especially ludicrous in view of some of the things that California schools have shoved down students' throats in recent years, including:

• Promotion of homosexuality

• A "Muslim Day" in which kids are required to dress up and pretend to be Muslims

• Dirty books in the guise of "literature"

• Condoms

• Sex education

• Teaching of the unproven (and unprovable) theory of evolution as fact in order to promote godlessness

None of these things raised the ire of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but apparently the pledge of allegiance is much too offensive for tender atheist ears. You would think that the court would have more important things to do, like fighting crime, but apparently they don't. The Republicans have been making a big deal about the Democratic-controlled Senate not approving the President's nominees to the bench. But apparently, the judges have too much time on their hands, so maybe Congress should abolish the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals along with a few other courts that don't have anything better to do than to sit around making frivolous rulings.

Let's move on to the stupidity of the court's ruling. The First Amendment to the U.S. constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The courts tend to take the phrase "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" seriously while ignoring "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Thus, they are quick to trample on the free exercise of religion by prohibiting prayer in school or at football games but extrapolate the "establishment clause" far beyond anything ever envisioned the founding fathers.

Why is the First Amendment in the constitution in the first place? The founding fathers designed the constitution to lay out the powers of the federal government. At the time, many feared that the federal government would abuse its powers, so the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) were added to forbid the federal government from meddling in certain areas like religion. The reason the amendment reads "Congress shall make no law..." is that the executive and judicial branched can only do what Congress tells them to do.

The problem is, many judges ignore the law and the constitution when they hear a case. They first decide how they want to rule, then figure out a loophole to justify it. Thus, Judge Alfred T. Newman with his Zeus logic.

Mentioning God is not making a "law respecting an establishment of religion." A religious establishment is a church or sect. The founding fathers did not want Congress to establish an official state religion like most European countries had. Religion itself (i.e., God) is not an "establishment of religion." If Judge Alfred T. Newman had stuck down the pledge because it said "one nation under the Episcopalian church," he might have had a good point. However, Congress did not require the California schools to recite the pledge of allegiance, so it's irrelevant whether they inserted the phrase "under God" or not.

Given the courts' propensity for accepting frivolous cases and making silly rulings, perhaps the judges should begin wearing clown suits instead of robes. Robes are intended to impart an aura of gravity to the court room, so for frivolous cases, the judges should wear something appropriate. Thus, when the judges come out dressed in clown suits and the bailiff plays a kazoo, everyone will know that the court is about to make a silly ruling. They can also change the name of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to the 9th Circus Court of Appeals. And, instead of calling a judge's position "the bench," they could call it "the stool" for dunce's stool.

In another silly ruling, the Supreme Court last week said that executions could not be performed on the mentally retarded. At the time, everyone took it as just another example of judicial activism run amok. But in light of the furor that has erupted over the banning of the pledge, we see a more sinister . Maybe the ruling was an act of self preservation to keep judges from being hung for treason for trampling the constitution under foot.