[vsp]

Originally posted by Nic Name
The point that interests me is that there seems to be such an overwhelming political will and unanimity in Congress and the Senate and the Executive branch ... that it could be a settled by a clear and unequivocal Constitutional amendment to embody the Pledge of Allegiance in the Constitution (under God, if that's the will of the people). Like the Bill of Rights. As a proper amendment of the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance would not offend the First Amendment because it would be a further amendment of the First Amendment to acknowledge that the Pledge of Allegiance is within the amended Constitution NOT respecting an establishment of religion.

That's an appropriate power of the legislature, to make new law ... to change the law ... even change the Constitution in accordance with the overwhelming will of the people as reflected in the necessary votes in both houses. That's the basis for American democracy ... free to amend the Constituition to make God whatever part of the government the people will support. But the lawmakers should have to face the people on this one, and not hide behind judicial robes and a politically stacked Supreme Court.

It's been over 200 years since the founding fathers expressly separated God from the United States, and the Republic from the Kingdom of England ... and the world has changed since 9/11 when you know who attacked America.

Maybe it's time for a Constitutional changing of the guard.

I have read this, and re-read this, and re-re-read this about fifteen times at this point. Either I'm misinterpreting what you're suggesting, or I am justified in being _terrified_ that otherwise rational individuals are buying into this kind of rhetoric.

The issue is not whether the lawmakers have the power to alter the Constitution; they do. If the powers that be want to amend the Constitution to give official sanction to "under God," to prohibit the burning of the national flag except for proper disposal procedures, to ban smoking in all public places, or to make Kraft Macaroni & Cheese the officially-recognized national food, they can do so if they can gather up sufficient "yes" votes. The issue is whether they should.

The Pledge issue is not one of vast national importance, a full-fledged Constitutional crisis; it's a bunch of prick-waving following a decision that was legally correct but widely unpopular. It's an opportunity (in an election year) for politicians to jump up and down in front of the cameras and show off how godly and patriotic they are. It's not something that affects our daily lives in a significant way, frankly, and I won't lose sleep nightly if (more like when, given the uproar) the decision is overturned. It's hardly the full-barrel assault on God, America, patriotism, apple pie and Chevrolet that many in Congress and the media are making it out to be; I don't even live in one of the nine states that it affected.

But when people start talking about overriding the most significant portion of the First Amendment to give "under God" official sanction, now we _are_ talking "national crisis." Now we _are_ talking about chipping away at one of the bedrock principles upon which this nation was founded.

There is a significant and distinct minority in this country who view the world in strict Christian fundamentalist terms. In their eyes, the country is corrupt and should be ripped apart brick-by-brick and replaced with a theocracy where Old Testament Biblical law reigns supreme. They live by a simple with-us-or-against-us mentality, have a grass-roots network second to none, and are thoroughly unapologetic about their intolerance for other religions, ideas and cultures. They have a grass-roots network second to none, have an annoying tendency to run "stealth candidates" at a local level (candidates who run little or no public advertising, counting on a grass-roots word-of-mouth campaign to gain votes and win elections with little turnout, revealing their extremism only after victory), and (while a minority) are a sufficiently large voter block that they influence the policy and philosophy of the mainstream Republican Party.

All of the previous paragraph is PERFECTLY LEGAL and should remain so. Why? Because the First Amendment protects _their_ rights to worship, believe, speak and evangelize according to their religious beliefs, and protects _my_ right to believe differently. The First Amendment also prevents any religious group from being singled out and either officially sanctioned _or_ persecuted. This allows them to refer to people like me as dangerous heretics who're gonna BURN BURN BURN, allows people like me to refer to them as dangerous fanatics thoroughly out of touch with reality and the times they live in, and allows the government to carry on business as usual without promoting or sanctioning either of those views.

Now, the "under God" phrase is not an open, non-denominational statement of general religious fealty; it is a direct reference to the Christian deity. That's not surprising, as the religious right's attempts to work religion into American law are usually monotheistic in nature; look at how quickly the Falwells of the world complained when the likes of Scientology and Wicca lined up to take part in the faith-based charity concept.

This is not to paint all Republicans or all Christians as dangerous moral crusaders bent on retaking America from the heathens; far from it. The average person who self-identifies as Republican, Christian or both looks at the extremists just as warily as the rest of us. The problem is that American politics aren't generally based on fairness, upholding the law and doing the right thing; they're based on getting reelected and keeping the money train rolling.

Over time, the public has been desensitized to the blurring of God, patriotism and America into one muddled concept. Public debate has been framed in such a way that legislators on BOTH sides of the spectrum fear to challenge the hardcore right, lest they be labeled as GODLESS LIBERAL TRAITORS or REPUBLICANS IN NAME ONLY and tossed out of office by a wave of enraged Christian voters who feel like they've been personally attacked. It's rare that a politician shows up to tell the other side of the story, to explain the principles of law behind what's going on and to take the risk of defending an unpopular action.

The Pledge issue is an obvious example: look at the Democrats who scurried forth to denounce the decision, with some Republicans openly grumbling that they couldn't find a prominent Democrat to stigmatize with the "anti-Christian" label. Look at the knee-jerk reactions of much of the media, painting it as if the entire Pledge was being eliminated or that anyone who dared to say the two forbidden words in schools would be arrested or reprimanded. Look at how many pundits publically mock the decision against the two words, and how few are bringing up how they got into the Pledge fifty-odd years ago, why they were added and whether they should've been added in the first place. Look at Joe Lieberman (a braying ass of the highest order), who (as a powerful Democrat) should be one of the foremost in opposing the way the Republicans blew this far out of of proportion, and who instead is the FIRST to call for a Constitutional amendment. He wouldn't want to jeopardize that Presidential campaign in 2004, after all... "The lawmakers should have to face the people," you say; I'd be satisfied if they'd just face the LAW instead of the polls.

The First Amendment is phrased the way it is for a reason; it's there to make sure that _no_ single religious viewpoint gets the upper hand in the laws of this country. To amend it further to effectively say "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion (except for the Christian God, which will be affirmed daily by schoolchildren)" would be an abomination of the highest order, and one step closer to the theocracy that many desire. It would open the door for waves of Christian-themed morality legislation and significantly hinder the defense of those trying to ward them off.

"The world has changed post-911." Bullshit! This is _still America_. The Constitution does not have a hidden clause that says "If non-Christian terrorists attack within America's borders, all bets are off and the President can pick and choose which portions of the preceding document to suspend." The Christian God did not pick up four jets and fling them like paper airplanes into the WTC, Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania because Americans weren't following his Biblical instructions properly, or because an atheist in California was anxious about exposing his kid to a daily state-led recitation containing a religious reference.

And, yeah, I'm long-winded about this kind of thing, but that's because I take this sort of thing extremely seriously. The opposition certainly does, and owe much of their success to the fact that few others do.