By Richard J. Santos
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is
unconstitutional. We should have seen this coming. The U.S. Supreme Court has already
ruled that desecrating the flag of the United States is "protected
speech."
If the 9th Circuit's ruling is allowed to stand, millions of American
schoolchildren will be denied the right to recite the pledge. The denial will
exist simply because the phrase "one nation under God" offends one
atheist and two judges. According to the warped reasoning used by the judges,
the words amount to a government establishment of religion. Thus, the pledge is
"unconstitutional." I can't help but wonder if these same judges pay
their bills via unconstitutional means. After all, is not U.S. currency
emblazoned with the words "In God We Trust?"
If the word "God" makes the pledge unconstitutional, is the oath
taken by witnesses in the courtrooms unconstitutional? What about the oaths of
office taken by our public officials, including judges?
The 9th Circuit's decision clearly contradicts the very words uttered during
the opening of each Supreme Court session: "God save the United States and
this honorable Court." In addition, the Senate and the House employ
chaplains and recite prayers daily. It is obvious that the members of these
bodies have read the entire First Amendment, including the portion that states
Congress shall pass no law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.
The courts ruled long ago that reciting the pledge cannot be mandatory. Thus,
only the rights of those belonging to the overwhelmingly majority of Americans
are being denied.
As national commander of the American Legion, I promise that our organization
will stand with the American people all the way to the Supreme Court if
necessary to correct this grave injustice.
It is sad that while American troops are fighting a war against terrorism,
our courts are fighting a war against the U.S. flag. First the Supreme Court
rules that flag desecration is protected speech. Now, the Pledge of Allegiance
is unconstitutional.
Opponents of the flag protection amendment have warned of a "slippery
slope." They were right, but the slope is not slanting in the direction
they predicted. The Senate's failure to protect Old Glory and the actions of
the 9th Circuit demonstrate that when you trivialize the flag of the United
States, you trivialize everything associated with it.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., has called the 9th Circuit's
ruling "just nuts." I share his view. I call upon him to extend his
outrage to the earlier Supreme Court ruling, permitting flag desecration. Let
us not fight this battle halfway. Respect for the flag and respect for the
Pledge of Allegiance go hand-in-hand. If Sen. Daschle is serious about
protecting the Pledge and the Flag, I ask him to schedule a vote and round up
support for the flag-protection amendment immediately.
If you think that these court actions do not affect you, you are seriously
mistaken.
In his dissent, 9th Circuit Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez warns that even
patriotic songs are endangered. "God Bless America and America
the Beautiful will be gone for sure," Fernandez said. "And while
the use of the first and second stanzas of The Star-Spangled Banner will
still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third."
Perhaps this outrage would have never occurred if the judges had only read
the Declaration of Independence. With its references to "God,"
the "Creator" and "divine Providence," it is clear that our
founding fathers did not intend for America to be an atheistic nation.
Moreover, flag-protection laws existed for 200 years before the Supreme Court ruled
them unconstitutional. It is time to return to the American people the right to
protect both: the Pledge of Allegiance and the flag of the United States.
Richard J. Santos is national commander of the 2.8 million-member
American Legion, the nation's largest wartime veterans organization.