Other Columns by Doug Patton
Doug Patton Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

One Nation Under Me
By Doug Patton
July 1, 2002

"I pledge allegiance to myself, and to my own self-interest, and to the indulgence for which I live, one person without God, inexcusable, with gluttony and excess for me."
- A New Pledge of Allegiance even the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could love.

As anyone who wasn't visiting Pluto last week knows by now, two federal judges on San Francisco's 9th Circuit Court have discovered in our First Amendment yet another provision for sanitizing America's classrooms of religious expression. The court's ruling, which declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of its reference to God, was the result of a lawsuit filed by a San Francisco atheist who wasn't satisfied that his daughter could simply opt out of reciting the Pledge in her local government school.

The reaction was one of incredulity, especially from Senate Democrats, whose hypocritical protestations seemed reminiscent of those expressed by the haughty gendarme in "Casablanca" who tells Humphrey Bogart that he is "Shocked! Shocked!" to find that there is actually gambling going on at Rick's place.

A typical example of this disingenuous response came from Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who sputtered that the ruling was "nuts!" Daschle, who has become the Eddie Haskell of national politics, never met a liberal judge he wouldn't vote to confirm. Far less suspension of disbelief was necessary when digesting President Bush's response to the decision. Citing the Declaration of Independence, the president called the ruling "proof of the need for common-sense judges who understand we derive our rights from God."

This ruling is the culmination of a half-century of American judicial activism that has seen our constitution regarded as an annoying obstacle to the kind of God-free, utopian planning that used to preoccupy the rulers of the now-crumbled Soviet Union.

The judge who wrote the opinion quickly stayed his own ruling, thereby diffusing the issue in the minds of many Americans while setting in motion a judicial process that will inevitably lead to the doorstep of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision probably will be overturned - this time. But unless we, the people, start paying attention to the process of how these judges are nominated and confirmed, someday the highest court in the land will render the same decision.

Which brings me to the more complex aspect of the problem, the solution.

Before last month's Iowa primary election, a lady I know from that state expressed to me that Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bill Salier was "just too radical." When pressed for details, she really didn't have any. She just wasn't comfortable with him.

Looking to November, the young, conservative Salier stood in stark contrast to the ultra-liberal incumbent, Democrat Tom Harkin. Referring to his primary opponent, four-term Congressman Greg Ganske, as "Harkin-Lite," Salier was gaining momentum all across the state. Fearing an upset, Ganske pulled out all the stops, outspending the former-marine-turned-farmer 13 to 1 and persuading the President of the United States to come to Iowa and campaign for him. I told the lady that I had met Salier and had been very impressed with him; but in the end, I'm certain she voted for Ganske - who, when the smoke had cleared, limped away with 59 percent of the vote.

To his credit, Bill Salier, whose campaign theme was "Winning Hearts And Minds," has since founded a new organization committed to doing just that (www.WHAMPAC.org).

Last week, the lady sent me an e-mail message expressing outrage at the court's decision on the Pledge. The subject of her message was "I feel a rant coming on."

"So now schoolchildren can't pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag," she wrote. "Now that's JUST what we need when we're under attack from foreigners! Isn't the whole point of a democracy that the MAJORITY RULES?? I say we put this to a vote."

Leaving aside a history lesson on the difference between a democracy and a republic, my answer to her message sums up my solution to the problem:

"You're not allowed to rant," I replied. "Do you want to know why? Because when a candidate like Bill Salier (who would never in a million years vote to confirm a judge like the one who handed down this decision) comes along and asks for your vote, you turn up your nose and say he's 'too radical.' This decision is the kind of government you get with liberals like Tom Harkin and RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) like Greg Ganske in the United States Senate. You just can't have it both ways."

This week, as you watch those fireworks displays in your community and enjoy the liberty purchased with the blood of patriots, consider the sacrifices made on your behalf by men like Bill Salier, and what your attitude was the last time one of them ran for office and asked for your vote. And then decide which Pledge of Allegiance you would rather recite.