The First Amendment to the United States Constitution has undergone dramatic interpretation since its inception. What was originally constructed to preserve freedoms has become perverted to a point of silliness. Numerous acts have come under the objective eye of the First Amendment, some for reasons of legitimacy, others for reasons that are contemptible.
Last week saw one of the most blatant distortions of the First Amendment since the addition of the Bill of Rights. A 9th Circuit Court ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance should not be recited in school because it contains the line, "under God…"
California atheist Michael Newdow brought the case against the state. He claimed that his daughter should not have to be subjected to hearing the Pledge of Allegiance.
The little girl was not required to participate in the reciting of the pledge. She simply had to sit there until the other students who chose to take part in honoring their country were finished.
That is a violation of her rights and a foul to the First Amendment?
The precedent that such a ruling makes is frightening. Imagine a person on their drive to work decides they don't like the cross on the church they pass daily. Because it offends them, this court case would give way to a ruling that could mandate the removal of the cross. Now wouldn't that be an infringement on the mighty First? Prohibiting an expression of belief?
Luckily the absurdity of the 9th Circuit Court's ruling was evident even to Congressional Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said it was "just nuts."
Even California Gov. Gray Davis recognized the outlandishness of the court finding the Pledge of Allegiance "unconstitutional." If Davis can disagree with the verdict, then it really must be off the spectrum of liberalism.
The day after the ruling, President Bush was in Russia and laid claim to the notion that the United States is a country most certainly under God. He upheld what 83 percent of polled voters proclaimed the day after the ruling: The Pledge of Allegiance is not a violation of the First Amendment.
The broader issue is relations between church and state. Dig deeper into the essence of the court case and you will find Newdow's true motivation.
He was offended that his daughter had to hear the word God. Courts must be weary of the slippery slope they stand on when they begin making rulings based on subjective matters such as offensiveness. Such precedents might open the already wide door for the lawsuit-prone citizenry.
The saying may be cliché, but should not be taken as trite: You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
One individual's act of kindness is another's act of insolence. No one should expect to live life without being wronged. It simply doesn't happen. It is a total fallacy to believe anyone has a right to go through life uncontested.
The people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So says Thomas Jefferson. Notice the lack of a right to be free from things which offend. Being offended does not lend itself as a barrier to happiness; perhaps a hurdle if anything.
The sad thing is that we have to talk about a national creed such as the Pledge of Allegiance as a weapon of offensiveness. At a junction such as this in American history, anti-patriotism is not what is prudent. How quickly we fall out from our rally behind the flag.
The Pledge of Allegiance still lives. Two days after the ruling, the 9th Circuit decided to stay its ruling on the case. That is, it blocked its own decision from becoming policy in the nine Western states in its jurisdiction. No reason was given.
This holiday weekend fly your flag high. And if you have a chance, and if you remember the words, you might want to rekindle your allegiance to Old Glory one more time. Say the pledge, before it is a misdemeanor to do so.
Rob Jones is a political science junior. You can reach him at robert.d.jones@asu.edu.
