Tuesday, July 09, 2002

Andy writes:

John's listing of the rising tide of liberal attacks on the Pledge is no surprise. This is a standard pattern: feigned outrage, complacency by moderates, and then the liberals by default. There's no middle ground on this or any other issue. Advocate or lose by default.

I'm convinced that many people are drawn to "moderate" philosophies because they don't want to accept that constant advocacy is essential, even on basic issues. Drive around New England sometime and look at all the old Protestant churches that are now empty due to lack of advocacy against liberal attacks.

All the legislation cited by John is utterly useless, some of it perhaps intentionally so. Only Akin's bill is meaningful. That's no surprise: Akin is one of the best Congressmen on our side.

Roger's response. Yes, I would vote against any of those bills. What could be sillier than hardwiring the Pledge into the Constitution?

The bills do not address the heart of the problem. Is the Lemon Test a correct interpretation of the Constitution? Does the Pledge fail the Lemon Test? If the answers are yes, then the Pledge is still unconstitutional under the jurisdiction limit. State judges, teachers, and others could reasonably still come to the conclusion that the Pledge is illegal.

I would suggest a broader jurisdictional exclusion:
No federal court shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that a nonsectarian reference to a deity violates the Constitution of the United States.

No comments: