Soul Food -- Michele Marr

Last Thursday morning I was sitting with my coffee thinking of

fireworks, in particular the ones that look like huge electric

chrysanthemums and dandelions high in a garden of sky.

They bloom, then fade, then fall like luminous rain. They can make

children gleeful and make the most hard-boiled grown-ups childlike again.

I was absorbed in thoughts of the fireworks display I would see on the

Fourth of July not realizing I was about to see some fireworks of another

kind.

I picked up the morning paper. I read the headlines: “Pledge of

Allegiance Violates Constitution, Court Declares.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel had decided in the case of

Newdow vs. United States that the phrase “under God,” violates the

Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. I wasn’t surprised.

For 62 years, from the time the pledge was first said in 1892 to honor

Columbus Day, until 1954 when the phrase was added, it had served our

patriotism well without those words.

Maybe Michael A. Newdow was making much ado about nothing. But that

wasn’t, I figured, for me to decide.

Since the Supreme Court first stepped up to interpret the

Establishment Clause in 1947, the tensions between it and its compliment,

the Free Exercise Clause, have given rise to many a lawsuit and to as

many controversial opinions.

Newdow vs. United States, I figured, wasn’t the first and wouldn’t be

the last.

I didn’t consider giving it another thought. Until I picked up my

e-mail.

Dozens of messages filled my mailbox, all with the same subject line

-- “Pledge of Allegiance.”

“This is getting out of hand,” one said.

“The father who didn’t want his daughter to have to stand and listen

to the Pledge of Allegiance being recited should take himself and his

daughter to another country,” said the next.

“What do you expect from godless Commies,” asked another.

“If the mere mention of God or providence or a higher being

constitutes state-supported religion, then the original Constitution is

also unconstitutional,” one woman wrote.

I countered: It’s the nature of our government to tolerate dissent.

The last time I checked, these 9th Circuit judges were one moderate

Republican and one liberal Democrat. Though the Declaration of

Independence does, the Constitution doesn’t mention God or providence or

a higher being.

As much as anything I was playing the devil’s advocate. I like our

pledge the way it is. I have no quarrel with the phrase “under God,” in

the pledge.

In fact, I agree with Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, who wrote in

dissent in the court’s decision, “The danger that phrase presents to our

1st Amendment freedoms is picayune at most.”

Yet I also support Newdow’s right to challenge it. And I think the

opinion of Fernandez’s fellow judges is reasoned, if perhaps it is

flawed.

Newdow claims to have spent more than 4,000 hours preparing his

argument for the courts. I wish his detractors would spend even four

preparing their case against him.

Tom Daschle thinks the court’s decision is “just nuts.” George Bush

found it “ridiculous.” The governor was “extremely disappointed.”

I’m still waiting for someone to tell me -- based on the 1st Amendment

issues the 9th Circuit Court judges considered in this case -- why?

Until then, have a blessed Fourth of July and enjoy the fireworks.

* MICHELE MARR is a freelance writer and graphic designer from

Huntington Beach. She has been interested in religion and ethics for as

long as she can remember. She can be reached at o7

michele@soulfoodfiles.com.f7