Most troubling is something that I have been following closely for a long time, and taken some stands both in body and in public writing. From the Frequently Asked Questions section:
Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance is set forth in 4 U.S.C. - 4. In 1954, Congress added
to the "Pledge of Allegiance" the phrase "under God" after "nation". Questions
about the "Pledge of Allegiance" usually involve practices and requirements of local
and state statutes mandating participation in the recitation of the "Pledge" in some
manner (e.g., flag salute and pledge, standing quietly, standing at attention) in
schools. Provisions involving compulsory participation in "Pledge" activities are
usually attacked as violations of the free speech clause of the First Amendment or the free exercise of religion clause."Attacked", not challenged, or overruled as is usually the case, but attacked.
In 1943, the Supreme Court held that a state-required compulsory flag salute-Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment rights of members of the
Jehovah's Witnesses religious group. In 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had held both the 1954 federal statute adding the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance and a California school district policy requiring teachers to lead willing school children in reciting the pledge each school day to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.18 A subsequent modification
eliminated the holding regarding the federal statute but retained the ruling holding
that the California statute coerces children into participating in a religious exercise.19
The Supreme Court, on Flag Day 2004, reversed the Ninth Circuit, finding that
Newdow lacked standing to challenge the school district's policy
The first sentence of the above section describing the 1943 case was treated as an introduction to the section that ended with the implication that it was "reversed" by the Supreme Court in 2004
If you found the above section less than lucid, it was by intent. This was included in the U.S. Code, to distort the meaning of court decisions in order to elevate patriotic ritual over the values of freedom of expression. The first sentence, the importance of the 1943 decision, which has never been reversed, is clear when expressed this way:
In 1943, the Supreme Court, in a case brought by members of Jehovah's Witnesses held that a state-required compulsory flag salute-Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment rights of American citizens. It ruled that no citizen may ever be compelled to say any words or take any action on the authority of any government official. --end of paragraph--
This is the law of the land *, as is the right to alter the American flag at will, whether it is to add a President's picture, or your son returning from a war, or a peace sign as was a common form of protest. This is the way things are as of March 15, 2012. Depending on choices made by voters, and those who elected to office and appointed to Judgeships, it well may become obsolete before too long.
It could be that the image of breaking the law by disrespecting the flag that was dramatized by Fox may soon be true, and that the knock on the door will not be from a retired veteran who was making a hollow threat, but by a real police officer, or armed military contingent, or mob of angry people enraged at someone who refused to follow follow instructions from an all powerful government or leader.
We are only a vote away.
-------------
* The Case, Barnette. vs West Virginia, expressed the pure essence of freedom by its contrasting our values with those of our mortal enemy, virulent Nazi fascism, at time when it wasn't clear which would prevail. It was encapsulated in these concluding words from the majority opinion:
The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization.
To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great.
But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).