[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 20, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8131-H8132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             PLEDGE POLICE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United 
States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, 
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
  Mr. Speaker, this simple, powerful statement is a patriotic phrase 
defining what we are all about as citizens of this Republic. It is 
being said in school yards across America every day. In some States it 
is the State law that it be said. In Texas, for example, it is required 
along with the Texas State pledge and a moment of silence each day. 
This is observed by students and by teachers. But not every school 
child may say it. In fact, some are actually forbidden to say it 
because it mentions, heaven forbid, under God.
  A member of the pledge police, a Federal judge in California, has 
issued his decree denouncing the pledge and forbidding it in some 
school districts in California because some adult atheist has become 
offended. The atheist, mind you, is not a student in any school, just 
an offended individual that has convinced the pledge police to stop the 
pledge from being uttered in schools because he is offended.
  It has become the habit of the offended to use the Federal courts to 
change the majority will of the people, claiming the conduct of the 
majority of Americans is unconstitutional because it is offensive.
  Okay, Mr. Speaker, what constitutional violation has occurred here? 
Some claim the first amendment is violated by kids saying the pledge 
because of the theological phrase ``under God.'' Let us examine this.
  The first amendment reads in part: Congress shall make no law 
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.
  First of all, assume the pledge establishes religion. Congress has 
not made any law about the pledge, but our Federal courts have taken 
the word ``Congress,'' reinterpreted that phrase, and applied it 
universally to all governments, including school boards. By what 
authority do Federal courts expand the word ``Congress'' to include all 
government entities?
  Well, because they make words mean something more than they really 
mean by twisting simple concepts in the Constitution to mean difficult 
concepts for us people to understand. It is also necessary to 
understand that our Forefathers put the phrase in the Constitution to 
prevent a State and national religion like what was occurring in 
England at the time.
  So are the atheists and the pledge police Federal judges seriously 
really thinking that the phrase ``under God'' is equivalent to 
establishing a national religion in the United States?
  Well, my question for them is, what exactly would that religion be? 
Too bad the court did not enlighten us simple Americans what national 
religion the pledge establishes. But our Federal judges here have 
systematically tried to remove any mention of a divine being in the 
public sector by claiming any mention of God establishes a national 
religion. This defies common sense and makes the first amendment say 
something it does not say.
  By the way, if this phrase is purely a religious one, why does the 
pledge police judge not read the second half of the first amendment 
that says, the government may not prevent the free exercise of 
religion? By banning the pledge if it is religious, does not this judge 
violate the free exercise of religion? That phrase is in our first 
amendment as well. It does seem so to me.
  The pledge, when stated and looked at objectively, is a statement of 
patriotic duty and affirmation to America, to truth and liberty and 
justice. It is not purely a religious statement. It is a statement of 
civic duty and responsibility and national pride.
  So what is next, Mr. Speaker? Are the pledge police going to ban the 
pledge we say each day here in the House of Representative? We shall 
see about that.
  The real issue here is not the forbidding of the Pledge of Allegiance 
by our courts. It is more serious than that. It is the new 
constitutional right that is being invented and conceived in the minds 
of the far-fetched Federal elites that is not even in the Constitution 
at all, but the Constitution is being used as excuse to invent this new 
right. It is the right not to be offended.

[[Page H8132]]

  If I am offended by what you say or do or by what the government says 
or does, I can go to court and sue you because I am offended. This 
atheist was offended by a bunch of school kids, by their mere utterance 
of the Pledge of Allegiance. So he goes and sues and convinces a judge 
to protect his right not to be offended. So no more offended words, so 
no more pledge. This is an example of the new phantom constitutional 
right of freedom from being offended.
  Mr. Speaker, I was a felony court trial judge in Houston for over 20 
years. I heard thousands of cases. All of those were based on the 
United States Constitution. But the last time I checked in the 
Constitution, freedom from hurting someone's feelings was not included 
in the Constitution. So in truth this is the right that was allegedly 
violated by those kids in California. They offended someone, they hurt 
someone's feelings, and now they have to stop.
  This is a dangerous movement, but this mysterious right is not in the 
Constitution. But the right of free speech, Mr. Speaker, is in the 
Constitution. And I say to those kids in California, your right of free 
speech was violated by the pledge policeman when he issued his 
pronouncement against you mentioning ``under God.''
  So now you may proudly say the pledge each morning in a closet or in 
silence, and when you get to that phrase ``with liberty and justice for 
all,'' just remember you lost some of your liberty by this ruling, and 
it certainly is not justice for all but only for those who are 
offended. Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be.

{time}  1945

                          ____________________