Friday, June 28, 2002 | 4:35 a.m.
GOD HELP US.
To hear political candidates talk about Wednesday's federal court decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, you'd think America the beautiful had been attacked again by terrorists.
"This is a tragic day in our nation," said Republican congressional candidate Jon Porter.
Clark County Commission candidate Esther Quisenberry, also a Republican, said denying youngsters the right to recite the pledge is "a travesty."
Certainly the decision by a three-judge panel of the nation's most liberal federal appeals court -- which has since been stayed pending review -- touched a raw nerve nationwide. But is it really so horrible that it warrants more reaction from would-be politicians than the state's fiscal and medical malpractice insurance crises and the pending environmental disaster of Yucca Mountain?
The silence on important issues is deafening, while the pols again wave the red, white and blue to feast upon patriotic style over actual substance.
As a youngster I dutifully listened to teachers and classmates reciting the pledge, and I proudly came home to show off what I had learned by announcing allegiance "to the Republic of Richard Stands."
"Who?" my Mom, a Marine, asked incredulously before teaching me the right words. But more importantly, her kind lecture taught me the correct meaning.
Most of the election-year rush to comment on Wednesday's ruling was as devoid of meaning as the pledge my 6-year-old lips muttered honoring a sovereign nation belonging to someone nobody knew.
Take Congressman Jim Gibbons' "stunned" response just minutes after the ruling came down. Not only was it an opportunity to wave the flag, but another chance to showcase the elephant of the GOP.
"Today's ruling only shows the overwhelming need to nominate common-sense jurists to ensure the integrity of our judicial system," Gibbons said. "I call upon Sen. (Tom) Daschle and the Democrat-led U.S. Senate to move forward and confirm sensible judicial nominees."
Gibbons ignores the fact that a Republican president, Richard Nixon, appointed one of the judges who said "under God" is unconstitutional.
Porter, who was "sickened" by the court's decision, chimed in with "A handful of liberal activists have decided that the god (lower case in his press release) fearing men and women who built our great nation were wrong."
When you think of the founding fathers, Dwight D. Eisenhower doesn't spring to mind. But it was in 1954, during his administration, that the words "under God" were added to the pledge.
And so now all of the God-fearing politicians and the candidates who fear that voters consider the pledge the No. 1 issue, have become preoccupied with saving it.
The U.S. Senate immediately rallied a resolution supporting the pledge, as serious talk about prescription drug benefits, homeland defense and budgets get shelved for good TV time.
Members of the U.S. House threatened a Constitutional amendment protecting the pledge -- a proposal that immediately conjured up memories of those flag-burning protesters who seem to have gone away without anyone tinkering with the historic document.
While Republicans locally and in the Capitol had the most patriotic hands across their chests, Democrats did offer their own take.
Nevada State Democratic Party Chairman Terry Care, perhaps feeling the need for equal time on the topic, issued a press release saying only that he agrees with Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe.
McAuliffe, for the record, called the decision "unfortunate."
The only thing unfortunate about what is obviously a decision the Supreme Court will toss -- if it gets this ruling like everything else from the 9th Circuit -- is that the pledge has consumed everyone.
It's too bad the pledge, or the reference to God, can't make its way into the substantive issues.
We already have "In God We Trust" on our money, so maybe the state should adopt respect for God in its budget process as well. That way, lawmakers might feel as though they are going against God's will when they ignore Nevada's serious needs for funding.
Maybe those closed-door negotiating sessions between doctors, lawyers and insurance companies should begin with prayer and the pledge to ensure a speedy consensus that keeps the University Medical Center's trauma unit open.
At a family gathering, during which my famed Richard Stands' recital was being remembered, a cousin offered his own misunderstanding of the pledge: One nation, invisible.
Maybe the 9th Circuit Court should offer a similar revision, because the real problems so often go unseen.
archive
