Trustee Recalled for not saying Pledge of Allegiance

[sameoldsht]

Trustee recalled in Estes Park

An Estes Park town trustee refused to stand or recite the Pledge of Allegiance before meetings because of the phrase 'under God'. Instead of standing and just not saying the 2 words, he decided to make a big stink and draw all kinds of attention to himself by not standing in protest.

The townsfolk freaked and demanded a recall election. The trustee went to the Colorado courts to avoid the recall election but the court said the people absolutely had the right to recall his butt. And why not? They put him there, they should be able to revove his asss.

He was recalled yesterday by a 3 to 2 margin and is no longer in office.

The funny thing is that I heard this guy in a few interviews state that it was his right to not say the pledge, but the people did not have the right to recall him. LMAO [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[jaxmike]

good

[fluxrad]

I live in Denver so I've heard a bit more about this over the last few months.

The whole thing stinks. IIRC, the council chair pulled this as a political stund because she didn't like the guy. In fact, they moved to say the pledge while he was on vacation or some such so the measure would pass before he was allowed to have his say.

The whole feel of this has been that this guy was railroaded from the get go.

Oh also, I love this gem:

[ QUOTE ]
"If you don't want to say the Pledge, you should leave the country," Neering said. She agreed with recall proponents that Habecker was using his public position to voice his personal political agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde

[jaxmike]

I don't care about what led up to it. All I know is that if he refuses to say the pledge and people want to recall him for that, I am all for it.

I sick and tired of people [censored] whining about "under God" being in the pledge. [censored] grow up and deal with it.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care about what led up to it. All I know is that if he refuses to say the pledge and people want to recall him for that, I am all for it.

I sick and tired of people [censored] whining about "under God" being in the pledge. [censored] grow up and deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like this'un is getting under your skin.

Personally, I think it should be removed for three reasons.

1. It violates the separation of church and state.

2. It completely fscks up the cadence of the pledge.

3. It's a cold war-era throwback that was inserted to differentiate us from them thar godless commies and every time I hear it, I am not reminded that we are a country under God, but rather that we were once a party to the madness of Senator Joseph McCarthy and the most disgusting act of political witch-hunting the country has seen in a long time.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I sick and tired of people [censored] whining about "under God" being in the pledge. [censored] grow up and deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sick and tired of people [censored] whining about people whining about "under God" being in the pledge. [censored] grow up and deal with it.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]

1. It violates the separation of church and state.



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this kinda bugs me (not personally against you) when people say it violates separation of church and state.

Linky

[ QUOTE ]
Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)

The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, the only thing the Constitution says about separation of church and state is that government shall make no law establishing religion, OR the free exercise thereof. Essentially, you don't have to believe in the Christian concept of "God" - there's no law that says you have to say that part. Also, simply because this uses the name of God, it only falls under free exercise of religion.

Choose not to say the "under God" part if you want, but if people who elected you to a position remove you from it for not saying the thing at all...well, that's their call.

[fluxrad]

I agree with you. This is why SCOTUS ruled the pledge was not mandatory.

That being said, recalling an elected official for failure to say the pledge reeks of the violation of Article VI Section 3 (religious tests to hold public office). That's not to say that it does...just that it has the stink.

Also, as far as the separation of church and state is concerned, the first amendment, while not explicitly mentioning the seperation, has that effect. If congress is forbidden from making laws either respecting or prohibiting an establishment of religion it is essentially affected in the same manner. More importantly, I think the writings of men such as Jefferson and Roger Williams show a clear intent that there be a separation of the church and the state to prevent the taint of both.

I should clarify on one point, though. I don't believe that what has been done to the councilman is illegal or in violation of his rights. I simply believe he's being railroaded.

[zaxx19]

Let the Liberals whine about the pledge...get involved in legalistic arguements they feel they have an advantage in...and continue to alienate more and more moderate voters while they watch loss after electoral loss cascade down through the years.

They can smugly argue on here and feel like they are smart.

Conservatives can smugly sit and watch their Zenith on election night while state after state turns a brilliant shade of crimson.

Ill take the trade personally.

[JoeC]

Wow, you actually beat me to it there. This is a HUGE modern misconception.