The Journey Here (Feature) Demanding Justice (in National News) Conference Connects Literature, Activism (in Bay Area News) Ultimate Diversions: Breath of Fire II (in Business) Last Chance For National Title (in Sports) The Power of Words (in A&E) Emil Amok: Be Like Mike (in Opinion)

Mike Honda. File Photo.

Be Like Mike

Mike Honda isn’t exactly known for being the lone wolf on any issue. The congressman from Santa Clara is generally considered a cautious Democrat on the Hill. Not one to take chances or stick out.

But the other day he did something that deserves recognition and showed a bit more courage than normal for an Asian Pacific American representative. He downright stuck his neck out.

Honda was one of three members of Congress who voted no on a resolution condemning the 9th Circuit court decision that called the use of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.

The other two votes were Pete Stark of Fremont and Bobby Scott of the Hampton Roads, Va. area. (Scott is one-quarter Filipino and usually refers to himself as “African American of Asian descent”.)

If you haven’t noticed, most political animals consider calling the pledge unconstitutional the work of the devil.

It was actually the work of Michael Newdow, who is no devil. He’s just a slightly overeducated emergency room doctor and is also a lawyer, who happens to be an atheist. When his daughter was forced to say the pledge in a Sacramento area school, he claimed that she was damaged, especially by the phrase “under God.” To an atheist, this is like blowing cancerous smoke into the face of a nonsmoker. Newdow filed a lawsuit.

You may snicker, but our country was based on religious freedom, which includes the freedom to be nonreligious. America was formed partly because theocracy was considered antithetical to our idea of democracy to which the separation of church and state is fundamental. It’s the reason we have no Ayatollahs in America.

Newdow argued his case before the 9th Circuit Court, considered the most liberal court in the land. In a 2-1 opinion, Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, a Nixon appointee who is considered a moderate, wrote that to say we are a nation “under God” is the same as saying, we are a nation “under Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god.”

The judge didn’t mention Buddha and Allah, but he could have.

It was just good common sense analysis: How can the state mention the presence of God and expect to be neutral on the subject of religion?

The dissenting opinion, by Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, could not deny the presence of God in the pledge, but relied heavily on the idea that any harm from the mere mention of God would be minimal or scant. He used the term “exiguous,” a 50-buck word to describe something amounting to less than a nickel’s worth.

But isn’t that like saying it’s ok to inflict a little pain on minorities because they’re such a small group? What’s a little pain among those so few in number?

Fernandez couldn’t even justify his stand without writing in a semi-religious tone. Eliminating references of God from ceremonial government, said Fernandez, would be like “removing a vestige of the awe we all must feel at the immenseness of the universe and our own small place within it, as well as the wonder we must feel at the good fortune of our country.”

Such is the case against the atheists, which is to say, it ain’t much. It’s just that America has always liked our particular hypocrisy when it comes to church and state.

But in comes this Newdow fellow.

You saw the reaction last week. There wasn’t a politician going into the Fourth of July week who wasn’t gearing up to campaign in flag drag, posing as a super-patriot pledge booster through and through.

California Gov. Gray Davis and his opponent, Bill Simon, were all on the “My Pledge: Love it or Leave it” kick. President Bush, for sure, talked about how God and religion were central to the American way. And then there was Congress, putting its foot down, practically calling Newdow and that “liberal” 9th Circuit Court un-American.

Who’s being un-American?

While everyone took a shot at Newdow and Judge Goodwin, there were a few voices like Honda’s that backed them up.

Honda didn’t vote to condemn the 9th court’s opinion. Wouldn’t that be political suicide? It may have even puzzled some in our community who might have fallen in line with the majority. The pledge unconstitutional? Heresy!

But Honda told the media he was concerned that the phrase “under God” erodes the nation’s diversity and religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.

As an APA, Honda understands the moral issue. APAs know what it’s like to be singled out. We know what it’s like to be officially designated as outsiders, never really seen as full participants. A simple phrase like “under God” may almost thoughtlessly exclude atheists. But APAs know there were full laws that excluded our entry and denied us the right to intermarry or to own well-deserved property. Those property laws are still on the books to this day in some states like Florida.

Like atheists, APAs know what it’s like to be a targeted minority. Eliminating the words “under God” and seeing the pledge as unconstitutional should not seem a ridiculous notion to any of us. It makes perfect sense.

And if there is any doubt, just be like Mike.

Reach Emil Guillermo at emil@amok.com.