I Pledge Allegiance...
Every few months my mother-in-law sends my son her collection of Mini Pages and other fun newspaper inserts, including one called "Colorado Kids." It is a collection of short news stories for children compiled by the DenverRockyPostMountainNews. This morning I read an issue of Colorado Kids, and found an article that disturbed me.
"One Nation Under God?" asked the headline, above a picture of a grade-school age girl on a US flag background. The picture caption read "The pledge of allegiance is under attack again." Intrigued by these eye-catching words, I read the article.
The first paragraph (of this very short four-paragraph article) was a fairly neutral explanation of September's decision by US District Court Judge Lawrence Carlton that "the Pledge's reference to one nation under God violates school children's rights to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The last paragraph was similarly neutral, asserting that at least for the time being children would still be able to/required to recite the pledge.
I took issue with the middle two paragraphs, which showed a definite bias toward the "pledge is under attack" opinion implied by the photo caption. The people they quoted were both on that side of the issue. One was a school district official vowing to "fight for the right of willing children to continue to recite the pledge." Fair enough - are there any school officials who want to fight for the right of unwilling children to recite the pledge without an affirmation of God?
The one thing that REALLY got me to wondering about this article was the way they attributed the next quote by Steve Elliot, founder and president of grassfire.org. According to the article, grassfire.org is "an organization dedicated to preserving religious freedoms." OK, sounds good.
But visiting grassfire.org, I find a conservative website advocating all the usual suspects - "Save Marriage," "Support the Pledge," "Stand for the Unborn," etc. Their stated focus is on "conservative, pro-family and pro-faith values" issues. Presumably that includes religious freedom if it's freedom to have God in the pledge. Oh yes, what did he say? "People are really tired of all these attacks on the pledge." Hmmm.
Now I'm all for different viewpoints and interest groups of all stripes, and of reporting their viewpoints and opinions. What I object to in this case is that this article made no mention (other than implicitly by describing the court decision) of the OTHER side of the issue. Why not throw in a supportive quote from the ACLU or Americans United for the Separation of Church and State? Of course that might give these young people the wrong impression of what the issues are.
I object to the recitation of the pledge of allegiance in public schools with or without the "under God" part. I find it contrived and coercive, not to mention idolatrous (I pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth?) . Perhaps this is the result of knowing its history.
The pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a socialist and Baptist minister, as part of an advertising campaign by Youth's Campaign magazine to sell US flags to public schools for use as subscription premiums. I love the irony - one of the icons of American patriotism was originally conceived as a marketing jingle.
The pledge has been revised several times in its lifetime - most recently (and most significantly) in 1954 to include the phrase "under God." This addition was made in order to differentiate "us" from the "Godless Communists" at the height of the red scare. Hard to argue with that unless you want to be branded unpatriotic.
No mention of this history in the article either. Well, I suppose that's part of growing up - learning early on to just trust what you read in the paper, not ask questions, recite the pledge, and sign on the dotted line when you're asked.
Fortunately my son was born questioning authority, and has not been taken in by the pledge. When he started public school we talked about the pledge and its meaning and history, as well as the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld his right NOT to recite it. For a time he recited his own pledge of allegiance - to the Earth. I could get behind that.
When I asked my son what he thought of the article, he said "I think that's good news for the Hindus." Yes, and the rest of us who don't want God (or creed) pressed upon us. Thankfully we all still have the option of honoring our flag as a SYMBOL of what our country ought to stand for (not necessarily always reflected by our actions) rather than joining in this contrived affirmation.
posted by Greg @ 11:12 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
There is some comfort knowing our pledges result from commercial jingles and not edicts from great leader.
I'm glad the pledge is to a piece of cloth and not a person or leader.
I remember refusing to stand for the National Anthem at football games during the Vietnam War. It's not a memory I'm proud of.
I'd tell my kids that. Do what you feel right but remember those moments stay with you.
I like your pledge of allegiance blog entry. I remember the first time I said the pledge, understood it, and meant it. It was a long time coming, made longer I think due to all those mindless repetitions, all those unmeant promises, with no intention behind them. My greatest objection has always been requiring promises from children who can not make those kind of promises. I'd rather allow children alcohol, and legislate against the practice of allowing children to make commitments before the age of reason. After all we do not allow children to make other choices of extreme commitment, religions have an age of reason, there is a minimum age for marriage, driving, voting. What does it mean to pledge allegience to a democracy you are barred from participating in? In which you have no real representation? I do agree with Mr. Baar, better to pledge to a piece of cloth or the republic for which it stands than to an individual. It requires us to consider the greater allegience than obedience.
I, too, omit under god from my recitations. And recently I have refrained from reciting the pledge, as a reminder that there is no requirement to pledge.... yet. I do stand, as a gesture of respect to those who may be pledging in full intention. Although I am considering remaining seated, in exersize of my right to refrain. I am not sure yet, I am still thinking it through.
I clearly remember in first grade remaining silent during the pledge because I knew that I did not know what I was saying, and thought it was unfair to ask me to pledge to concepts I didn't understand. My parents told me I was not required to say anything at all if I didn't believe it or understand it, and I am grateful for their wisdom. It's a good thing that in the same school system where I was supposed to join the pledge, I was later taught the true meaning of the separation of church and state, the function of the system of checks and balances, and the cruciality of equal freedoms for all people. I hope more kids like Ryan keep on questioning authority.
The 1954 law is unconstitutional on it’s face, but only if a court finds that any harm has actually been done to an actual plaintiff. Of course constitutionally speaking, the separation of church and state did not legally exist until a case sponsored by a KKK splinter group in the early 20th century. Something I find very ironic.
Of course, it doesn’t matter if a court decides the 1954 law is unconstitutional, children would still have their own first amendment rights to pledge to anything they so desire.
And for the record, I’m neither a fan of the pledge nor a believer of any kind. But I don’t have a grudge with people who recite the pledge either. I don’t see how it’s my business to tell the majority of Americans that their traditions should all be changed because I disagree with them or think they’re silly.
I mean, if they were someone else’s traditions you would probably be more mindful of them perhaps? Show them some respect at least in an anthropological way?
I also find the pledge idolatrous, as "allegiance" has its roots in the duty of a vassal to a lord. While I think that the rule of law is vital to the moral bonds that foster basic rights for all people, confessing a feudal feilty to the State strains the conscience.
The State plays an imortant role in supporting the rule of law, but as a conglomeration of principalities prone to the idolatry of death, the State must be answerable to God through people of conscience (regardless of whether those people recognise the sovereignty of God). Those people are not its vassals, but its lords.
interesting post; thanks for sharing. just discovered your blog and i like it.
Post a Comment
<< Home