Under God we trust
Back again by popular demand.
The Pledge of Allegiance is under Supreme Court scrutiny.
First off, here is a little side note on how we got that one little catchphrase on the greenback:
here.
Here‘s a story about what’s been happ’nin’ since a few months back.
“Do we know what the vote was in Congress . . . to adopt the ‘under God’ phrase?” Rehnquist asked, feigning ignorance of the fact that it passed unopposed in 1954.
When Newdow acknowledged as much, the chief justice pounced: “Well, that doesn’t sound divisive.”
But Newdow would not be ambushed. “That’s only because no atheist can get elected to public office,” he countered, evoking spontaneous laughter and a sound rarely, if ever, heard at oral argument in Rehnquist’s tightly run courtroom — applause.
Rehnquist restored order with a threat to clear the room.
Here is a pretty good take on the writing of said pledge.
My Take:
Even as an expat, I don’t mind pledging allegiance to that flag and to the republic for which it stands. One nation (under God), indivisible, with (equality), liberty and justice for all.
The under God part was added in the Eisenhower days. The notion back then was to differentiate “Us” from the commies. Nice try, folks; but with or without God, a mandatory pledge for elementary school kids made us more like the totalitarians, not less. The addition of “under God”, as nice as it might seem, ultimately goes even more so right against the grain of what the forefathers had in mind. Many of them where very adamant about the importance of faith in one’s personal life; but just as much so they were very clear to state that that taking to faith must be first and foremost a personal decision and never something put upon the people by the state.
Another sour note in the story is the fact that the God card was pulled out in the fifties, while the other (still) parenthetical word, equality, was not included in the pledge–and still isn`t to this very day–because the author, Francis Bellamy, realized that women and minorities did not enjoy the same freedoms as white male adults.
Well, times have changed, and all adults, regardless of sex or race, enjoy all the human rights technically available to anyone out there. But “Equality” still has no place in the pledge.
Meanwhile, revisionist fundamentalists continue to entertain the myth that this nation is a “Christian” or “Judeo-Christian” one. If you do your homework, you might be surprised to learn that our nation based it’s governmental system not so much on the so-called-Judeo-Christians, on the Greeks, but on the Iroquois. No lie, y’all.
Ultimately, the question is: does it really do a service to us and to our nation to have children utter a pledge of allegiance? There, we go back to my first comment. No. It does not. Small children do not understand the pledge. Older children will rebel against anything. The pledge should be only for the willing. Only there will it resonate with the passion that was intended.
I don’t mind saying the pledge, with or with out God. Because I don’t really know whether she exists or not, that would make me an Agnost. But I mention her enough in speech, saying only she knows or that she should condemn this and that to eternal darkness and flames. I sing plenty of songs about her, and with no shame: folks always request that ancient folksong “man of constant sorrow”, which ends with “I’ll see you ‘gain on God’s golden shore” or “will this circle be unbroken?” In the winter time, I sing “Silent Night”. I don’t give a shit. I sing ’em and some people like it. Maybe agnostics and believers have more in common than they think.
Just as important as freedom of faith is, freedom from an imposed faith. But the doors flap both ways. States sanctioning faiths only lead to friction as faiths grow. And also important, a state sanctioned faith-based motto even cheapens the weight of those words.
Goodness, I smell burning popcorn. Gotta go…