Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Pledge O'llegiance |
| 07.13.04 (1:04 pm) [edit] |
The Pledge O'llegiance
Once again the Supreme Court used a legal loophole to duck its responsibilities. I am referring here to the Pledge of Allegiance case. According to the Supremes, we can keep "under God"ing, but they are not actually going to say whether it is Constitutional or not. Thanks guys and gals, you're a bunch of swells! Well, I guess we'll have to solve this problem ourselves.
First let's take a quick look at the Pledge and its history. The Pledge was originally written in 1892 by Baptist Minister and socialist author Francis Bellamy. It was originally published in Youth's Companion -- sort of a Reader's Digest for kids. President Benjamin Harrison issued a proclamation in favor of the Pledge in October 1892, to honor of the 400th anniversary of Columbus's arrival in the Americas. Slightly edited from its original, the pledge was officially recognized by Congress in 1945. After a campaign by the Catholic Knights of Columbus, Congress itself wielded the red editorial pen and added "under God" in 1954. This, of course, was designed to keep the Godless communists at bay, but it is also where the controversy really began.
Now we have conservative Republican types zealously defending the work of a socialist author. Certainly those defenders are well aware that "under God" was added by a Congress that was under the sway of rampant McCarthyism and cold war hysteria. Whatever else you might say, it is fairly clear that adding "under God" to the pledge had more to do with politics than religion. Which you might think would appease liberal critics of the pledge just a bit.
To be honest about it, there other things I don't understand about the defenders of the pledge. First of all, these defenders of personal liberty want the state to force your kids to say the Pledge -- even if you object! Did I miss something here? Usually the idea that the state occaisionally needs to force people to do something for the common good is a liberal notion. Where are are these defenders coming from, anyway? And speaking of philosophical inconsistency, how many defenders do you think would still be there if the Pledge read "under Allah"? Or even "under The Great Spirit"? "Jehovah"? Well, there is nothing like a purely philosophical position that depends solely on the facts at hand.
One edit to the Pledge that Bellamy considered, but ultimately rejected -- mostly for political considerations -- was using the word "equality" in the pledge. "Equality" was dropped because he could see that equality was something that schools across the country, particularly in the south, were decidely lacking, so the Pledge might not be widely accepted. It sure would be interesting to see who would be lining up on which side if the Pledge yearned for "equality" rather than "liberty", under God or not.
Another concern I wonder if the defenders of the Pledge think about, is whether or not rote recitation of a simple sentence is actually beneficial. To some, the Pledge can become the very definition of lip service. Others may find themselves moved by the ceremony and tradition, even if that ceremony is not very deeply rooted in our history. Myself, whenever I considered the words of the Pledge, I always wondered why "to the flag?" Was "the republic for which it stands" simply an afterthought? Whether the Pledge is stirring or boring for most people, I can't say. But when Martin Luther King wanted to sum up the goals and aspirations of the civil rights movement, he did not choose words that are on children's lips every day -- "liberty and justice for all" -- as appropriate as those words might have been.
No, when Dr. King was asking that the country live up to its promises to all of her people, he went straight to the historical record of our country, and cited the Declaration of Independence. King was in good company, Abraham Lincoln did the same thing in his Gettysburg address. While the Declaration is an interesting and wonderful document, it spends most of it's words detailing why the old government had to go. Not much of a basis for a pledge of allegiance. So, instead, let us turn to the guiding document of our republic, the Constitution.
The preamble of the Constitution is as stirring as Jefferson's "we hold these truths to be self-evident" bit. Perhaps, there has never been a more perfect expression of what democracy is about than the first three words the Founders used to establish our government: "We the people." There's a reason they put it in really big letters at the top. Sometimes we seem to forget that "We the people of the United States" are really in charge here. Just look at our low voting rates. Maybe we can change that, and maybe a new pledge would help.
Submitted for your approval, with a nod to my Irish heritage and with great humility, I hereby present the rough draft of the Pledge O'llegiance:
"We the people -- in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and promote the general welfare -- promise to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish. To this we pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"
I can almost hear an "Amen" at the end. Who says that the sacred and the secular can never meet? Say it out loud a few times and see if you don't feel a little more connected to your country, a little more in charge. Maybe you might even feel like voting or calling your representatives rather than shooting off firecrackers. If you don't feel that way, that's OK, it's just a starting point. If Bellamy -- and Jefferson -- can be edited, surely this humble attempt at a new pledge can be too. Relying on the best that our history has given us makes much more sense than arguing over some old magazine piece.
|
|
|
| |
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 07.13.04 (4:43 pm)
Not bad. A lot better than our current theistic one.
|
|
