Parsing the importance of "under God" in The Pledge
by Scott McNutt
The Supreme Court recently agreed to consider whether it's constitutional for public schools to require schoolchildren to pledge allegiance to a nation that's lower than God. This would suggest that the case is a meaningful one. Such an impression is reinforced by commentators from both sides of our nation's deepening political divide, who sputter in outrage, crying that all hell (apologies to those not of a religious persuasion) will break loose if the "right" decision isn't arrived at.
Apparently outraged punditry is an engrossing and profit-grossing pastime, because the political pundits don't seem to care that, for decades, millions upon millions of American schoolchildren recited (forcibly) a godless, stateless (and possibly socialist) oath to an inanimate object while performing a gesture that closely resembled a Nazi salute. And were none the worse for it. What oath was this? The Pledge of Allegiance, naturally.
Don't believe it? Read Dr. John W. Baer's The Pledge of Allegiance, A Centennial History, 1892-1992, published by Free State Press, Inc., or see Dr. Baer's "The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History" online at http://history.vineyard.net//pledge.htm.
The original 1892 pledge, as its author, Baptist minister and Christian Socialist Francis Bellamy composed it, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands—one nation indivisible—with liberty and justice for all," was recited by untold millions of school children from Columbus Day, 1892, onwards. Not until 1924 was it changed to read "the flag of the United States of America," apparently to keep ignorant immigrants from confusing the flag they were now swearing by with their clan tartan. Bellamy's suggested right-arm-thrust-forward salute wasn't discontinued until sometime probably in the 1930s when the too-similar Nazi salute made forward-jutting American right arms unfashionable. And it wasn't until 1954 that "under God" was inserted to differentiate the U.S. pledge from comparable oaths sworn by godless communists.
Given the war of words being waged over it, one might think that the version of the Pledge of Allegiance one recites affects the sort of person one becomes. But from the history above, it's fairly incontrovertible that kids who recited the original, godless, stateless (possibly socialist) pledge of allegiance to the inanimate object were those who largely populated "the Greatest Generation" in the history of the United States of America. Conversely, the self-indulgent Baby Boomers and all subsequent, suckass generations have recited the God-full, statist oath to the tricolor rectangle of cloth standing for the U.S.A. That suggests that deity-shorn troths result in the type of peoples liberals are assumed to loathe, whereas deity-embracing vows produce those people conservatives are supposed to detest, which seems to contradict standard doctrine on the left and right.
The paradox prompts a question: Is anybody listening to what's being broadcast? Do the yammering partisans on both ends of the spectrum ever listen to themselves? Probably not. The bandwidths of legitimate concern show only narrow modulations of frequency in the white noise blaring around the pledge.
The left worries that peer pressure, ostracism, or even physical violence might befall atheistic or polytheistic kids who decline to say "under God." The right fears that removal of the phrase is another step toward a secular, sin-filled society. And reasonable people on both sides parse other, subtler points, such as separation of church and state, using a finely justified comb.
But what real public good results from it? Will removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance make school a safer place for the minority that doesn't believe in a single deity? When each individual's conscience is his or her private preserve, will forcing the public recitation of "under God" create a saintly society? It seems unlikely. Instead, the public debate has served merely as another opportunity for each side to trot out another dogma and pontification show.
Besides, all of this ignores those who do the most pledging: school kids. Does anybody care how they feel about this issue? I know I don't. I suspect many adults involved in this case don't, either. I do, however, remember how seriously I took the Pledge of Pllegiance when I was a child. This is how seriously I took it:
"I pledge all idjits to the fag and toothy Republic, four witchies stand, one ancient, invisible underdog, with library injustice for all."
That, approximately, was the mighty oath my friends and I swore daily, circa third and fourth grade. Admittedly, children today are more sophisticated than were my compatriots and I, so they probably understand the pledge's nuances far better than we did; meaning that kids today probably declaim X-rated versions of the pledge. Kids, heh. They will be kids, won't they? That's why, however the case is decided, children will measure its impact on a scale adults can't even remember.
Maybe your children will pledge to a flag representing a nation with a God that's got nothing better to do than squat on it. Maybe they'll swear to the flag of a no-god squatting nation. Either way, the pledge won't be what decides whether the kids go boom or bust. And children shouldn't be swearing anyway.
October 30, 2003 * Vol. 13, No. 44
© 2003 Metro Pulse
| 
