I respect our heritage and the traditions of our nation. I must. I spent most of my adult life in the service of that country around the world and occasionally in some degree of peril. I'm a believer in American exceptionalism. We are different and arguably better than most places.
But, I also am a realist and I've lived long enough to know a bit of the background of many traditions that aren't immutable. One that I often spend some time discussing with people is the Pledge of Allegiance. Righteously they proclaim outrage against those who protest regarding the phrase "under God" in the Pledge. I point out that there's some background they should be aware of.
The Founding Fathers didn't say the Pledge of Allegiance. It didn't exist. They did, at the end of the Declaration of Independence pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the principles enshrined in that document, but they didn't pledge allegiance to the flag. The flag came along shortly, but the Pledge of Allegiance didn't show up for another hundred years. In 1892, the first Pledge was written. Apparently, patriotism didn't require demonstration in ceremony before then.
There was no mention of God until 1954 when Dwight Eisenhower was padding his resume for re-election in '56. The enemy was Communists and they were, by definition, godless. To insure support from the Knights of Columbus, Ike spearheaded the drive to add the phrase to the Pledge which now seems to be a stumbling block for the liberals.
I had been trained in a Pledge without "under God" and the principle of primacy rules. What we learn first we learn best and it is almost impossible to correct. To this day I can't stay with the crowd when they recite the Pledge. I invariably forget the new phrase or take the breath pause out of sync with the masses. Is it "one nation under God...breath...indivisible" or "one nation...breath...under God indivisible"?
Regardless, the essential is that reciting the Plege of Allegiance does not make you more or less patriotic. It is a ceremony and whether it really reflects your behavior and beliefs is not determined by the action.
Recognizing all of that, I've got no objection to the exercise and I willingly participate.
But, knowing all that, what do we make of this:
Reluctance to Offend Some and Finding Qualified Teachers
I find that unbelievable in America. This is a school! Their job is to train and educate children in America. That involves not indoctrination of an individual teacher's ideological posture, but creating a citizenry for the future of this nation. Lincoln and Washington trump Cesar Chavez and Rosa Parks. America wins over fascism. Performance reigns over self-esteem. It is that simple.
The argument of the whining superintendent and school board that they fear some students might be offended is bogus. If they are offended, they need to be re-oriented to what America is all about.
The incredible statement that they could not find "qualified teachers" to lead the Pledge of Allegiance is simply outrageous. I could take a homeless illiterate off the streets of Bedford-Styvesant and train him to lead the Pledge in about 20 minutes.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
4 comments:
I am a staunch American and believe we are the finest Nation in the history of the world, but I always found the idea of a "Pledge" sort of silly and one of those touchy feely rituals. The life I lead and the actions I take show my dedication and loyalty, I dont need some poem to do it for me.
To me this fight seems to be more about our freedom and teaching our children about their country. And trying to remove voluntary things from a class to avoid "disturbing" a minority of overly sensitive people is stupid.
Well, after reading the historical context you supplied, it seems as though Eisenhower's addition of "under God", to differentiate between American philosophy and Communist philosophy, is working perfectly...
After reading the blog I did some checking, and came across a March 12, 2010 Bloomburg News article entitled ‘Pledge of Allegiance in Schools Ruled Constitutional on Appeal.’ Written by Karen Gulio and Joel Rosenblatt, it referenced two recent decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. In the first decision, the Ninth Circuit rejected (2-1) a cause of action brought against a California school system based on the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Said the court:
“We hold that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the establishment clause because Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism. For this reason, the phrase ‘one nation under God’ does not turn this patriotic exercise into a religious activity.”
Concurrently, but in an entirely separate action against the same plaintiff, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Constitutionality of the words ‘In God We Trust’ on United States currency. The reporters noted “Justice Department lawyers had argued that previous Supreme Court decisions permit patriotic exercises such as reading the Declaration of Independence and singing the national anthem.”
So there you have it, and from the most liberal of the federal appellate courts. Yet that apparently is not good enough for the unpatriotic principal and school board in Massachusetts. Since it is the principal who seems to be the troublemaker, seeking his removal by parents and taxpayers is probably the quickest way to fix the problem. It has worked before, and it will work again.
I share Raz’s outrage at the end of his commentary, but take a bit of a different view of his earlier comment “reciting the Pledge of Allegiance does not make you more or less patriotic. It is a ceremony and whether it really reflects your behavior and beliefs is not determined by the action.” True, the pledge is not an oath, and recitation does not encumber the teacher or student with additional obligations. But the Pledge is not meaningless. Allowing students to just quietly stand permits those who are offended by the Pledge to opt out without affecting others. But a decision to opt out is both real and revealing. Let us ensure that every student (and teacher) makes that choice.
"What is wrong with these people?"
Ras, the list is way too long for any blog entry to do justice.
Here in the Hill Country at our elementary school where I have my office, we pledge allegiance to the flag, to the Texas Flag, to our school and to ourselves. By the end, it begins to feel like we've been forced to listen to one of Castro's 4 hour speeches. But, if it makes sure that nobody's FEELINGs get hurt, then by golly, we've got to do that. I've taken to closing my door and putting on headphones.
Post a Comment