One nation (not always), under God (since 1954)
09-15-2005, 04:33 AM
#1
Stuff and things.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 1,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One nation (not always), under God (since 1954)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...montini15.html
One nation (not always), under God (since 1954)
Sept. 15, 2005 12:00 AM
We get so fixated on which version of the Pledge of Allegiance that we want to strong-arm children into reciting that every time the argument over its wording winds up in court, we blow our chance to teach kids everything they need to know about America.
We're about to do it again. A California judge put the pledge back in the news and back on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling the words "under God" are unconstitutional. The ruling only affects a few school districts in California for now, but that's enough for politicians to condemn judges and pass resolutions (as a unanimous U.S. Senate did a few years back) demonstrating just how little they understand what the flag stands for.
We could start by pointing out to school kids how the "one nation" part of the pledge becomes meaningless every time we talk about the "under God" part, which causes all kinds of divisions. Mostly among people who have no idea where the pledge came from or who wrote it.
It wasn't Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. The Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892 by a Baptist minister and socialist named Francis Bellamy. The original pledge written by him read: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The words "my flag" were changed to "the flag of the United States of America" in the 1920s. Congress added the words "under God" in 1954, when the greatest threat to the United States was the "godless" Soviet Union.
I didn't learn any of this until I was an adult and had been pledging allegiance at school and at patriotic events for years. For most people, old and young, the words are rendered meaningless by endless recitation. They only come to have significance when one court or another rules on whether the "under God" part violates, as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has said, a child's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Rather than use court cases like this to teach kids (and grown-ups) about the history of the pledge and how we've been struggling with these issues since the beginning of the republic, politicians condemn the courts then try to invoke God's name as a way to gain political advantage. Although, wouldn't a person who truly believed that he was "under God" be afraid to do such a thing?
Instead, why not tell kids that in the late 1800s the "one nation" part was important to include because our divided union still was trying to heal Civil War wounds?
Why not tell kids that the "under God" part was an offshoot of the McCarthy-era witch hunts that were spawned by fear and political opportunism?
Why not point out that the "liberty and justice for all" part didn't apply to all Americans when the pledge was written, or in 1954 when "under God" was added, or, some might argue, even now.
Why not reinforce the idea that as politicians and the courts argue over the "under God" part, no citizen can be forced to pledge allegiance to the flag, because the "republic for which it stands" protects the rights of everyone, even those with whom the majority of us disagree.
Especially them.
Then we should encourage kids to read the idiotic comments made by politicians as the latest case involving the pledge works its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Children would still have trouble grasping the constitutional arguments over the separation of church and state, but they'll totally get the concept of "God help us."
Reach Montini at (602) 444-8978 or ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com.
One nation (not always), under God (since 1954)
Sept. 15, 2005 12:00 AM
We get so fixated on which version of the Pledge of Allegiance that we want to strong-arm children into reciting that every time the argument over its wording winds up in court, we blow our chance to teach kids everything they need to know about America.
We're about to do it again. A California judge put the pledge back in the news and back on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling the words "under God" are unconstitutional. The ruling only affects a few school districts in California for now, but that's enough for politicians to condemn judges and pass resolutions (as a unanimous U.S. Senate did a few years back) demonstrating just how little they understand what the flag stands for.
We could start by pointing out to school kids how the "one nation" part of the pledge becomes meaningless every time we talk about the "under God" part, which causes all kinds of divisions. Mostly among people who have no idea where the pledge came from or who wrote it.
It wasn't Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. The Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892 by a Baptist minister and socialist named Francis Bellamy. The original pledge written by him read: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The words "my flag" were changed to "the flag of the United States of America" in the 1920s. Congress added the words "under God" in 1954, when the greatest threat to the United States was the "godless" Soviet Union.
I didn't learn any of this until I was an adult and had been pledging allegiance at school and at patriotic events for years. For most people, old and young, the words are rendered meaningless by endless recitation. They only come to have significance when one court or another rules on whether the "under God" part violates, as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has said, a child's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
Rather than use court cases like this to teach kids (and grown-ups) about the history of the pledge and how we've been struggling with these issues since the beginning of the republic, politicians condemn the courts then try to invoke God's name as a way to gain political advantage. Although, wouldn't a person who truly believed that he was "under God" be afraid to do such a thing?
Instead, why not tell kids that in the late 1800s the "one nation" part was important to include because our divided union still was trying to heal Civil War wounds?
Why not tell kids that the "under God" part was an offshoot of the McCarthy-era witch hunts that were spawned by fear and political opportunism?
Why not point out that the "liberty and justice for all" part didn't apply to all Americans when the pledge was written, or in 1954 when "under God" was added, or, some might argue, even now.
Why not reinforce the idea that as politicians and the courts argue over the "under God" part, no citizen can be forced to pledge allegiance to the flag, because the "republic for which it stands" protects the rights of everyone, even those with whom the majority of us disagree.
Especially them.
Then we should encourage kids to read the idiotic comments made by politicians as the latest case involving the pledge works its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Children would still have trouble grasping the constitutional arguments over the separation of church and state, but they'll totally get the concept of "God help us."
Reach Montini at (602) 444-8978 or ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com.
09-15-2005, 04:37 AM
#2
Stuff and things.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 1,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Montini makes an excellent point there; that we could all be better educators and statesmen.
Bellamy's explanation of the wording adds some insight:
(Text that follows is copied from a Wikipedia article.)
Bellamy commented on his thoughts as he created the pledge, and his reasons for choosing the careful wording:
"It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
"The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
"Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all..."
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy
Bellamy's explanation of the wording adds some insight:
(Text that follows is copied from a Wikipedia article.)
Bellamy commented on his thoughts as he created the pledge, and his reasons for choosing the careful wording:
"It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
"The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
"Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all..."
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy
09-15-2005, 04:57 AM
#4
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethlehem PA
Posts: 6,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
honestly, i dont really care.
I dont see the purpose of pledging in schools either. I give my thanks to this country in form of my tax dollars. No need to praise them more.
I dont see the purpose of pledging in schools either. I give my thanks to this country in form of my tax dollars. No need to praise them more.
09-15-2005, 05:17 AM
#6
Wannabe yuppie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tankard
Makes you wonder if they're going to remove the "In God We Trust" on money and put pictures of Jessie Jackson on currency instead of the past presidents.
h:
09-15-2005, 05:44 AM
#7
Originally Posted by Tankard
Makes you wonder if they're going to remove the "In God We Trust" on money and put pictures of Jessie Jackson on currency instead of the past presidents.
h:
09-15-2005, 11:20 AM
#10
CHRISTMASTIME IN IRAQ
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by reno96teg
yep, this country is headed straight for the shitter if things don't change soon..
How is it headed "Straight for the shitter" if we're just removing stuff that was added to culturally fight a communist state?