| 113th Year, 47th Issue | Thursday, July 4, 2002 | Sparta, North Carolina |
The ‘stuff' has hit the fan, so to speak, over the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling that the phrase "under God," included in the Pledge of Allegiance, makes the pledge unconstitutional. Separation of church and state, you know. Both houses of Congress seem united in nearly unanimous condemnation of the court's ruling; the airwaves are continuously replaying sound bites of the aggrieved and the author of the suit that resulted in the ruling claims that his life is at risk for merely asserting his Constitutional Rights. That the court resides in California, San Francisco no less, adds fuel to the fire. Shades of Madelyn Murray O'Hair. Few seem mollified that the ruling applies only in those states within the Ninth Circuit's sphere of influence. An appeal is certain, whether to the full circuit or to the supremes, and may take a year to finally resolve. Given the composition of the current Supreme Court, I would not venture a guess as to the final result.
But, in the mean time, may I suggest that everyone take a deep breath, lower the caffeine intake for a day or two and consider an alternate, if slightly skewed, point of view. I was in eighth grade when the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge by direction of Congress. At the time, it was no big deal beyond screwing up the cadence of the pledge we had learned and recited from our earliest years. At the innately attentive age of 13, I recall no controversy surrounding the change, at least none that penetrated my universe. Rather, it was considered to be a positive and reaffirming addition that reflected well on the state of the nation. That was the first significant change to the pledge since its creation in August 1892. Francis Bellamy was chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he directed the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892, with a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute — his "Pledge of Allegiance" — as the centerpiece.
It is worth noting that, although a Baptist minister, Bellamy had serious conflicts with his church and eventually left the church. His original pledge was simply "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. " The minor change "to the Flag of the United States of America" was made in 1924. There was no religious reference. For 62 years the country recited those versions. Now, 48 years after the religious addition, we find ourselves back at Bellamy's original starting point.
In terms of the intent of the pledge, I see no reason to get in a twist over a return to the author's original intent. However, with that said, what is it about the word "God" that drives people, like the complainant in this suit, to make a Supreme Court case of the term? Anyone familiar with the history of the founders, if there are any still around, recognizes that the "Creator" played a central role in the minds and hearts of those who constructed the foundations of the most successful political system in history. If the cultural relativists actually had a coherent position, they'd be the first to the barricades in defense of the term because it is fundamentally, a basic part of the American culture. And that is the problem.
Whether your inclination is to follow Biblical teachings, Islam, Buddha, atheism, Ghia or any other devised spiritualism, this country was founded on, and directed by, a theistic view derived from the Protestant values of the Old World but expressed as an individual acceptance of a higher force. The Constitutional guarantee is "freedom of," not freedom from. Yet there has been a concerted effort to strip any public reference of the founders' religion from the national stage. Santa Claus, crèches, personal prayer before athletic contests, menorah, the wearing of Christian symbols — all have at some time in the recent past been considered so horrifying that they should not be seen polluting the public square, lest some poor soul be so overcome by the vapors as to be bed-ridden. Giving "offense," creating "discomfort," or causing someone to "feel different" are the principle sins of society now, unless the rituals and symbols involved are unrelated to the fundamental culture of the U. S. In that case, we must be "inclusive," learning to "adapt to others," showing "concern" for their sensibilities.
Whatever the outcome of this case, I have no problem reverting to Bellamy's original phrasing — the thought expressed is worth keeping alive. But do not be deceived into believing that this case is simply about religion; it isn't. It is a continuation of the ongoing effort to destroy an American identity through elimination of our cultural benchmarks. And, with the support of our educational system, it may succeed.
Back to the Mushroom Chronicles Archive
Email: allnews@ls.net