| Submit your comments on this article |
| Unconstitutional pledges... |
| 2002-06-26 |
Jeff Jarvis writes on the 9th Circuit's declaration that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional:The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared recitation of the pledge of allegiance in schools unconstitutional because of the words "under God."I heard about the opinion — it's today's whoopdy-doo news story — and it got the obligatory eye roll out of me. As is usual in such cases, this is much more about ego than about religion or patriotism. I could make the argument that a reference to God isn't the establishment of a religion. But Jeff brought up the libertarian angle, and from a libertarian angle I can agree that no one should be required to make the pledge. I'd point out that good manners and run-of-the-mill-nothin'-special patriotism would dictate that one do so, but if you don't want to, that's fine. Suit yourself, bub. It's a free country. But I'd also point out that the case in question involves a second-grader, and Jeff's example involves himself when he was a kid. And for kids it's a different matter. Children go to school to learn something, and one of the things they should learn should be to revere the country they live in. Part of that should be the daily recitation of the Pledge; certainly they get little else in the way of instruction in patriotism, with history having become social studies, the Founding Fathers condemned as rapacious racist landlords, and teachers occasionally burning flags in the classroom. The little 7-year-old darling can recite or not recite the "one nation under God" part — I doubt if anyone would care except her father and his ego. She won't be harmed by a reference to God, nor will she feel "threatened" unless she's mentally unhinged. I doubt anyone who's ever been to Thailand, a predominantly Buddhist country with wats and temples and shrines and statues everywhere, has ever felt "threatened" by not being a Buddhist. I doubt that anyone who's ever been to the Caymans, where there are routine references to God and religion in the curriculum and public life, has ever felt "threatened" by not being a Presbyterian. I feel a lot more "threatened" living in the United States, where people feel not only free but obligated to shove their views down other people's throats. |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #2 As a deist it never bothered me to say "under God" but I see no reason to keep it in either. (It does bother me when god-botherers claim the US is a Christian country, it isn't, its deistic.) I can't see what the fuss is about and I really hope (yeah right) the Republicans don't jump on this one and make complete tits of themselves. If you want to be religious sneak Amen, Allah Akbar etc at the end of your pledge, then do so. For me the Pledge of Alliegance does not make me feel any more or less American that if I were not saying it. Some people use it as a crutch in their daily lives to affirm their "love of country". Why it is necessary to say it every day is beyond me. |
| Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge 2002-06-27 09:15:28 |
| #1 Personally, the "under God" always bugged me, because as a patriot I *wanted* to say the Pledge otherwise, and as a nonbeliever I felt like I was lying when I said it. (Occasionally I'd leave it out discreetly. Never got caught.) I also think it was added for stupid reasons during a paranoid period in history, and that the Pledge sounded better beforehand. Is the current version a violation of the Establishment Clause? Probably not. Maybe. Don't immigrants say the Pledge when they become citizens? Is their citizenship ruled invalid if they later turn out to be atheists? If so, then that would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause, but I seriously doubt it. (I hope I haven't just given somebody the idea.) Otherwise, I don't see the whole business as worth worrying about right now. What have me cringing pre-emptively are the political knock-on effects whenever one of these dumb symbolic controversies comes up. I still remember how effectively George Bush the elder used some Pledge of Allegiance case as a club to beat Michael Dukakis in 1988. Once again, I'm going to have to try to ignore a bunch of politicians and editorial columnists telling me how unpatriotic I am for not believing in their God. It's hardly oppression but it's irritating. I might add that the irritants are as likely to be Democrats as Republicans. |
| Posted by: Matt McIrvin 2002-06-26 23:02:16 |