The House of Representatives' 260 to 167 vote on Wednesday, July 19th, 2006 to protect the phrase
"under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance from being ruled on by federal courts (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13937043/) is interesting in as far as our elected representatives
- facing a war on terror, budget deficits and other problems - choose to focus on a relatively esoteric issue. The fact that
this year is an election year surely has little to do with it, I am certain...right?
Choosing this topic as a benchmark
for the fall elections is as superficial as this year's proposed Marriage Ammendment and President G. W. Bush's "war on homosexuals"
laid out in his State of the Union speech in January of 2004. But not to get too far off topic...
To begin, the Pledge
of Allegiance itself was not written until 1892, composed by Baptist minister and socialist Francis Bellamy (http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm). As originally written, the Pledge read as follows:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice
It wasn't long before Bellamy, chairman of an influential NEA committee, got the Pledge added to school
events and into the curriculum. The term "my Flag" was changed in 1924 to "the Flag of the United States of
America." It remained in this form for thirty years.
Then in 1954, President Dwight
D. Eisenhower signed a bill into law adding the words
"under God" to the nation's Pledge of Allegiance. This was under pressure of lobbying by The Knights of Columbus, a religious
organization whose goal was to convert the oath of patriotism into a prayer. No where before this time was the Pledge intended
as a device of religious intonation. Yet in eras of ultraconservatism (1954 wasn't
ultraconservative, you assert? Let me point to McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, and the Cold War as a few examples.),
society's need to fall back upon religion when the secular world appears confusing and ever fearful is arguably understandable
Yet is should be noted that the claims of legislators like Zach Wamp (R-TN) that "We...cannot rewrite
history to ignore our spiritual heritage" is misleading. As a Constitutional issue, the Pledge did not even exist the first
hundred and eighteen years of our nation's history. On this matter, the Founding Fathers were silent. And twice after the
creation of the Pledge, the words were changed and modified to match the political and religious climate of the day.
assert, therefore, that there is no inherent evidence that
the Pledge was ever intended as a device of religious affirmation. To change the Pledge now by eliminating the words "under
God" is no more a "rewrite" of "history" than the addition of the phrase was in 1954. To take an explicitly secular Pledge
and rewrite it to include the controversial words "under God" is no less deplorable than restoring the Pledge now to its pre-1954
I fear that it will not be long until we find a Pledge Amendment proposed in Congress. The insatiable desire
of this Administration and this Congress to enact legislation and propose amendments of a religious inclination is part and
parcel of an ultraconservative movement, motivated once again by a populace whose insecurity in a time of Islamic extremism
and uncertainty in our future is both fuel for and fueled by our political leadership.
In closing, let me propose
a question to the opponents of the "restore the Pledge to its original intent" argument: Is it acceptable to replace the words
"under God" with "under Allah?" "Under Brahma?" "Under Zeus?" If you say no, then clearly your motivation for keeping the
non-original phrasing "under God" is purely religious in intent and based upon Eurocentric nationalism, a fundamentalism of
the Christian variety no less potentially dangerous
to our society than the Islamic fundamentalist threat we face from without.
Remember, the fall of the Roman
Empire came after the rise of Christianity
and the devout conversion of its emperors (such as the pious Justinian I) to the Christian faith. Upon the heels of military,
political and religious victory throughout the Empire, its subsequent fall was due in part to the social instability caused
by excessive Christian-Nationalism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire for supporting material by Edward Gibbon).
part will historians say Christian-Nationalism played in our
nation's decline and fall in the centuries ahead?
Enter supporting content here
All text and
html coding appearing on www.literarian.org are
intellectual property of the respective
author(s) and are protected under
international copyright laws. The intellectual property
may not be downloaded except
by normal viewing process of the
browser. The intellectual property may not be copied to another
computer, transmitted, published, reproduced, stored,
manipulated, projected, or altered in any way, including without limitation any
digitization or synthesizing of the images, alone or with any other
material, by use of computer or other electronic means or any
other method or means now or hereafter known, without the
written permission of the respective Author(s). By
entering this site, you are agreeing to be bound by the terms of this
agreement. Entrance to this site is
expressly on these conditions which embody
all of the understandings and obligations
between the parties hereto. To
secure reproduction rights to any material here,
and to contact the respective Author(s), send an e-mail to email@example.com.