Pledge of Allegiance folly

An unpopular truth

[Reprinted from Issues & Views November 17, 2003]

By now, people who identify themselves as "conservative" should be willing to admit that they have no more aversion to having their lives controlled by government than do those liberals who actively work to bring about such control. Every day we see how conservatives eagerly use government as a weapon to get their way, while mouthing platitudes about independence and individual freedom. If you use government to impose your will on others, how can you claim to be against its intrusive domination? If you use government to settle all squabbles among citizens, how can you not expect it to grow into a monster whose power eventually cannot be subdued?

These thoughts come to mind when contemplating the noise surrounding the U.S. Supreme Court's announcement that the esteemed Justices will rule on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. The case arose when Michael Newdow, father of a public school student in Elk Grove, California -- where the Pledge is recited daily -- tried to get the phrase "under God" removed from it. In his lawsuit against the school district, Newdow claims that the mention of God represents an establishment of religion. California's Ninth Circuit Court agreed with him, and ruled the phrase unconstitutional.

Newdow apparently has no problem with the existence of the Pledge itself, in contrast to many patriotic Americans. Among them the Cato Institute's Gene Healy who, in "What's Conservative About the Pledge of Allegiance?," calls the Newdow case "a Republican campaign strategist's dream." He writes:

It gives G.O.P. candidates a grand old opportunity to position themselves as defenders of tradition against militant atheists and liberal judges. . . . It's probably too much to ask politicians to reflect a little before they lunge for a political hot-button issue. But any conservatives so inclined should think about what they're defending. What's so conservative about the Pledge?

Very little, as it turns out. From its inception, in 1892, the Pledge has been a slavish ritual of devotion to the state, wholly inappropriate for a free people. It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist pushed out of his post as a Baptist minister for delivering pulpit-pounding sermons on such topics as "Jesus the Socialist." . . .

After leaving the pulpit, Francis Bellamy decided to advance his authoritarian ideas through the public schools. Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance for Youth's Companion, a popular children's magazine. With the aid of the National Education Association, Bellamy and the editors of Youth's Companion got the Pledge adopted as part of the National Public School Celebration on Columbus Day 1892.

Bellamy's recommended ritual for honoring the flag had students all but goosestepping their way through the Pledge: "At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the Flag the military salute -- right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it. . . . At the words, 'to my Flag,' the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, towards the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side." After the rise of Nazism, this form of salute was thought to be in poor taste, to say the least, and replaced with today's hand-on-heart gesture. . . .

Though no one can be legally compelled to salute the flag, encouraging the ritual smacks of promoting a quasi-religious genuflection to the state. That's not surprising, given that the Pledge was designed by an avowed socialist to encourage greater regimentation of society.

In "Playing the Right Like a Piano," Lew Rockwell wonders if conservatives are more prone to fall for political gimmicks than leftists. "For my part," he writes, "I wouldn't care if the entire pledge were scrapped. It has nothing whatever to do with the history of America, and expresses no ideas that are distinctly American." He then offers some further information about aspects of the Pledge:

As for the "under God" line, it was inserted under Eisenhower as a sop to working-class nationalists who believed that the major problem with communism was its atheism (unlike the US state?). Thus did the US represent God on earth and the Soviet Union the Devil. In short, the phrase had nothing to do with affirming the Almighty but with shoring up and deifying the state.

Though the history of the pledge is well known, and it has no real roots worth preserving, we can count on the American right to go nuts with frenzy to preserve this oath, which no respectable, educated American should be saying in the first place. Pledge allegiance to your principles, your family, your faith, but don't be foolish enough to pledge allegiance to a gang of thieves.

As if on cue, following the Ninth Circuit Court's decision to ban the offending phrase, over 100 Republican members of Congress assembled on the steps of the Capitol in DC, to dutifully put hands over hearts and publicly recite the Pledge.

And, leave it to high school kids to get into the spirit of things. Inspired by a history lesson on the Pledge and an edict that mandated its use in the state's public schools, some Denver students decided to engage in a little irreverence and mockery. The Denver Post (10/19/03) reports:

A photo illustration in a student newspaper depicting two Grand Junction High School students giving a Nazi-style salute during the Pledge of Allegiance has sparked a districtwide review of policies governing student newspapers. . . . The Orange & Black, a student-run newspaper with a circulation of about 3,000, ran the photo with a story about a state law requiring students and teachers in public schools to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Within an hour of publication, the backlash started. Some teachers took the newspaper and threw it in the trash and wouldn't distribute it to their students. At least one member of the city's Jewish community wrote to the school's principal, expressing anger over the lack of sensitivity in running the photo, calling it ethnic intimidation.

It was not known whether any disciplinary action had been taken against the students.

Let us hope the kids avoid being hauled in and prosecuted as "terrorists."

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views