- Senator Thomas Daschle, in a heroic moment of striking
a blow for freedom, called a federal appeal court's ruling that the words
"under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional
"just nuts." His reaction undoubtedly reflects the same bedrock,
tribune-of-the-people qualities that have made him such a mighty guardian
against the dangerous excesses of Mr. Bush.
-
- We all heard Sen. Daschle speak out against torture and
killing of prisoners, the bombing of civilians, and improper arrests, didn't
we? Oh well, maybe not, but on this life-and-death issue we know he is
on the side of the angels. After all, that redoubtable spokesman for freedom's
interests, Ari Fleischer, assured us, while his boss dozed off a lunch-time
virgin Bloody Mary in the family quarters of the White House, that the
president thinks the ruling "ridiculous."
How can you go wrong with endorsements like that? And they were buttressed
by the brave defenders of the right of those who already own most of America
to own its elections too, the United States Senate, with a triumphant
resolution in support of the pledge as worded (99/nil). My, Americans
must feel proud of leaders endowed with such remarkable thoughtfulness
and fortitude.
Of course, the only thing that truly is ridiculous here, apart from the
entire U.S. Senate now wasting time on this, is the fact that the words,
"under God," ever were added in the first place. They were the
product of the swell days of malts in the soda shop, fallout shelters,
and an American government planning atomic pre-emptive strikes on the
U.S.S.R. Funny, how that last idea has gained a new currency under Bush.
This religious profession, and there is no other expression for the words,
represents the same pandering to prejudice as the 487 or so times the Congress
has voted for a flag-desecration amendment to the Constitution, something
that even a mail-order law student knows is a wretched idea. At least
the flag amendments stood no chance of becoming law with the immense effort
required to alter the American Constitution. But the pledge-phrase is
something people have had to endure since 1954.
Contrary to the assertion that the pledge is a voluntary act, it effectively
is not. When school classrooms and assemblies are asked to rise and recite
the words, it is a very rare individual indeed who would ignore the immense
social pressure involved to resist. He or she might not actually say the
words, but you can be sure they are standing with hand to heart to avoid
a trip to the principal's office and a lot of sneers in the playground.
There is a rumor that in some parts of the South and the Midwest, there
is a movement to bring back the old way of saying the pledge, with arm
extended in Nazi-like salute, but I can't confirm the truth of this, although
it would clearly be in the spirit of cramming religious beliefs down other
peoples' throats.
The use of social pressure in this fashion is nothing less than a favored
technique of tyranny. That is why America's Puritans are so attached to
such practices. After all, they know they are right and everyone else
is wrong - a characteristic belief of those with a proclivity to tyranny.
There's likely considerable dissatisfaction that the words aren't "under
Jesus," but that fact serves to demonstrate to the world that the
spirit of compromise isn't totally dead in America.
Forgotten utterly are the hard-fought battles for true religious freedom
in the 18th century. The skeptic Jefferson, a strong believer in religious
tolerance and freedom (even though he did slip a mite on human freedom),
worked with people like the Baptists in Virginia to achieve a new degree
of religious freedom. Before his efforts, Baptists and others had to pay
taxes for the established church, regardless of whether they ever attended.
It is actually difficult to understand why any religious person would want
the government's imprimatur on any matter touching religion. Faith is one
of those precious, private, personal things that are better left untouched
by government. No one gains from officially-endorsed religious expressions.
Indeed, we are only diminished by them. They weaken the strength of a
society by attempting to exclude or limit or define what only an individual's
conscience may properly judge.
Some will say the phrase "under God" is universal with no connotations
of sect or specific religion. Well, that really isn't true. As the judge
writing the decision so correctly observed, the phrase is equivalent to
"under Vishnu," "under Zeus," or "under no god."
Any of these would instantly rankle the sensibilities of many Christians
and Jews.
And what is gained by having such a religious bromide attached to a patriotic
profession? It clearly offends some people, but does it truly please anyone?
It reminds me of the battle to have prayers in American public schools.
As though the poor public schools didn't already have enough problems
to deal with. And as though any student who felt so inclined couldn't
quietly pray at any time in any place.
But there was a huge, time-consuming debate simply because some people
were determined to push their beliefs into the faces of others. The compromise
offered was a "moment of silence," again something that could
please almost no one and prove irritating to many.
Oh, how much better off everyone would be if religion were left where it
properly belongs, to the houses of worship and to the individual's private
thoughts.
-
-
- John Chuckman encourages your comments: jchuckman@YellowTimes.org
|
