measi's Diaryland Diary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One Nation, divisible So... who else in my fair country has been swept into this debate over political correctness in dealing with the Pledge of Allegiance? :) Well, I won't say too much-- I have my personal feelings on the matter, and while I lean toward the less popular side on this, I also think that a compromise should be made. I don't think that a declaration that the Pledge is unconstitutional is the simple solution. I hope that it won't be. For those who read my journal who are not American, and might not know our Pledge, it currently goes like this:
What many Americans who don't know their history are discovering today, is that the version of the Pledge above is not the original Pledge of Allegiance. This particular version was created in 1954 by President Eisenhower, under pressure by the Knights of Columbus, to show that unlike the Soviets and other Communist countries during the Cold War, America welcomed religious belief and did not try to oppress it. This was the Joseph McCarthy era of politics, where people were hauled in before the Un-American Activites Commision because of fears of communists lurking in our midst. What could be more American than a flag raise and a Pledge of Allegiance, with God behind the Americans, because they were the Good Guys, after all. Well... times have changed in this country. We are no longer a melting pot, but a collection of small clusters that congregate across the USA, keeping to themselves unless forced to go outside the cultural walls. Expression of different faiths was acceptable, at least in the 1990s. Since September, unless it's a Bush-approved religion, count that out. Does it surprise me that there is such backlash about two little words in the Pledge of Allegiance? Nope. Not at all. Do I think someone's making a mountain out of a molehill? Quite possibly. However, let's look at the history of the Pledge of Allegiance for a second... The original Pledge of Allegiance was written by a New Yorker, Francis Bellamy, who was a Christian Socialist. In 1892, Bellamy was part of a 400-year celebration of Columbus' arrival in America and a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Educational Association (NEA), which is still around today. As part of the celebrations, he arranged a flag raising ceremony in Boston, and wrote his pledge as part of it. The original pledge goes like this:
The word "to" was added later in 1892, presumably for recitation flow. Bellamy considered placing the word equality in the pledge, but decided against it because the state superintendents were against equality for women and African Americans. In 1923-1924, the pledge was amended. "my Flag" was changed to "the Flag of the United States of America." The hand over the heart, which is considered the proper stance for reciting the pledge, isn't the original, either. Before the 1930's, the proper saluation for the flag was a Roman salute: the hand coming to the heart, and then being raised straight out toward the flag. When the Nazi's adopted this as their salute, it fell out of favor, and the hand over the heart became the "standard." In 1954, the final alteration, "Under God" was added. The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal community organization (like the Elks and the Lions, etc), conducted a campaign to have it added. The Pledge had become both a patriotic oath and a prayer. Basically, this ruling by the Supreme Court is just another in the long line of changing the pledge to reflect the times in America. I don't have a problem with it. I can understand the irritation, but at the same time, I'm in full support of the Supreme Court in stating that it's Unconstitutional. However, I hope that's not the end of the chapter. Is another revisement on the horizon? However, rather than make a stink about it, I've simply chosen to omit the words "Under God" whenever I say the pledge. I began doing this in grade school, because at the time, I had a teacher who explained the history of the pledge, and I also saw two Jehovah's Witnesses in class who were not allowed to say it. I thought it was because of the "under God," (although it's actually because of the flag). It became a habit. It's two words that have a lot of meaning behind them, but by simply choosing to eliminate them without making a fuss, it ends a lot of headaches. I do believe that as written, it's a promotion of monotheism. However, I also live in the reality that America is a predominantly monotheistic culture, and I'm in the minority here. I can raise a stink, but I'll get a backlash. It's these little chips that might just start giving America the religious freedom that it claims to have. Just like we had the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's, I think a religious rights movement is happening now. I think the stir is fantastic-- because it's making people actually realize how important free speech is. Bring it on. :) 9:17 a.m. - 27 June 2002 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||