The journey from there to here
Published on September 18, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

You knew this day would come. I have taken time to sit down and think about what I really feel about the recent decisions regarding the Pledge of Allegiance and the inclusion of the phrase "Under God". I will begin with my simple and succint summation, and follow with my feelings on the issue.

The fact is, the courts are technically right.

But the larger fact is that in winning the battle, they may be well on their way to losing the war. You see, the funny thing about the pledge is, it hurt noone in all honesty, it was a benign reference to a Creator, a well established tradition in documents and writings of leaders of this nation from the very onset.

As any parent can tell you, there is such a thing as "picking your battles". When Madeline Murray O'Hair began her infamous crusade, she had a point to be made. Her children were being harassed for their refusal to participate in classroom prayer, a humiliation no child should have had to endure. The initial decisions were well thought out attempts to protect the rights of the minority, a necessary function of the government at times such as this.

But it grew into something much larger. Suddenly every symbol associated with CHRISTIANITY became suspect. The federal courts began unilaterally deciding what did and didn't constitute an endorsement of religion, to the point where many schools now forbid any non secular celebration of the Christmas...err, winter holidays. In fact, it went so far that I have seen many atheists and agnostics roll their eyes in disgust.

The fatal flaw in the response from the atheist community, however, is the very nature of the Constitution. It is made to be amendable, and while we have only ONE such incident of it happening in our history, it IS hypothetically possible to write an amendment to overturn a previous amendment.

If religious leaders of this nation took it upon themselves to lead a charge to amend the First Amendment, it would be a dark day in American History. This cherished amendment and basis of many of our other rights is already under attack from many fronts (including Democratic leaders such as Hillary Clinton), and a well planned attempt to modify or overturn the First Amendment would cause every other right we have as citizens to be suspect.

Such a scenario is EXTREMELY farfetched, I will admit. Most of our leaders recognize the danger of seriously undermining Constitutional amendments (ESPECIALLY the Bill of Rights); this is why they have historically used backdoor methods to do so (gun control laws revolving around the INTERPRETATION of the second amendment, for instance). But very little is truly farfetched when people feel their backs are against the wall and that they are without recourse.

So those who support the removal of the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance would be well advised to consider the consequences of being right. They ARE right on this issue, a fact that I will repeatedly stand behind, but what, truly are the long term benefits of pressing this issue? I see none.

The only long term effect this movement can have is to further divide a nation and create feelings of bitterness and hostility that cannot foster a continued sense of national identity and of community. We've already seen pundits categorize our nation according to the "red/blue" divide; now will we see them further categorize us according to the secular/atheist divide? We are further and further removing ourselves from the idea of being a UNITED States of America.

Come to think of it, maybe the words we SHOULD be protesting are the two words PRECEDING "under God".


Comments
on Sep 18, 2005
You make an interesting point that I disagree with, namely that the fight to remove "under God" is divisive of the nation. I believe that division has always existed, but mainstream Christians have been able ignore the division and marginalize those of us who don't believe in the Christian God.

It is similar to how blacks and women were marginalized and ignored until their respective equal rights movements. Those in the "mainstream" at the time who believed that blacks or women should not be granted the right to vote did not see there being any problem with the status quo, and were probably irate that the issue was "tearing apart" the country that they didn't realize was already torn.

Keep up the thoughtful comments!

modern-science.blogspot.com
on Sep 18, 2005
I see it as the federal government meddling in public school issues where it doesn't belong. Of course a case can be made that the federal laws concerning the reciting of the pledge in schools would also be meddling. I think a better case could be made for removing the law requiring the pledge to be recited in schools in the first place than arguments over wording.

On the one hand "under God" interferes with some people's beliefs, but most arguments I've seen completely forget that there are people whose religious beliefs teach them not to make pledges of allegiences to anyone BUT their God... so what of them?

Getting the fed out of our public schools is a better argument than mere wording of the Pledge of Allegience. The federal government has every right and authority to adopt the Pledge of Allegience, but it has no authority to require schools to have the kids and teachers recite it.
on Sep 18, 2005

Getting the fed out of our public schools is a better argument than mere wording of the Pledge of Allegience. The federal government has every right and authority to adopt the Pledge of Allegience, but it has no authority to require schools to have the kids and teachers recite it.

See, here's the rub, Para...and what I can't get most conservatives to understand. Because federal money goes to public schools, federal control follows. As with EVERY government institution, where the money goes, the control will follow.

The above is the primary reason I am an advocate for privatization in almost every area.

on Sep 18, 2005
Yup, that is the rub. School boards should be the highest authority in our public schools (with oversight from the state for minimum standards, employment practices... etc), yet it is the school boards that have relinquished that authority (and shirked their responsibility) in homage to their insatiable appetite for the almighty dollar. Their greed has put raising dollars above educating our kids long enough.

((((note: if anyone reads my opinion here and notices that it doesn't fit with the opinion I've expressed in other articles on this subject, you are right. Because of the latest rise in the topic I've given my opinion on the subject of the Pledge of Allegience some more thought and changed my mind.)))
on Sep 18, 2005
((((note: if anyone reads my opinion here and notices that it doesn't fit with the opinion I've expressed in other articles on this subject, you are right. Because of the latest rise in the topic I've given my opinion on the subject of the Pledge of Allegience some more thought and changed my mind.)))


well ted that is a trait some of us here on joeuser share, the ability to change our minds.

Now the left does not have that ability due to a serious lack of "mind" in the first place.
heh
on Sep 18, 2005
School boards should be the highest authority in our public schools (with oversight from the state for minimum standards, employment practices... etc),


while i understand the thinking behind this position, if you could will that into being tomorrow, i doubt it would prove that popular or successful. the changes would themselves begin to be undone but not cuz of federal money.

rural districts with small populations scattered over large areas would suffer. large urban districts would wind up with way more power than they could or should have cuz only the books they chose to use would be affordable.

none of that begins to consider the potential for kids in one district receiving a truly great or deficient education compared to their peers 2 districts away.
on Sep 18, 2005
but most arguments I've seen completely forget that there are people whose religious beliefs teach them not to make pledges of allegiences to anyone BUT their God... so what of them?


*in a sam kinnison voice* it aint they've been forgotten...its just that *sam kinnison scream* they don't pledge allegiance to the flag
on Sep 18, 2005
rural districts with small populations scattered over large areas would suffer. large urban districts would wind up with way more power than they could or should have cuz only the books they chose to use would be affordable.

none of that begins to consider the potential for kids in one district receiving a truly great or deficient education compared to their peers 2 districts away.


True Kingbee, which is why there needs to be minimum standards and such from the state. If the system were allowed to work the way it should, poorer communities would benefit from the state oversight and all would be able to have more say in the running of their school systems. The problem with most school systems isn't a lack of money, but a lack of standards.

You are right though, any plan that threatens to take the school system's snout out of the federal trough would be rejected out of hand. Not because doing so isn't a good idea, but because too many administrators care more about their feast on the federal buffet than actually educating our kids.
on Sep 18, 2005
I happen to agree with the decision as technically correct. I also think that it fits into an evolving pattern of the balkanization of America, a seemingly relentless process of dividing us into sharply delineated groups based on almost anything but geographic community. This is fostered by well-meaning individuals who it seems have a difficult time seeing the forest for the trees. The best example I can come up with is bilingualism. Nothing unites a country more than a common language yet, to serve short-term expediency, we've removed all incentive to learn the common language in many areas of the country. There's not much we can do to unring the bell, but that makes it no less sad.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Sep 18, 2005

I have to differ that the words "Under God" hurt no one. I think they were fully intended to make certain people uncomfortable, or even feel as though they were unwelcome in the US.

They were put there in an era when it was the political norm to persecute people based upon their political beliefs. Religious beliefs were a "symptom" of your political beliefs. The 'godless' Atheists were suspect of being communists. The fact that the US government made an overt attempt to define the US as something other than secular sent a stern signal to Atheists at the time... many of which already lived in fear of being persecuted for their political beliefs.

Sure, we moved on, and the statement was forgotten, but it is still there. I see it as a wound that hasn't healed, and it needs to go. We've had a couple of people here who have stated that it troubled them, and some who said it made them feel like a hypocrite to say it. You really don't have to go that far, though, given WHY they were put there.

" I see it as the federal government meddling in public school issues where it doesn't belong."


The pledge itself was Federal imposition, in that it defined what America "is". If you are going to start curing such ills, why not nip this one at the source? The Federal government started imposing itself on state school systems during the civil rights era. Instead of seeing this as a modern sin, maybe if you looked at it you'd see this is a reaction to a previous one.

on Sep 20, 2005
The pledge itself was Federal imposition, in that it defined what America "is". If you are going to start curing such ills, why not nip this one at the source? The Federal government started imposing itself on state school systems during the civil rights era. Instead of seeing this as a modern sin, maybe if you looked at it you'd see this is a reaction to a previous one.


True, Bakerstreet, which is why I added:

Getting the fed out of our public schools is a better argument than mere wording of the Pledge of Allegience. The federal government has every right and authority to adopt the Pledge of Allegience, but it has no authority to require schools to have the kids and teachers recite it.


and acknowledged that this represents a change of mind from what I argued (much of it with you) on other articles. Instead of arguing the smaller point about the wording of the pledge where public schools are concerned, I would rather have the federal government out of the public schools in general. Let the local school boards (whose job it is to make policy for the school districts anyway) decide whether the Pledge of Allegience is to be recited, and how.