February 2005: Hi again. I am taking another controversial risk with this blog entry, especially given my visibility to so many visitors from around the world each month. But here is yet another topic I simply can't keep quiet on, since it has been knawing at me for years now. Know that views expressed here are necessarily those of the management and proprietor of this web site, and are open to interpretation but not dissection. If you are offended by anything here in this carefully crafted and researched tome, we simply disagree, and you are free to write your own blog as long as it contains truth. So there.

WHY DO WE NEED TO KEEP THOSE TWO WORDS IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE?

If you have been aware of the news, you know which words those are. Red Skelton made the most of them in his recorded analysis of the Pledge of Allegiance in 1969. They were added to the recitation in 1954, and have been contested since that time. As of this time they may be in serious danger of elimination, and maybe even the Pledge itself. I hope to shed some light on the history of the Pledge in the first place, its role in our country, and furthermore the reinforcement provided by these two words:

Under God!

History: So how did the American Pledge of Allegiance come to be? This is classic Paul Harvey Rest of the Story material (no, really, he has done it) but is worth repeating and may surprise you.

The original author of this work is Francis Bellamy, who composed it in 1892, possibly in honor of the 400th anniversary of the Columbus landing. The authorship instantly becomes controversial because not only was Bellamy in a position of some power in the National Educators Association, but a Baptist Minister who was also a Christian Socialist (a relative of Communism). It was first published in The Youth's Companion magazine in September, 1892, then distributed as a pamphlet for the Columbus Day celebration in October to schools nationwide. The pamphlet included directions for a flag-raising ceremony at which the Pledge would be recited, and an official salute, one that would later be noticeably similar to the Nazi salute used during Adolph Hitler's regime. The original pledge from the pamphlet (modified slightly from the magazine version) is as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Many schools quickly adopted this as a daily routine and reminder of individual patriotism, and many simply let it pass without notice. In any case, the text remained more or less intact for three decades, and few paid mind to its socialist roots or those of its author. Move forward to 1923 when the Daughters of the American Revolution took it upon themselves to make the now widely-used pledge more specific. They espoused the addition of "to the Flag of the United States," adding "of America" the following year, which helped to make this pledge truly American. Bellamy objected, but the change rippled through the country rather quickly, and the pledge became a daily recitation at schools of all levels, public assemblies, and government functions as well.

In 1942 the Pledge was officially incorporated into the Flag Code of the United States (a set of rules concerning all one needs to know about the U.S. Flag and official and ceremonial conventions related to it), and 1945 when it got its official name. It was also at this time when the stiff armed salute was changed to the decidedly un-Nazi-like right hand over the heart. Even after World War II when patriotism was at new highs in the U.S., the "red threat" of communism was on the minds of many, and perhaps even as a result of that second condition, there were protestations concerning the seemingly compulsory recitation of the Pledge in public venues, particularly among those who knew of its history.

During the McCarthy anti-communist hearings in 1954, additional legislation was passed, amending the flag code and the Pledge of Allegiance further to include the words "Under God." As a popular leader and war hero, President Dwight D. Eisenhower's endorsement of this move helped keep the protest noise to a minimum, and the bill readily passed. Would it have had as much luck a couple of years later after the collapse of the red witch-hunts? Given the momentum of the U.S. mindset in the 1950s, it is likely, and may still be so in the 21st century. More on that later. One important part of the flag code is that any future changes to the Pledge could only be implemented with the consent of the President. This put the Pledge into a pretty secure position for something that essentially grew from a socialist creed in a boy's magazine, and survived with only minor modifications.

Current Events: For expedience, we will bypass the many issues involved with the Pledge over the decades leading to 2000, including the mandatory or compulsory nature of it, prayer in schools, ACLU interventions, etc. There is now one event to focus on, as well as comment about (my purpose here), and it is very much current in 2005. Not only that, it is something we thought had been resolved. A few years back, California resident Michael Newdow filed a case in the Federal Courts in Sacramento, California. He objected to the recitation of the pledge in his daughter's school as he was agnostic, and having his daughter exposed to the words "under God" violated his Constitutional rights because the Pledge was therefore un-Constitutional. Huh? I would stop there to comment, but I need to finish this up first. As most of us know, the regional Federal Court found for Newdow in 2002, and the Pledge was put on hold for some time in many school districts while they held their breath waiting for the inevitable showdown in Washington, D.C. That occurred on Flag Day (June 14) of 2004, when the Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling. However, the high court's reason for this was based on the fact that Newdow did not have a level of legal custody of his daughter to the point where he could dictate what happened to her in the schools, making it a protest without legs. What the court did not comment on was the Constitutional aspects of his case, a disappointing turn at the least, but certainly something close to the level of Roe vs. Wade in controversy, so understandable. Case Closed. Right?

EXCEPT: Newdow fired back in January, 2005, this time pushing the Constitutional separation of Church and State, and teaming with other parents who do have some legal standing when it comes to what they want their children exposed to. So a new case is pending in Sacramento, and it all comes down to those two words. He further unsuccessfully attempted to block prayer or any religious things like music at the Presidential Inauguration on January 20th. Historical precedence among other things helped to keep at least that request at bay.

My Part In All Of This: This is where I nervously step out on the soapbox and make my own case, using both broad and narrow, but hopefully obvious interpretations of the U.S. Constitution in terms of why this challenge should fail. Lets start with the un-Constitutional part (notice that I treat the very word Constition as a proper noun in this case to identify it as an important living entity). No, better yet, let's go back to a time before the Constitution. Why are we here? On this soil? Religious Freedom! We didn't want interference from the crown, or the government, in our religious affairs. Just the same, the country is founded on, and it is clearly indicated in all of the documents on which that founding is based (including the Declaration of Independence AND the Constitution), a belief in God, or at least a "divine providence" or higher power. The acknowledgement of the existence of God absolutely permeates American history, something that annoyingly can't be denied be even the most devout agnostics (think about THAT term). God has been invoked in laws, codes, our monetary system, Presidential proclamations, and all matter of bureaucratic ephemera. Can it be that the Constitution itself is un-Constitutional? Not really.

So how can we justify all of this and retain the separation of Church and State that is so clearly espoused as cornerstone of our government? Let's start with defining the difference between Church and Religion. One major definition of Religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Given this, agnostics practice their own religion. Can you hear the irony cracking their brains open to ponder that thought? If Newdow and others like him are so fervently focused on preventing the mention of God in anything governmental, does this not mean they are pursuing their beliefs with ardor, and with a faith that they will succeed? If so, then a Religion it is. And how are they allowed to do this? By the rights granted them in the God-based Constitution. While the Constitution espouses Religious Freedom, it does not specifically separate "Religion and State".

Church, on the other hand, can be put into very specific subsets, such as Methodist, Catholic, Hindu, Hebrew, Presbyterian, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptist, etc. These are all subsets of specific religions or religions themselves, but Church specifically refers to the subsets of faith, not to Religion. Temple is church. Mosque is church. A house of worship if you want to put it in the physical sense. However, the more proper definition in the holistic sense defines the church as the collective people who congregate to follow their own personal beliefs. In this regard, Newdow is part of a group of agnostics who gather together to fight references to God, which actually makes up a church in a sense. Again, can't you hear the sound of more heads splitting open at the very essence of this logic being applied.

So based on this, it makes sense to advocate a strict separation of Church (i.e. the specific subsets of one or another religious belief) and State (the governing bodies of a nation). I can get behind that, because we don't want the government messing with our churches, and based on some unfortunate events of the last few years, we certainly don't want churches influencing government policy with one or another agenda. They can work together yet separately and achieve great things. Such has been the case of wonderful initiatives that make up the many Faith-Based Programs we have today, providing everything from food and shelter to job training with the cooperation of the U.S. Government, but without the messy and controversial ties of mandated funding or endorsements. Church and State remain separated, but equal in a sense.

The Point: Where does this leave the situation where God is in the money and God is in the Pledge and God is everywhere you look? (Well, almost everywhere.) Get your mind around this thought from Captain Obvious: WE ARE A COUNTRY OF THE MAJORITY. OK, some may have dissenting opinions on that given the 2000 election fracas, much less the 1860 election (Lincoln won without any majority in the popular vote), but the Constitution mandates that we live in a country ruled by a Government of the People, by the People, for the People. That's us. It includes the majority and minority alike. Nobody is shoving God into places where God does not already exist or can't go. God is everywhere that people want God to be. That famous statement from the Gettysburg Address delivered by a God-centered leader, Abraham Lincoln, underscores that we are a country of the Majority. But as a Majority, we need to also not step on the needs or rights of the Minority. By the same token, the Minority also needs to respect that they might potentially be infringing on the rights of a much more dominant Majority.

The balance is this. We can and do make accommodations for minorities in this country (not always equally, of course, but that is for a different conversation). Most of these obvious accommodations do not infringe on the rights of the majority while making a prescient difference to the minorities. A very visible case for this are the HandiCap Access laws. HCA provides access for disabled people of many stripes so that they can access public buildings or their own home, have access to information that would be hard for them to utilize in print form, and respects their need to live as the rest of us do concerning everything from restrooms to reality television. But the majority of us can also turn off the closed-caption, use the same restroom stalls, walk fifteen feet further in the parking lot, and choose print over Braille. So accommodating those in the minority with needs addressed by HCA laws does not unduly infringe upon the majority.

When talking about apartheid in South Africa many years ago, comedian Robin Williams, referring to the white leadership at that time, noted, "There's about 1 million of us and 18 million of them. You'd think we'd get the picture by now." Fortunately, much has changed there, and the minority and majority in terms of racial rights and the abandoned policy of Apartheid are in better balance. Mr. Newdow, well over 80% of the population of the United States of America admittedly believes in God or a at least a similar higher power. Last time I looked that was over a 4 to 1 majority, a landslide in any election. By taking away "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, which helps formative minds profess a form of patriotism in a country that not only is founded on the principles of both the Old and New Testaments but of other faiths as well, you are infringing upon the right of that majority to express and exercise their beliefs. It is not church, it is religion, and it seems that we all practice that in one form or another, even you!. Instead of suing NBC because they blended up rats for people to drink and somebody stupidly sits there and watches it and gets sick, how about exercising your right to change the channel or turn the television off? By the same token, the moment of silence in public schools can be and is liberally used by all there for a variety of purposes from prayer to homework to Game Boy, but it does not infringe upon a student's personal beliefs unless they maintain that silence for 60 seconds is purely evil. Therefore, Mr. Newdow, I submit to you that there are more productive ways to address this issue for you, clearly in the minority, that do not have such a wide ranging impact on us, the vast majority. An intelligent discussion of this could be had in a public forum, even Dr. Phil or Larry King if you like, and I'm sure that a consensus could be reached that even the ACLU would have trouble arguing with. It just takes cooperation, intelligent discourse, and a majority opinion. You know, like "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one." I like Spock's version much better than Kirk's ("The needs of the one..."). It just makes more sense.

Whether or not you believe in God, whom we all live under, God believes in you. Isn't there reasonable doubt in that sentiment concerning existence or non-existence? As Red Skelton stated when closed out his passionate speech on the Pledge, "Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that [this is] is a prayer and that [it] would be eliminated from schools too?"

Whew! Next time: Probably something safe that won't generate visceral and passionate responses. We'll see!

GO BACK TO WHERE YOU WERE BEFORE YOU GOT HERE

Do you have some thoughts on this topic? Informative or constructive ones are always welcome. Overt Hate Mail will not be ignored, but depending on the contents it may be scrutinized and forwarded to the appropriate authorities who look after the majority and minority of citizens. You can write to me at perfbill@hotmail.com, but be informed in advance that I may choose to temporarily post some of the letters here unless explicitly asked not to.