Pledging to be Under God
Of course, this discussion should fall under the "let's cross that bridge when we come to it" heading. I don't remember that last time a) I recited the Pledge of Allegiance or b) I witnessed anyone reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. How did this become important?
Oh, that's right. September 11th. The attack on the U.S. caused many to ponder "what's the VERY least we can do to show that we are patriotic?" So many Americans put the United States flag (or some caricature of it) on their vehicles, windows, and tee shirts. The SECOND least thing they could do was force school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (I assume the only reason they didn't demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in airplanes was the old stand-by that it would have been a "financial burden" for the airlines.)
But, wait! Some argue that the "Under God" portion of the pledge makes the entire thing unconstitutional. We arguably have a separation of church and state. The government isn't supposed to force us to believe in a god. Forcing a child to recite the pledge is tantamount, some say, to forcing a child to believe in God.
Unfortunately, that's really a bogus argument. The "Under God" in the pledge isn't a religious statement; it's a political statement. It was added in 1954 to spite the "Godless communists." It wasn't included as a declaration of religious belief; it's only there to thumb our collective noses at the since-dissolved Soviet Union. Reciting "Under God" isn't forcing anyone to believe in God; it's forcing people to believe in archaic Cold War dogma.
Personally, I'm waiting for someone to point out, on a map, the United States of America that isn't under God and it's physical position in relation to the USA under God. It might be an interesting place to visit; does the travel agent have any special trip packages for it? If you don't believe in God, "under God" is divisive. If you do believe in God, "under God" is redundant. (Everything, including communist countries, is under God, too, you know.) I just don't see the purpose in attaching it to a lyric that should be all-inclusive.
My preference is that the Pledge of Allegiance should read and be recited as follows:
I pledge my allegiance to the United States of America.
That's it; no more, no less. That is, after all, the point. What country are you claiming as your own? If you're looking for something for every United States citizen to proudly proclaim, that's all you need. As you add more to it, the pledge weakens and more people become alienated by it. Keep it simple and keep it unifying.
The most bizarre part of this and every other political discussion is that some person always chimes in with "If you don't like it, leave." If anything, this is backwards. If any group should leave the country (and I'm not saying any group should), it would be the people backing the leadership. The people with dissenting opinion are the ones who should stay. Not because one group is more deserving to be in the United States. The reason for the dissenters staying is that the United States constitutionally believes in dissenting opinion and freedom of speech. It's in our Bill of Rights. You can blindly follow leaders in any country. Heck, that's one of the few things you're free to do in Cuba, Iraq, China, North Korea, etc.; following without question seems to be strongly encouraged in those places. I say, if one group should have to leave, let the group that will flourish in another country leave and let the group that will flourish here stay. Give bootlickers the boot; let the naysayers stay.
Let's let every one say his or her piece. Let's let every one recite a pledge in which he or she can believe. This is a country of discussion and freedom. I'm all for letting everyone be free to discuss.
That's my pledge to you.
return to Commentary index
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the writer and do not neccessarily reflect those of the rest of the family.
© 2003, Mark Wentz