More interesting history of the Pledge of Allegience in the pages of Reason. Among other tidbits are indications that the Pledge may have been used to sell more flag, and that the author considered including “equality” and “fraternity” in the Pledge, but decided that might be deemed too radical (not to mention, in these latter days, sexist).
However, as the Reason article notes,
We often pretend otherwise, but cultural meaning trumps everything else, from taste to law. In the case of the Pledge, the meaning lies less in the words – which may well lose their resonance in rote repetition – than in their performance. The fact that the Pledge had a substantially different meaning to its author than it does to its admirers is insignificant; the fact that a godless Pledge was good enough for, say, the generation that fought World War II is beside the point. Americans are almost unique in pledging allegiance to a flag, but they have come to impute significant meaning to their rite, and to associate it with their national identity.
(Via InstaPundit)
“One nation, under whatever noble and/or beautiful belief system you want, or maybe nothing at all, or maybe a little of this and that, just don’t be a freak about it, because this is America and we’re nothing if not about religious freedom, even though that may be difficult to believe right now, but just bear with us, indivisible….”
More over here.
Pretty good stuff.
Ooooo look at Doyce showing off, using imbedded links in this comment.
I’m glad we didn’t end up with “equality” and “fraternity” – that’s just too French.
I take it all back Doyce. Your link is broken.
Good stuff at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/06/28/notes062802.DTL
“I believe that it points up the fact that we need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God,” Bush said. “Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.”
Yeesh.
Not that I don’t agree that our rights are derived from God. Nor even that I have a problem with judges who feel that way. Just that the Constitution doesn’t really have anything to do with that.
Hell, the Constitution explicitly begins, “We the People,” not “As God Told Us.”
”I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation WITH GREAT FAITH, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
I propose we substitute something that will resonate the same way through just about any belief system.
We have incredible faith.
We have undying faith.
We believe in faith.
Faith gets us there.
Faith brings us home.
Faith lets us reach out.
Faith lets us reach within.
All gods require faith.
All beliefs require faith.
Faith is what we are all about.
What do you think?
I think that the folks who do not have faith in any deity would be offended.
I mention no deity. I follow no deity. I have no problem saying I have faith.
The sun will rise tomorrow.
People are more good than bad.
I can be a better person.
I have faith.
Of course, I have no doubt that folks who want to be offended would somehow manage to be. Or would manage to interpret “faith” to imply some metaphysical being — you know the one I’m talking about! — and therefore constitute a prayer.
I dunno. I think it would still be easier just to go back to the 1953 version and leave it at that. Folks can (as they did) read whatever theistic relationship they want to have into the pledge, and everyone — except for those who really want to have a prayer in there — will be happy.
And that, I suppose, is the thing that keeps bugging me. The “oh, no, it’s just ceremonial deism, it doesn’t mean anything” folks keep bumping heads with the “it’s just a general reference to a hallowed being, not a specific reference to any particular sectarian deity” people and both keep getting undercut by the “you can’t take that out, that’s our communal profession in the Almighty!” crowd.
The very fact that the latter group exists (and that Our President seems to be one of them) actually lends a lot of credence to the Ninth Circuit Court’s judgment.
The scariest part of this debate is how many folks have lately said that the Constitution should protect “us,” the majority, from those godless heathens, the minority. Ah, did you learn anything in civics class? And why are all these professed Christians worried about this tiny minority that doesn’t want the “under god” part? Does god need our endorsement to remain in control of the universe?
Yes, that whole “majority/minority” thing is completely backward. The majority has the power of being the majority, of being able to work its will through the government. That’s why the Bill of Rights was so important — to act as a (difficult to bypass) check on the majority’s will where it overrides the minority or individual’s in matters of conscience expression. (Same is true for criminal defendents, who for all their “rights” also face the combined resources of a government of 200-odd million.)
And, of course, it’s not God that needs reminding of Man, but Man that needs reminding of God — which, again, why this is all so scary, since it’s very clear from a very vocal part of the pro-UG crowd that this is a prayer, so what?
I think its a total personal issue. Why is it only recently that there is a big riot over having “One Nation Under God” in our pledge? Why didn’t it happen years ago if it was really a big issue? I respect those that don’t believe in a higher power. I believe in a higher power, and I agree with what bush had to say. I believe that our rights did derive from God, and if they didn’t then we wouldn’t be here. Our rights had to come from someone, somewhere…and I think they were inspired. Our country isn’t following what the constitution declares…otherwise our nation wouldn’t be in such a big uproar about one thing or another.
I’m not sure I follow, Keera.
One reason this is a more recent development, I think, is because we’ve grown less homogeneous in our national faith. Where once one could assume that there was near-unanymity in some sort of theism (and Christian theism at that), now it is by no means as certain. Some of it may be an increased cultural sensitivity, but I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing.
“Our country isn’t following what the constitution declares…otherwise our nation wouldn’t be in such a big uproar about one thing or another.”
There you’ve stumped me.
If our decleration of independence actually was followed, if we pledge when we recite the Pledge of Alligiance that we will be indivisable, and also have justice for all why did we have the civil war? Why do we fight with in our country? Why do we go to court and end up having people treated unfairly. It happens all the time.
The DoI is, of course, not an official governmental document, though it’s certainly a “Founding Fathers” “mood” document.
The Pledge did not come about until long after the Civil War (1892). It, too, does not have any force of law.
As to why people end up being treated unfairly — well, that has to do with people being human …
Keera, what is your point?
really.
The Declaration of Independence was sort of like a Statement of Principal. The Constitution is the governing Document. The reason the civil war was fought because it was fatally flawed from the very beginning. It said that all men are created equal except for some. It was a time bomb waiting to happen.
The “under god” fiasco came up during the Red Scare idiocy in the ‘50s as well as the “in god we trust” on the money. They have come as problems through out the last 30 years. As with Slavery there needs to be a cultural change to allow changes to such this to come up and be debated. Same thing with the Civil rights movement and the Gay rights movement.
For 2 cents worth I believe that there is no higher power, and that your rights derive from you and us. Everybody agreeing that it is a good thing that people are able to live their lives free, happy, and perusing happiness. For myself, I haven’t said the under god part since the 70’s.
And like the man says, opinions are like a_ _ Holes…Everybody has one. As long as there are two humans in one place there is going to be a disagreement over something. Our country lurches from left to right trying to accomplish the spirit of the Constitution. According to the pledge, the people are very divisible, it’s the nation that is not.
As to the “Justice for All” bit…That’s an ideal, a goal, and someday we’ll accomplish that one as well.