US "Pledge" ruling exposes political scoundrels

28 June 2002 | Bill Vann

[Euphen]

US "Pledge" ruling exposes political scoundrels By Bill Vann 28 June 2002

The ruling by a three-judge federal appeals court panel in San Francisco that compelling the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to “one nation under God” in public schools is unconstitutional has afforded yet another opportunity for America’s politicians to make fools of themselves.

The decision did no more than reaffirm the essential right to freedom from government “establishment of religion” and the principle of separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

“The statement that the United States is a nation ‘under God’ is an endorsement of religion,” the court’s majority wrote. It added that the pledge “sends a message to unbelievers ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.’”

As written, the court said, the pledge is no less a violation of the constitutional protection against establishment of religion than if it described the US as “a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god.’” The First Amendment, it continued, “prohibits the government’s endorsement or advancement not only of one religion at the expense of other religions, but also of religion at the expense of atheism.”

From both a legal and a democratic standpoint, all of this is unassailable. Yet the ruling has ignited a nationwide furor, with congressmen and television “personalities” tripping over each other to be the loudest in braying out their protest against the court’s action.

Meanwhile, fascistic thugs, taking their cue from these political “leaders,” have made death threats against both the California man who brought the lawsuit against the pledge and his daughter, a child in the second grade.

The Senate organized a hasty 99-to-0 vote denouncing the court’s reaffirmation of one of the most fundamental democratic rights upon which the country was founded. Over 100 Congressmen poured out onto the Capitol steps to recite the pledge and sing “God Bless America.”

The frenzied reaction was bipartisan. President Bush called the ruling “ridiculous.” Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat, said it was “just nuts.” House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri railed against any attempt to change “the time-tested, venerable pledge that is such a central part of our country’s life and our nation’s heritage.”

These scoundrels know little and care less about the “nation’s heritage.” The House of Representatives began its “tradition” of saying the pledge each morning only in 1988, as the result of a dirty tricks campaign by the Republican Party and George Bush Sr. against Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. The Massachusetts governor had vetoed a law requiring the Pledge of Allegiance in all public schools, correctly calling it a violation of the First Amendment. The Republicans sought on that basis to brand him as “un-American.” For its part, the Senate began the practice only two years ago.

The origins of the 31-word oath lie in the relatively recent history of America, a history that does not bear much probing as far as the pledge’s modern-day defenders are concerned.

Its author was Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister who was pressured into giving up his Boston pulpit because of the church’s opposition to his Christian-socialist sermons. He was a first cousin of Edward Bellamy, author of the well-known socialist-utopian novel, “Looking Backward.”

He wrote the pledge in 1892 for the magazine The Youth’s Companion. It included no reference to God, which would only be tacked on 62 years later.

He chose the words, he later wrote, with his mind on “salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution ... with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...”

In short, the democratic ideals of the American Revolution, the Civil War and the abolition of slavery animated the original pledge. Bellamy acknowledged, however, that he had wanted to include the words “liberty, justice and equality for all,” but left out equality because he knew that it would be opposed by fellow members of the National Education Association, who stood against equal rights for blacks and women.

Even so, the pledge as written rankled the reactionaries of that period, and it was not long before they set about changing it. What had begun as an idealistic tribute to the universal democratic principles of the country’s founding, was soon transformed into a vow of obedience to a rising imperialist power that was to exert its military might around the globe.

The drive to make recitation of the pledge compulsory began only in the early 1920s, amid the wave of reaction that followed the Russian Revolution and gave rise to the anticommunist Palmer Raids and a nationwide anti-immigrant witch-hunt. Spearheading the campaign for the pledge were the American Legion and the Ku Klux Klan, both notorious for their role in the wave of lynchings that swept the country during the same period.

This campaign also involved a critical change to the text drafted by Bellamy, substituting for the original, “my flag,” the words, “the flag of the United States of America.” Bellamy protested this nationalistic revision, aimed against foreigners and “reds.” He had intended the oath not as one of American jingoism, he said, but an international pledge of peace, adaptable to all nations. His opinion, however, was drowned out by the patriotic ranting of the American Legion and the KKK.

After the US entry into World War II, the manner in which the pledge was delivered underwent an alteration as well. Until then, students were instructed to recite it with their right arms rigidly extended, shoulder high. The resemblance to Nazi youth swearing fealty to Hitler was too close for comfort. Americans were instructed to place their hands over their hearts instead.

The second major change in the text, introducing the words now defended so vociferously by both major parties, was carried out in another period of deep reaction, at the height of the McCarthyite witch-hunt of the 1950s. Congress, responding to a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic men’s organization, added “under God.” The clear aim was to mobilize religion in the campaign against “godless communism” abroad, and to further the persecution of socialists, communists and atheists at home.

Bellamy had died decades earlier, but his granddaughter said that he would have opposed the introduction of religion. In the end, the mutilation of his original text recalls nothing so much as Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” in which the principle that “all animals are created equal,” was twisted into “some animals are more equal than others.”

It is hardly an accident that a challenge to the introduction of “God” into the pledge evokes such a visceral reaction from ruling circles today. The “heritage” of McCarthyism, police-state repression and anti-immigrant crackdowns is being revived with a vengeance, and with the backing of both political parties.

In the wake of September 11, there has been a concerted campaign to promote cheap patriotism and inject ever-larger doses of religion into national life as a means of diverting the American people from any critical examination of the roots of the present crisis.

Doubtless the correct decision of the Ninth Circuit will be overturned by the black-robed reactionaries on the US Supreme Court, if it is not struck down first by the full appeals court. Nonetheless, the event has had the singular value of providing a self-exposure of a Congress, presidency and media that are permeated with stupidity and cowardice and united in virulent opposition to the most elementary democratic principles.

[Kevin Curry]

Yet another atheist zealot bigot breathes fire and threats. His monopoly on religion in the public schools isn't at risk, but it angers him that anyone would even dare to disagree with the black-robed liberal high priests of godlessness of the 9th Circuit.

[Pyro7480]

Leftist spouting nothing but hot air ALERT!!

[Euphen]

Yeah, well at least I'm not bald.

[Post Toasties]

Only militant atheists or other misanthropists, many of whom have otherwise objectionable agendas, would attempt to use the US's legal system to remove any mention of God in a national pledge, song, currency or during the proceedings of a nation's legislative or judicial bodies.

[rwfromkansas]

not breaking news or an action item.......delete this promptly, moderator.

[Southack]

From a legal viewpoint, what the 9th Circuit did wrong was overlook the 1943 Supreme Court decision which ruled that the pledge was voluntary.

You can't ban voluntary speech, especially if your aim is to "sanitize" all speech on government property of any reference to theism (because that creates a bias towards atheism).

If the court had said that people can't be compelled to pledge, then they would have been fine.

But they went further than that. They said that people can't make the pledge at all in front of students.

They can't do that, Constitutionally, and that's why their decision will be voided, either by themselves or by the Supreme Court.

[Pyro7480]

Hmmm? Bald?

[dighton]

not breaking news or an action item

Say goodbye to Euphen, soon to be known as "No current Freeper by that name."

[rwfromkansas]

"If the court had said that people can't be compelled to pledge, then they would have been fine."

Wrong. For one, nobody was forced to say the Pledge in the case anyway, so the court would be overstepping the issue. Second, it would be showing how ignorant the court was of Minnersville School District Vs. Maryland (I know I spelled that one wrong....lol).

[GregoryFul]

The Constitution reads that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think that Congress passed a law saying that school children must recite the Pledge -- so why it even a matter for the courts? Nothing better to do?

[Reactionary]

The First Amendment, it continued, “prohibits the government’s endorsement or advancement not only of one religion at the expense of other religions, but also of religion at the expense of atheism.”

The First Amendment doesn't say anything about this vague notion of "endorsing" or "advancing" one religion over another. It says nothing about an equality of religions or the status of atheism. It has absolutely nothing to say about any of these issues. It says quite simply that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Even if one allows that any public expression of religious sentiment is the same thing as "endorsing" or "advancing" religion, it certainly certainly cannot be said to be the same thing as establishing a religion, can it?

Of course, it hardly seems to matter. Our friends on the left aren't bothered by plain English, American history, or any reasonable interpretation of the law. No. What they are interested in is "interpreting" their way to absolute political power.

[ThePythonicCow]

Where did this article come from? I found some other articles by Bill Vann on the World Socialist Web Site, which would seem to be fitting with what little of this article I could stomach reading.

[Roscoe]

The ruling by a three-judge federal appeals court panel in San Francisco that compelling the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance

The entire article is premised on a lie. The case involved barring voluntary recitations of the pledge.

[CyberAnt]

"the most elementary democratic principle"

Geeee, I think that one is FREE SPEECH!

[Cultural Jihad]

The case involved barring voluntary recitations of the pledge.

Furthermore, the Founders never wanted any mention of God barred from the halls of government, they just didn't want any one particular religion to become the official religion. This ruling states that the mere mention of God violates the establishment clause, which is ludicrous.

[bok]

The pledge is socialist in origin and a historian has noted the straight arm roman salute was used while reciting it.

[Crossbow Eel]

Ping )))))))

[knuthom]

compelling the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to “one nation under God” in public schools is unconstitutional

The child of the man who filed the suit was not compelled to say it. But he didn't want other people to say it either.

[RJCogburn]

The court ruling is silly, but the reaction to it is well overdone. It will make little difference in our lives or in the fate of the nation. It has been the source of political posturing and feigned outrage by politicians.