(September 17, 2005)
It first must be admitted that the EFFECT of a compulsory pledge of allegiance on kids in schools is probably benign. I doubt very seriously if any of them will be scarred for life (or otherwise). Being of the "Pledge Generation" myself as well as a former Boy Scout, I daresay that the best efforts employed to inculcate mindless loyalty in myself went eventually unrewarded. I think it was the stories about J. Edgar Hoover dressing up in short pinafores like a sexy (?) maid that finally undid my patriotism! The Trickster himself (Richard Nixon) also made a contribution.
Anyway, I would also agree that most of the litigation over the Pledge of Allegiance is a tempest in a teapot. A lot of folks who are opposed to compulsory pledges nevertheless are dismayed at Rev./Dr./Atty. Michael Newdow's foolishness. He is incompetent in the views of many, and he [has given] my side a really bad name.
HOWEVER--
Why is it so critical for so many that ALL public-schoolchildren be compelled by law (as they are in Va. under threat of criminal sanction) to stand and solemnly recite the Pledge (authored in the late 1800's by a SOCIALIST minister) as a test or proof of their loyalty to the USA? Why are all of the politicos and citizens so worked up about forcing compliance by schoolchildren?
That is why I have a problem with it--not the effect on children, but the notion that the government may compel human beings, with threat of jail or fine, to stand and pledge loyalty to a THING as a condition or proof of their duty as citizens. The age of the person so compelled is meaningless, except that it is a lot easier to coerce children into doing something in school than it is to coerce adults. Unfortunately, adult teachers are compelled by the same law to lead the children, and that is even more noxious, in my opinion.
The Pledge of Allegiance does NOT track Art. VI of the Constitution itself to provide for an oath to the IDEAS, the concepts of liberty expressed therein. No. It directs a pledge, a loyalty oath, really, to a piece of cloth, a "sacred" symbol (as decreed by a mere political majority), a "graven image" no more sacred than the Golden Calf around which the Israelites were reportedly dancing when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai. The Pledge is NOT enshrined in the Constitution anywhere, and the Founders did not find it necessary to swear loyalty to a flag to get their amazing work done. How interesting that it has become a virtual necessity today!
That image stands for many different things, and it is a lot more terrifying and vicious a symbol to the survivors of Wounded Knee, My Lai, Ngo Gun Ri, Eye-rak, etc. It is no better (nor worse) than the Confederate battle flag nor the Swastika, DEPENDING UPON ONE'S PERSPECTIVE. And that is the problem, because it means a lot of different things to different people, whereas the Constitution's embrace of liberty and limted government is what all people are SUPPOSED to pledge loyalty to. Ideas, not things.
I think the compulsory pledge laws are designed, not for the children of True Believers and True Patriots, but perhaps for those children who are not getting the mindless loyalty message at home, who may, in fact, be taught by their parents that there are many shades of gray in "patriotism." It is upon THOSE children the pledge laws are focused. I think those laws are INTENDED to undermine independence of thought and differentiation. I think those laws are the equivalent of "love it or leave it." "My country, right or wrong." All utter nonsense.
Any child who dares to NOT say the Pledge will be hounded, harassed and ostracized. His/her patriotism, loyalty, honesty, parentage, etc. will all be called into question by at least his/her peers and maybe the teacher as well. And none of this is justified by (nor incorporated in) the powers delegated to any government to compel human behavior in certain circumstances. Loyalty oaths, ideological ("patriotic") indoctrination, religious experience, compulsory speech, NONE of these powers has been granted to any government in this country, and in MY opinion, to suggest otherwise is unpatriotic. I daresay that few would agree with me, but despite the "love it or leave it" mentality, it is my country, too, and I need not prove my "love" to anyone nor leave if I choose to disagree with conventional wisdom, that being one of the things that sets the USA apart from any other country and makes it great.
Schoolchildren, like all of us, are entitled to be protected from mendacious govt. efforts to enforce mindless ideological loyalty. It is not the effect on the children that is at stake, it is the govt. getting to big for its britches that is at stake.
It first must be admitted that the EFFECT of a compulsory pledge of allegiance on kids in schools is probably benign. I doubt very seriously if any of them will be scarred for life (or otherwise). Being of the "Pledge Generation" myself as well as a former Boy Scout, I daresay that the best efforts employed to inculcate mindless loyalty in myself went eventually unrewarded. I think it was the stories about J. Edgar Hoover dressing up in short pinafores like a sexy (?) maid that finally undid my patriotism! The Trickster himself (Richard Nixon) also made a contribution.
Anyway, I would also agree that most of the litigation over the Pledge of Allegiance is a tempest in a teapot. A lot of folks who are opposed to compulsory pledges nevertheless are dismayed at Rev./Dr./Atty. Michael Newdow's foolishness. He is incompetent in the views of many, and he [has given] my side a really bad name.
HOWEVER--
Why is it so critical for so many that ALL public-schoolchildren be compelled by law (as they are in Va. under threat of criminal sanction) to stand and solemnly recite the Pledge (authored in the late 1800's by a SOCIALIST minister) as a test or proof of their loyalty to the USA? Why are all of the politicos and citizens so worked up about forcing compliance by schoolchildren?
That is why I have a problem with it--not the effect on children, but the notion that the government may compel human beings, with threat of jail or fine, to stand and pledge loyalty to a THING as a condition or proof of their duty as citizens. The age of the person so compelled is meaningless, except that it is a lot easier to coerce children into doing something in school than it is to coerce adults. Unfortunately, adult teachers are compelled by the same law to lead the children, and that is even more noxious, in my opinion.
The Pledge of Allegiance does NOT track Art. VI of the Constitution itself to provide for an oath to the IDEAS, the concepts of liberty expressed therein. No. It directs a pledge, a loyalty oath, really, to a piece of cloth, a "sacred" symbol (as decreed by a mere political majority), a "graven image" no more sacred than the Golden Calf around which the Israelites were reportedly dancing when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai. The Pledge is NOT enshrined in the Constitution anywhere, and the Founders did not find it necessary to swear loyalty to a flag to get their amazing work done. How interesting that it has become a virtual necessity today!
That image stands for many different things, and it is a lot more terrifying and vicious a symbol to the survivors of Wounded Knee, My Lai, Ngo Gun Ri, Eye-rak, etc. It is no better (nor worse) than the Confederate battle flag nor the Swastika, DEPENDING UPON ONE'S PERSPECTIVE. And that is the problem, because it means a lot of different things to different people, whereas the Constitution's embrace of liberty and limted government is what all people are SUPPOSED to pledge loyalty to. Ideas, not things.
I think the compulsory pledge laws are designed, not for the children of True Believers and True Patriots, but perhaps for those children who are not getting the mindless loyalty message at home, who may, in fact, be taught by their parents that there are many shades of gray in "patriotism." It is upon THOSE children the pledge laws are focused. I think those laws are INTENDED to undermine independence of thought and differentiation. I think those laws are the equivalent of "love it or leave it." "My country, right or wrong." All utter nonsense.
Any child who dares to NOT say the Pledge will be hounded, harassed and ostracized. His/her patriotism, loyalty, honesty, parentage, etc. will all be called into question by at least his/her peers and maybe the teacher as well. And none of this is justified by (nor incorporated in) the powers delegated to any government to compel human behavior in certain circumstances. Loyalty oaths, ideological ("patriotic") indoctrination, religious experience, compulsory speech, NONE of these powers has been granted to any government in this country, and in MY opinion, to suggest otherwise is unpatriotic. I daresay that few would agree with me, but despite the "love it or leave it" mentality, it is my country, too, and I need not prove my "love" to anyone nor leave if I choose to disagree with conventional wisdom, that being one of the things that sets the USA apart from any other country and makes it great.
Schoolchildren, like all of us, are entitled to be protected from mendacious govt. efforts to enforce mindless ideological loyalty. It is not the effect on the children that is at stake, it is the govt. getting to big for its britches that is at stake.
No comments:
Post a Comment