I don't pledge allegiance
The other day I was at a Democratic district club meeting on behalf of a political campaign I'm working on. At the beginning of the meeting, everyone stood to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. For some time now, I haven't participated in this ritual. I usually just stand and remain silent in order to try to balance not offending anyone, with my own desire not to take part in what I see as a mechanism of nationalistic brainwashing. In this case, I reluctantly placed my hand on my heart and halfheartedly mumbled the words. I did so because I was there as a representative of someone else who may not agree with me regarding this issue, and no doubt wouldn't want people associating him with what many people would likely consider an unpatriotic act. Later on I started reviewing the language of the Pledge in my head. I had originally started not reciting it to symbolically display my distaste for all things nationalistic, but upon further consideration there is an additional reason I am opposed to it. It is that it is hypocritical; the language simply isn't coordinate with reality. This is the examination of the Pledge of Allegiance that resulted from this contemplation.
History of the Pledge
First off I decided to get a copy of the language to be sure I had it right, since I haven't exactly been practicing it. In doing so, I came across some historical information that surprised me. The Pledge has only been around for about half as long as the country, and its language has been changed several times.
Although its authorship was once a point of contention, it seems that it is now agreed that it was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. Bellamy was a minister until shortly before he wrote the Pledge, and later he worked in advertising. The catalyst for its creation was the first Columbus Day celebration, when it was recited by schoolchildren as part of the festivities. Thereafter it continued as an unofficial tradition in schools.
In 1942, Congress included the Pledge as part of a national flag code. The following year, the Supreme Court ruled that no child could be compelled to recite the Pledge in school. It wasn't until 1954 that the words "under God" were approved as additions to the text by Congress, after a lobbying campaign by the Knights of Columbus. And in 2002, a federal appeals court ruled that it was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state to recite the Pledge in public schools. However, two years later the Supreme Court overturned that decision on a technicality (the plaintiff was determined to not have legal standing), so the constitutionality remains unclear.
My problems with the Pledge...broken down
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America..."
I'm not going to spend any time discussing the absurdity of deifying a flag to the point where one pledges allegiance to it. I'm going to simply take it as a representation, as the next string of words indicate.
"...and to the republic for which it stands..."
The United States was a little shy of being a true republic in 1892. A republic according to Merriam-Webster is "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them...". I won't get too technical and examine what some would probably call the minutiae, such as the use of the word 'supreme,' though it's tempting to do so. However, one would be hard pressed to deny that many nonwhite male citizens were de facto denied the right to vote guaranteed to them by the 15th Amendment. This continued at least until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and arguably continues to a lesser degree today. It's also tempting to point out that women were denied the right to vote until 1920, but since that was de jure, it can't be part of the criticism.
"...one nation under God..."
It was tempting to examine 'one nation' in and of itself, but that would stray too far into the realm of speculative arguments that I don't want to defend here. But if I am to assume that the occupants of this republic are 'one nation,' then I myself am a counterexample to them being 'under God,' since I don't believe in the existence of a god and therefore don't myself exist as part of a 'nation under God'.
"...indivisible..."
This word is potentially subject to the same sort of criticisms that 'one nation' is, but since I excluded that argument there, I will do the same here.
"...with liberty and justice for all."
This is undeniably the part which I am most opposed to and could critique most extensively.
Liberty is often considered synonymous with freedom. Indeed, in 8 of the 9 ways it's defined, the word freedom or free is included. Of the values often mentioned as held in high regard in the United States (i.e. freedom, justice, equality, security, opportunity, etc.), freedom is the one I hear espoused most often. I must admit, of the aforementioned values, I believe freedom is the one the United States comes closest to achieving. However, I see that as much as a failure of coming close to achieving the others as anything.
I find the use of the word liberty in 1892 ironic, when it wasn't 30 years since 4 million residents of the country were literally slaves. But one need not look to the 19th century to find inconsistencies with claims of the existence of 'liberty...for all' in the United States. Indeed, one only needs to attend an event as a protestor where the president will be, or more precisely go to the designated "free-speech zone". That's right, apparently the 1st Amendment only guarantees free-speech in close proximity to the president if you are a supporter. Otherwise, you can only invoke that right while inside a chain-link fence far from the president's view. Critics of this policy from all over the political spectrum have been quoted as saying they thought the whole country was a "free-speech zone". Apparently, they were wrong, and so is the Pledge of Allegiance. One might claim this isn't a real restriction of liberty as compared to say...the Soviet Union, where a public protestor of the government may well have been sent to a Siberian gulag or killed. That may be true, but physical injury or arrest of peaceful protestors has taken place at every major demonstration in recent years from the FTAA event in Miami to the RNC in New York. U.S. government imposed limitations of liberty have not been restricted to political dissenters either. During WWII, over 100,000 Japanese-Americans were forcibly relocated and 'interned' without provocation.
Then there's justice. Justice is a more esoteric concept than liberty. It is usually defined by equally abstract words such as fair or right. For my purposes here, justice may best be described as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart described obscenity, he knew it when he saw it. In the interest of keeping this relatively simple, I'm going to stick to an examination of criminal justice instead of other forms, such as distributive justice.
I feel the most egregious act of the criminal justice system is the sentencing of people to death when there is irrefutable evidence that the system is flawed. Over 100 people on death row have been exonerated in the past 30 years, some by virtue of technology not available at the time of their trial, others because dedicated people took the time to reexamine the facts. In addition there is overwhelming evidence available that the criminal justice system discriminates based on race and class. Amnesty International indicates that the likelihood of receiving a death sentence is over 10 times greater if you're a black person convicted of killing a white person as opposed to a white person convicted of killing a black person. In an American Bar Association Journal article, a Legal Aid Society study is cited that indicates in an average year 20% of poor people need some form of legal assistance, and only 3% actually receive it. And during a capital murder trial in Texas in the 90s, the appointed defense attorney actually fell asleep during the testimony of a prosecution witness. The presiding judge was later quoted as stating that the Constitution guarantees a lawyer, but it doesn't guarantee that the lawyer has to stay awake. That court's judgment was upheld on appeal, and that is not an isolated incident. This doesn't seem like 'justice for all' to me.
So...
I don't think I'll be pledging allegiance any time soon.
History of the Pledge
First off I decided to get a copy of the language to be sure I had it right, since I haven't exactly been practicing it. In doing so, I came across some historical information that surprised me. The Pledge has only been around for about half as long as the country, and its language has been changed several times.
Although its authorship was once a point of contention, it seems that it is now agreed that it was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. Bellamy was a minister until shortly before he wrote the Pledge, and later he worked in advertising. The catalyst for its creation was the first Columbus Day celebration, when it was recited by schoolchildren as part of the festivities. Thereafter it continued as an unofficial tradition in schools.
In 1942, Congress included the Pledge as part of a national flag code. The following year, the Supreme Court ruled that no child could be compelled to recite the Pledge in school. It wasn't until 1954 that the words "under God" were approved as additions to the text by Congress, after a lobbying campaign by the Knights of Columbus. And in 2002, a federal appeals court ruled that it was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state to recite the Pledge in public schools. However, two years later the Supreme Court overturned that decision on a technicality (the plaintiff was determined to not have legal standing), so the constitutionality remains unclear.
My problems with the Pledge...broken down
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America..."
I'm not going to spend any time discussing the absurdity of deifying a flag to the point where one pledges allegiance to it. I'm going to simply take it as a representation, as the next string of words indicate.
"...and to the republic for which it stands..."
The United States was a little shy of being a true republic in 1892. A republic according to Merriam-Webster is "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them...". I won't get too technical and examine what some would probably call the minutiae, such as the use of the word 'supreme,' though it's tempting to do so. However, one would be hard pressed to deny that many nonwhite male citizens were de facto denied the right to vote guaranteed to them by the 15th Amendment. This continued at least until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and arguably continues to a lesser degree today. It's also tempting to point out that women were denied the right to vote until 1920, but since that was de jure, it can't be part of the criticism.
"...one nation under God..."
It was tempting to examine 'one nation' in and of itself, but that would stray too far into the realm of speculative arguments that I don't want to defend here. But if I am to assume that the occupants of this republic are 'one nation,' then I myself am a counterexample to them being 'under God,' since I don't believe in the existence of a god and therefore don't myself exist as part of a 'nation under God'.
"...indivisible..."
This word is potentially subject to the same sort of criticisms that 'one nation' is, but since I excluded that argument there, I will do the same here.
"...with liberty and justice for all."
This is undeniably the part which I am most opposed to and could critique most extensively.
Liberty is often considered synonymous with freedom. Indeed, in 8 of the 9 ways it's defined, the word freedom or free is included. Of the values often mentioned as held in high regard in the United States (i.e. freedom, justice, equality, security, opportunity, etc.), freedom is the one I hear espoused most often. I must admit, of the aforementioned values, I believe freedom is the one the United States comes closest to achieving. However, I see that as much as a failure of coming close to achieving the others as anything.
I find the use of the word liberty in 1892 ironic, when it wasn't 30 years since 4 million residents of the country were literally slaves. But one need not look to the 19th century to find inconsistencies with claims of the existence of 'liberty...for all' in the United States. Indeed, one only needs to attend an event as a protestor where the president will be, or more precisely go to the designated "free-speech zone". That's right, apparently the 1st Amendment only guarantees free-speech in close proximity to the president if you are a supporter. Otherwise, you can only invoke that right while inside a chain-link fence far from the president's view. Critics of this policy from all over the political spectrum have been quoted as saying they thought the whole country was a "free-speech zone". Apparently, they were wrong, and so is the Pledge of Allegiance. One might claim this isn't a real restriction of liberty as compared to say...the Soviet Union, where a public protestor of the government may well have been sent to a Siberian gulag or killed. That may be true, but physical injury or arrest of peaceful protestors has taken place at every major demonstration in recent years from the FTAA event in Miami to the RNC in New York. U.S. government imposed limitations of liberty have not been restricted to political dissenters either. During WWII, over 100,000 Japanese-Americans were forcibly relocated and 'interned' without provocation.
Then there's justice. Justice is a more esoteric concept than liberty. It is usually defined by equally abstract words such as fair or right. For my purposes here, justice may best be described as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart described obscenity, he knew it when he saw it. In the interest of keeping this relatively simple, I'm going to stick to an examination of criminal justice instead of other forms, such as distributive justice.
I feel the most egregious act of the criminal justice system is the sentencing of people to death when there is irrefutable evidence that the system is flawed. Over 100 people on death row have been exonerated in the past 30 years, some by virtue of technology not available at the time of their trial, others because dedicated people took the time to reexamine the facts. In addition there is overwhelming evidence available that the criminal justice system discriminates based on race and class. Amnesty International indicates that the likelihood of receiving a death sentence is over 10 times greater if you're a black person convicted of killing a white person as opposed to a white person convicted of killing a black person. In an American Bar Association Journal article, a Legal Aid Society study is cited that indicates in an average year 20% of poor people need some form of legal assistance, and only 3% actually receive it. And during a capital murder trial in Texas in the 90s, the appointed defense attorney actually fell asleep during the testimony of a prosecution witness. The presiding judge was later quoted as stating that the Constitution guarantees a lawyer, but it doesn't guarantee that the lawyer has to stay awake. That court's judgment was upheld on appeal, and that is not an isolated incident. This doesn't seem like 'justice for all' to me.
So...
I don't think I'll be pledging allegiance any time soon.
Sources
Other non-Web-based sources were consulted, including research I've done in the past. If you happen to be curious, I'd be happy to provide them.
posted by Dan Brown | 12:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home