Pledge of Allegiance

This was originally written on October 5, 2003, in response to some discussion of the Pledge of Allegiance. For some reason, the writer thought that Betsy Ross knew about the pledge. This is a two parter, where I expanded on my comments in the reply to a reply. The second part is much, much more in depth than the first:

What does Betsy Ross have to do with the pledge of allegiance? She was probably dead for almost a hundred years before it was first written in 1892. See http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html? This means that for 106 years the United States had no "pledge of allegiance" at all. It was not even adopted by the Government until 1942.

The wording "of the United States" was added in 1923, the first time it was used outside the classroom. "Of America" was added in 1924, and "under God" was added in 1954.

That is the historical facts. The Pledge of Allegiance is not that important. I suspect it would not be hard to find members of the founding fathers who would be offended by this. To "pledge allegiance" to the government of the United States gives the United States government too much power, and this to a set of people who were very afraid of a powerful central government. They knew what a strong central government could do - they knew what had happened in England.

Response

This was written on later on October 5, 2003. It was not written in response to any particular comment, but rather stands on its own:

There has been some discussion of the Pledge of Allegiance on this list. In my last e-mail on the subject I pointed out some of the problems which have not been addressed. In this e-mail, I will make a more detailed analysis of the subject.

The Pledge of Allegiance goes:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

First, "I pledge allegiance to the flag" offends certain religious groups, so much so that the courts have ordered that the state cannot force children to recite the pledge. Some religions say that you can only pledge allegiance to God, and therefore this offends these people.

I have another complaint. "I pledge allegiance to the flag" leads inevitably to the stupidity of the "Flag burning Amendment" that certain people keep trying to push. That is, if my allegiance is to the flag, then it is an insult to me to deface the flag. But the fact is my allegiance is not to the flag, but rather to the principles articulated in the constitution of the United States.

To make matters worse, the flag that I learned this on is not even used any more. If my allegiance were to a flag, I would hold no allegiance to any country now in existence.

"of the United States of America." I am a citizen of the United States it is true, but the world has become too interconnected for me to limit my allegiance to one small piece of it. Further, some of the actions of the United States government have not been worth of any allegiance. For example, the war in Iraq, and especially the ignoring of the human rights, including the right to life and liberty that is so praised in the Declaration of Independence, that the country has embarked on. I cannot pledge allegiance to this at all.

"and to the republic for which it stands" Does this flag currently stand for a republic? Technically, yes, but as a practicality this can be questioned. That is, we technically have a republic because the will of the people choose who represents us. However, the last presidential election the president was not chosen by the process prescribed. That is, electors are elected by counting the votes, and the electors with the most votes win. Yet the decision about who would be president was made not by trusting those votes, but rather by a few old men without even referencing the vote. It was pointed out at the time that in Canada the voting is done on paper ballots, with the counting being done by hand, and they can count all the votes in one day. The votes in Florida could have been counted ten times over if we had been a true republic.

This, so far, has ignored the fact that thousands of people were not trusted to vote the way the governor of the state wanted them to vote, so they were simple denied the vote. Again, this illustrates that we do not have a republic in spirit.

"one nation" The United States was not set up to be one nation. It was intended to be an organizing force to defend many small nations (called States) from outside invaders. Indeed, not until the Civil war would anyone have been confused about this point. The States have much more influence on every day life than the United States government, and this should be so.

"under God" In a nation which has declared freedom from having a religion crammed down your throat. This is inappropriate, and not needed, having not been added until 1954, less than 50 years ago. It is to the credit of the Federal Court system that an appeals court, at least, has ruled this phrase makes the pledge violate the first amendment, and a mark against the lawmakers who cannot understand this.

"indivisible" This is simply not true. A State, at least (and some would argue even smaller units) are able to leave if they want to. This happened during the civil war, and, I tend to think the acceptance of West Virginia as a State at that time indicates that the congress accepted this, even as they waged a war ostensibly over this idea. (A lesson in the constitution: No State may be made from the territory of another State without the approval of the State legislature. I find it highly doubtful that Virginia would have taken time out of their deliberations to approve the creation of a State from their territory by a nation they considered their enemy at the time.)

"with liberty and justice for all." Tell this to the guys currently camped out in Guantanamo Bay, or the tens of thousands of civilians killed in recent wars. Try telling this to the thousands in jail in the United States simply because they were caught exercising their liberty by using drugs, and were not related to the president. Can we honestly claim we believe in liberty and justice?

Talk about the thousands, and probably millions, who cannot afford to see a doctor, and therefore have been condemned to live in pain, and danger. Is this justice?

And what is liberty to people who are forced to work at below a living wage so that the very wealthy people who "create the jobs" (???) can live the life of royalty. It is especially telling in that the vast majority of the people in this latter category got their wealth without working for it, that is, without creating any goods of services worth any more than the very peons they oppress. Is this liberty? I think not.

For this reason, I think the Pledge of Allegiance should be scrapped.