Wingnuts Offended By Students Who Understand What They Pledge
Michelle Malkin is apparently now offended by a group of high school students for their rather sophomoric rewriting of the pledge of allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all.
Yes, how offensive that they see themselves as unified with all humanity, and prefer Constitutional rights and choice over being forced to pay allegiance to a god they do not believe in. What bastards. What ungrateful, unbelieving, little heathen snots they must be.
Heaven forbid we should be encouraged by these students, whether you agree with them or not, for (a) wanting to stand up for their beliefs, and (b) being creative enough to write their own original pledge. Unforgivable that these students should not want to conform to a pledge which most Americans are forced to utter, like indoctrinated Soviet rubes, many years before they can actually understand what it is they are being made to promise (how meaningful that is!).
And how dare they even think of removing god from the pledge! It’s not as if god were thrown in as an afterthought, an unconstitutional plant by the religious right in the shadow of fear caused by Cold-war anti-communist fervor. It’s not as if the pledge was originally written without god in it, because we’re a Christian nation, right?
Hell, we should hold a contest to see who can rewrite the pledge in the most meaningful way possible, fit for the true, original principles of this country, made so that any loyal American can recite it without gagging on something contrary to their core personal beliefs as guaranteed under the Constitution. Here’s my version:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Constitution for which it stands, written to protect a nation of free people, unified to ensure liberty and justice for all.
And as an added touch, children would not be asked to recite it until, by testing, it is shown that they actually understand what the words mean. I don’t know about you, but I see it as stupid and empty to coerce a promise from someone who does not mean what they say, or worse, does not have the slightest idea of what their words mean. You might as well have the kids recite a meat loaf recipe in Arabic, for all the earnestness it would represent. I seem to recall being taught that unknowing indoctrination of children to mouth government pledges was an detestable Communist practice.
And to hell with the wingnuts, if they stand instead for forcing proselytizing oaths on our youth, and mindlessly attack children who actually understand the Constitution, condemning them for thinking for themselves.
In the second-to-last paragraph, I changed “children would not be forced to recite it” to “children would not be asked to recite it.” Seemed more appropriate.
I think somewhere some how there needs to be a pledge for separating religion from civics, church from state.
I think everyone in a functioning democracy should have to take an oath affirming this concept. If they don’t they are, essentially, at war with liberal democracy (in the classical sense of our founding generation). Back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s if you were a card carrying communist you were viewed as a threat to the constitution. I’ll leave that one alone (I think all ideologies are a threat to the constitution, our system is based upon pragmatism first, fairness second, liberty third – fairness/justice is intrinsic so gets little play, liberty is always the question: when does it threaten fairness?).
The real revolutionaries in our current age are religionists – no matter what stripe of religion. Christians are the most odious to me because not only do they have to ignore the wishes and intent of the founding fathers, they also have to ignore the history of over a millenium of bloody wars of religion that disappeared once religion and civics were severed, they also have to ignore the explicit commands of Christ to do the same. This is what makes them the most dangerous: they ignore all facts and wisdom. I don’t understand that.
Take an oath to keep the two apart.
Indoctrination of anything is, indoctrination – a word that is steeped in it’s own irrational hubris. Continued forced investment in the notion of nationhood is at best nationalist and at worst, one step away from those dire times of empire building and gunboat politicking of Europe in the 30s.
I followed the link to Michelle Malkin’s website – don’t know this person from any other but I’m stunned that someone could look at what was written by the students in the worst possible light. A deliberate, thinly couched splenetic statement ends her missive.
You would have thought that a notion of self within a world community is something that should be lauded.
Finally, I like your use of the lowercased god.
Tim: fully agreed; if you’re not willing to work to maintain and defend the Democracy, then you’re winging on your debt. Some people do it by serving in the military; some do it by participating in action groups; some by protesting and agitating; some by teaching; some by writing; and everyone, ideally, by voting–after working to educate themselves about what the politicians are doing and choosing the right ones. And so forth.
Most people, it seems to me, slack off in this regard, or take what they have for granted, as if it’s someone else’s responsibility to maintain. Others subscribe to blind patriotism, the worst and most destructive kind–ergo we have eight years of Bush, with Iraq, massive deficits, etc., not to mention the creeping theology.
I have no doubt that a lot of Christians truly believe that it maintaining Democracy and freedom is concomitant with imposing Christian ideology on and control over the state. This comes from (a) a complete misunderstanding of or more likely ignorance of history, and (b) massive arrogance in the guise of humble faith.
ACS: Malkin is simply yet another talking-head wingnut, a slightly more intelligent version of Ann Coulter. In that line of work, deliberate misinterpretation and misdirected focus on exaggerated irrelevancies is a job requirement and/or hobby.
As for the lowercase god, that was most definitely a conscious choice. I found myself using the usual capitalization of not just the referent term but even of the pronouns, and asked myself, “why am I doing this?” It is, in effect, a form of indoctrination in and of itself; a linguistic trick to instill automatic respect–not even for “god” but for a specific religion, in fact–without any willful consideration that must come before respect is granted. It is done not because the writer actually decides to pay respect, it is imposed as a writing RULE. Why should I pay obeisance to a religion I do not believe?
After I got through that thinking process, I naturally decided to go lowercase with “god.” At the same time, and as a natural consequence of the exact same thought process, I started capitalizing the word “Constitution,” as it pertains to the Constitution of the United States.
I like your thinking Luis 😉
~andy
I teach in a public school system and at the elementary level, the students are expected to recite the pledge as it is heard over the loudspeaker.
I never participate– a mandatory recitation of the pledge was determined to be unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court years ago, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. Whenever any student or adult asks me why I don’t participate in the recitation, I tell them that’s the reason and add that as a citizen public official, I will not participate in the subversion of Constitution.
One fellow teacher has scowled at me for my lack of patriotism. A couple of other teachers have agreed with me. On those rare instances where the students notice what I am doing, some have become incredibly angry with me while others have decided that they would also not recite the pledge from that moment on. However, I have never been repremanded.