Essays |
||
|
Essays
In God
We Trust
So You
Think You Need an Agent
A Look
At Screenwriting Software
|
The problem with the Pledge of Allegiance isn’t the “God” part. It’s the “pledge” part. Does a child know what kind of commitment he’s making, and to whom, and at what cost? — Gary Shandling
In God We Trust With all this debate about whether the Pledge of Allegiance should be taken out of schools because of the line “ONE NATION, UNDER GOD,” is it possible that we’re debating the wrong issue? Maybe we should just omit the “UNDER GOD” part, which Congress added some 62 years after Francis Bellamy originally wrote the Pledge; it still sounds just as good without it. Or perhaps we should question the brain washing of children in having them memorize and recite words that have no real meaning for them. But that’s another essay, for another time. The intent of this essay is to show how the Pledge of Allegiance, a flag protester, and our money reflect the deterioration of the ideology of separation of Church and State. I pledge allegiance to the flag. (Not the country, but the flag.) Pledge. Isn’t it illegal, if not unethical to enter into a solemn agreement with a six-year old? Of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. (Oh, there’s the country.) One nation, under God, indivisible. (Issues between minorities/women and the dominant culture do not apply.) With liberty and justice for all. (All, really?) Anyway…back to the separation of church and state. I’m not opposed to just taking the “UNDER GOD” part out of the Pledge. I’m also not opposed to leaving it in; after all, a country that prays together stays together. In fact, in 1956, the 84th Congress declared IN GOD WE TRUST as the Nation’s motto. And recently, our country has done quite a bit of praying together. I can not drive more than three minutes without seeing a bumper sticker or yard sign depicting the nation’s flag and the motto: IN GOD WE TRUST or GOD BLESS AMERICA. Perhaps the deification of Old Red, White, and Blue has made it easy for people to put aside their ideological agreement with the first amendment’s guarantee of free speech. This is the case with my most recent champion of free speech, a basketball player from a tiny college in Purchase, NY. She plays for the Manhattanville Valiants, and her name is Toni Smith; she’s number 24 in my program but number 1 in my heart. Ms. Smith decided that the only way she could relieve her cognitive dissonance between America’s actions and its ideals was to not salute the American flag during game openings. Her protest was silent; she simply would turn away from the flag during the playing of the National Anthem. No big deal, until the media turned her silent protest into a platform for patriots on both sides of the flag. Her inflamed critics say that during these troubled times it is unpatriotic and inappropriate for her to disagree with her country’s leaders in a divisive manner, particularly since she’s an athlete playing a team sport. (I didn’t realize that athletes were required to leave their brains at the gym door.) She responds by saying that it is her patriotic duty to speak out against injustice. I respond by saying that protection of the flag from free speech makes the symbol more important than what it represents—besides it’s not like she tried to burn the flag or anything. The goal of many colleges is to have students graduate with the ability to think critically; I think Manhattanville College has done a commendable job with Toni Smith, both in her education and in allowing her to continue to exercise her First Amendment rights even under pressure from flag-theologians. Okay so Toni’s case is more about free speech than separation of church and state, but we’re talking the First Amendment here, and similar to Ragu, the classic American spaghetti sauce, it’s in there. Anyway…back to the separation of church and state. All pledges and presidential-God bless America’s aside, the bottom line is on our bottom line. IN GOD WE TRUST has been printed on coins since 1864, when religious sentiments were running high due to the Civil War – not unlike religious sentiments of today, running high on both the part of the US and every country opposed to the US. This decision to honor GOD was prompted by a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, Salomon P. Chase, from Reverend M.R. Watkinson, a Minister of the Gospel from Rideyville, PA. The reverend appealed to Chase’s sense of conformity, oh uh, I mean morality, by beginning his letter with, “You are probably a Christian.” Rev. Watkinson didn’t want future generations looking back and perceiving this country as a heathen nation. His idea of honoring GOD on our coins was an attempt “to relieve us of the ignominy of heathenism.” Little did the Reverend know that we would end up being called heathens by many of the planet’s inhabitants anyway. Federally generated funds were re-designed in a conscious decision to pay homage to God, God’s currency. The imprinting of IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins and currency, however, has not served its initial purpose of relieving us of the ignominy of heathenism, yet we continue to honor God on our money. Does this perhaps mean that we believe that God is Money? Are we therefore, in essence, one nation under Money, indivisible? (Issues between the rich and the poor do not apply.) It is apparent that our nation’s motto is in need of revision. (Maybe the “Got Milk” genius is available.) “In God” is not what this country trusts. It trusts in might and power and ethnocentrism, and Money. Once the reality that God’s got nothing to do with our trust sinks in, we can ask how much it would cost to truly separate church and state. How much to change our currency to read in Money we trust, or in Might we trust? Maybe no one would even notice the change. Might could easily be misread and mistaken for All-Mighty. Back to the crux of this essay, we have missed the point and we’re debating the wrong issue. The point of separation of church and state is to ensure that no government agency is able to claim the souls of its constituents. The point is to avoid the agendas of a church as being the overriding determination in law-making. The point is to avoid the King forcing his beliefs on his people so they must convert or be killed (or start a new country). The point of separation of church and state is not to disallow people from praying in public spaces. The point is not to encourage people who work for public agencies to become a-religious. The point is not to discourage people from blessing each other or from thanking “God” for miracles large and small. The point is for individuals to be able to pursue their beliefs without persecution and without government mandates on how, where, if, or in which God they trust. In fact, the point is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Hello, First Amendment. Karen Walker 20 March 2003 |