Pledge or my country isn't freeeee, we build up our military...

[Guest guest]

Pledging Allegiance To Fundamentalism

David Corn, AlterNet

June 28, 2002

 

A Christian socialist who turned his back on religion. That's the guy whose

handiwork politicians of both parties and religious right leaders rushed to

defend this past week.

 

 

Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister in upstate New York who sermonized against

the materialism of the Gilded Age and who resigned from his church after

businessmen cut off funding because of his socialist activities and lectures,

wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892. Now his words, composed for a

magazine-sponsored school program celebrating the quadricentennial of Columbus

Day, are treated as a sacred writ. Holy irony!

 

 

When a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (based in where

else but San Francisco) ruled 2-1 that the pledge is unconstitutional and cannot

be recited in public schools because of the " under God " phrase, no microphone on

Capitol Hill was safe. Senators and House members scampered before television

cameras to denounce this decision. Senator Hillary Clinton said she was

" offended by the decision. " House majority leader Dick Armey called it " one of

the most asinine things I ever heard. " Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle

declared it " nuts. " He immediately orchestrated a 99-0 vote in the Senate

condemning the decision. A hundred or so House members, led by House Speaker

Denny Hastert and House majority whip Tom DeLay, put aside such pressing

business as raising the debt ceiling (so the United States does not default),

overseeing the war on terrorism, crafting the new department for homeland

security and developing legislation for a prescription drug benefit to hit the

steps of the Capitol and recite the pledge and sing " God Bless America. " From

the G8 summit in Canada, George W. Bush bashed the decision as " ridiculous. "

Politicians moved to gain political advantage. In Montana, the Republican Senate

nominee, Mike Taylor, attacked the Democratic incumbent, Max Baucus, for having

once voted against splitting the 9th Circuit Court into two districts. Senate

minority leader Trent Lott blamed Democrats for not acting quickly enough on

Bush's judicial appointments. And all this was before the gabbers of

cable-newsland could sink their teeth into the story.

 

 

Are the politicians and politicos capable of not overreacting to this type of

news? (After all, almost every legal expert agrees the decision is likely to be

overturned.) Of course not.

 

 

On CNN's " Connie Chung Tonight, " the eponymous host grilled Michael Newdow, the

California parent (or, as The Washington Post called him, " the Sacramento

atheists " ) who brought this case -- and argued it himself -- because he did not

want his daughter to be confronted in her second-grade class each day by a

ritual proclaiming there is a God. (The California education code requires

public schools to begin the day with an " appropriate patriotic exercise, " and

reciting the pledge qualifies as such.) Rather than delve into the meaty legal

issues of the case -- Is the pledge an endorsement of God? Is asking a child to

say the pledge actually a request the kid affirm monotheism? -- Chung inquired

of Newdow, " Are you proud to be American? " And, " Are you prepared ... [to be]

the most hated man in America? " Newdow argued that he was fighting for the

Constitution. To which Chung replied, " The whole Pledge of Allegiance has to do

with being patriotic and supporting America and supporting the flag. " Was she

not listening? Newdow's objection was to the " under God " portion of the pledge,

not the pledge itself. Chung also suggested Newdow's pursuit of this case " is

far more damaging to " his daughter than having her feel like " an outsider " when

the pledge is spoken in her classroom.

 

 

The response to the court's decision exposed the fundamentalism that weaves

through American public life, where many, a la Chung, confuse the worship of God

with patriotism. If only " Hardball " could book Francis Bellamy today. His

version of the pledge did not contain a reference to God. Those two words were

added in 1954, when Congress, reacting to a campaign by the Knights of Columbus,

inserted those two words and turned the pledge into a public prayer of sorts.

(The point was to contrast the godly United States of America with the godless

Soviet Union.) So the pledge had worked just fine for 62 years without bringing

the Big One into the picture. And according to a history of the pledge written

by John Baer, Bellamy's granddaughter has maintained that Bellamy, who died in

1931, would have resented the alteration. He had, she noted, been forced out of

his own church and in his later years, when he lived in Florida, stopped

attending services because he was put off by segregation in churches. (Back in

1892, Bellamy had considered adding " equality " to the " liberty and justice for

all " phrase, but he realized that would draw objections from people opposed to

equality for women and African-Americans.)

 

 

Despite the history, the American fundamentalists -- which includes

congressional Democrats -- seem to regard the reference to God as an essential

component of the pledge. On Greta van Susteren's Fox News Channel show, the

Reverend Jerry Falwell called the ruling " hostile to religion " and dubbed the

judges " dumb and dumber. " (By the way, one of the two judges was a Richard Nixon

appointee, the other was a Jimmy Carter appointee.) Falwell repeatedly mentioned

his Web site address and assailed " incompetent judges, many of whom seem to hate

America. " I waited for onetime Democratic strategist Susan Estrich, Falwell's

debating partner, to raise the subject of hating America with Falwell. He was

the fellow who two days after Sept. 11 appeared on Pat Robertson's television

show and claimed that abortion rights advocates, pagans, gay rights advocates,

the ACLU and the People for the American Way were to blame for the attack

because they created an American society that has angered God. (When asked in

early June by an interviewer if he believes " God sanctioned the mass murder of

Sept. 11 , " Falwell refused to answer the question.) But this issue was never

raised.

 

 

Before the pledge flap, Falwell was most recently in the news defending

unneighborly anti-Islam comments made by the Reverend Jerry Vines at the

Southern Baptist Pastors Conference. Vines stated that " Islam is not as good as

Christianity " and that Allah, the God of Muslims, " is not " Jehovah, the God of

Christians. I assume that in the Falwell-Vines view of the world, the " under

God " portion of the pledge refers to a specific God, their God. (Otherwise,

would they support substituting " under Allah " for " under God " in public schools

with children from Muslim families?) This then would mean that the compulsory

recitation of the pledge, per Falwell and Vines, is indeed the endorsement of a

particular religion.

 

 

The court addressed this more generally: " The statement that the United States

is a nation 'under God' is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a

religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. " And, the court noted, when

President Dwight Eisenhower signed the 1954 act that mixed God with flag, he

declared: " From this day forward, millions of our school children will daily

proclaim ... the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. " That

sure sounds like endorsing -- and enforcing -- a religious view.

 

 

It's no surprise that Falwell would use the occasion to preach fundamentalism

and hatred (at least, hatred of judges). Or that flag-waving pols would wrap

themselves in the pledge. Or that Bush, the son of a president who made the

pledge a key issue in his 1988 campaign against Michael Dukakis, would follow

suit. But after Bush had a night to ponder the court's decision -- you think he

read it? -- he took pledge-mania fundamentalism a giant step further. At the

summit, he opened a press conference with Russian president Vladmir Putin by

saying, " We need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived

from God and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench. " That is

a major -- and stunning -- policy declaration. Bush was announcing a new litmus

test for judges. It's not just whether you're a conservative or constructionist

(or meet the political needs of Karl Rove, Bush's uberstrategist). The question

is, do you believe in God and believe that secular law follows the law of God?

In other words, there are no atheists -- or agnostics -- in Bush's chambers.

 

 

Did Bush realize what he was saying? Is he going to ask all potential judicial

nominees to tell him their view of God and the derivation of rights? How is this

fundamentalism -- only believers need apply -- different from that of America's

enemies?

 

 

The 9th Circuit Court panel's decision surely will not stand. Few judges -- or

justices -- are going to challenge the nation's basic attitudes toward God and

patriotism, no matter their constitutional obligations. But praise these two

appeal judges -- Alfred Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt -- for rendering a gutsy

decision and for flushing American fundamentalism into the open. Francis Bellamy

would probably tip his hat to them -- and then cry over what his pledge has

become.

 

 

David Corn is Washington editor of The Nation.