Obeisance of the Masses
I was thinking about the pledge of allegiance. To me the whole "under God" phrase was a non-issue. Then I found out it was added by the adherents of McCarthyism. That in itself is disturbing, but it is also ironic. The House Committee on Un-American Activities went after a number of churches. Since then as we all are aware, the ultra-conservatives have found a willing ally in the fundamentalist churches in their mutual uneasiness with personal liberty and open government. I haven't researched it, but I suspect "under God" was inserted to appease the religious community, and obscure the fact they were actively targeting religious organizations such as the Methodist church.
Then I started thinking about it more, the concept got creepier and creepier. A daily mantra for children espousing unthinking obedience. The content and it's very name state this quite clearly. I remember being proud to be one of the very first in my first grade class to memorize it, and it has always seemed an innocuous bit of patriotism since. It certainly didn't stop the radicalization of the 60's. Did it make the gulf between followers and questioners deeper and more divisive? Removing the sentimental aspect, the feeling of tradition, and looking at it with a fresh perspective I am now troubled. Assuming we really do pride the independent spirit of America, there is no way to justify the content, name, and intent of the pledge of allegiance. It has an appropriate place in the military (I am a veteran.), but not as a daily mantra propagandizing government omnipotence to our nation's children.
I am of course assuming "flag" and "republic" represent our government, and not the entire country. The very argument about "under God" demonstrates this. To say "under God" is representative of the foundations of this country denies most non-western religions, not to mention many of our non-christian founding fathers, an equal place. This implies the pledge is just for the people who really matter, those who would hold and exercise power over others.
Then I started thinking about it more, the concept got creepier and creepier. A daily mantra for children espousing unthinking obedience. The content and it's very name state this quite clearly. I remember being proud to be one of the very first in my first grade class to memorize it, and it has always seemed an innocuous bit of patriotism since. It certainly didn't stop the radicalization of the 60's. Did it make the gulf between followers and questioners deeper and more divisive? Removing the sentimental aspect, the feeling of tradition, and looking at it with a fresh perspective I am now troubled. Assuming we really do pride the independent spirit of America, there is no way to justify the content, name, and intent of the pledge of allegiance. It has an appropriate place in the military (I am a veteran.), but not as a daily mantra propagandizing government omnipotence to our nation's children.
I am of course assuming "flag" and "republic" represent our government, and not the entire country. The very argument about "under God" demonstrates this. To say "under God" is representative of the foundations of this country denies most non-western religions, not to mention many of our non-christian founding fathers, an equal place. This implies the pledge is just for the people who really matter, those who would hold and exercise power over others.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home