At a bar last night my friend Bill and I overheard a secret conversation. A man at the next table told his friend that the “Under God” enforcement arm, sort of a SWAT team unit, of the “Pledge of Allegiance” police have become aware of Professor Sandy’s position on the Pledge of Allegiance. They are seriously considering whether to entrap him into failing to recite the pledge fully or if he will violate the strict pledge laws on his own.
Word has come down that the group of “mostly rich white men who rule this country,” are considering the appropriate punishment for Professor Sandy or others who neglect to utter the full official text of the Pledge of Allegiance. This crack police unit, made up of former UFC Champions, has apparently inflicted cruel punishments on the many thousands that it has picked up for violating this nation’s strict pledge laws.
And, going one step further, they have started using tools from the Spanish Inquisition to cure people who have substituted compliance with their own conscience ahead of compliance with the state.
The responsibility of the pledge and conscience police is an important one. It is carefully overseen by the group, of “mostly rich white men who rule this country,” under the leadership of a rich black President, a black chief law enforcement officer, numerous women, some very rich, including the Secretaries of State, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, and heads of the SBA, EPA, and a few Orientals, a few Hispanics, and, representing the rich white IQ deficient men, the Vice President and the Senate Majority Leader.
What? Bill just called to say that the story is totally false. Unbelievable!! Despite the guy’s claim that the information came from an unimpeachable source, from his sister who heard it from her boyfriend who heard it from one of his drinking buddies.
Bill says the truth is that there are no “Pledge of Allegiance” or conscience police, and he can find no records of anyone who has been prosecuted for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance, even if they omit the words, “Under God”.
Bill tells me that there has even been a group called “Occupy” which gathered in unruly mobs without permits, disrupted commerce, destroyed public and private property, defecated on and burned American flags, made anti-American statements, taunted police, intimidated and threatened private citizens, and left tons of trash in their wake. Not only were these people not prosecuted, but they were praised by many of our nation’s leaders, President Obama, Majority Leader Reid, former House Speaker Pelosi and other liberals.
Bill says that ingrates can enjoy all the advantages of living in this country, provided by the blood and sweat of others, without pledging allegiance to this country. That ingrates have the opportunity to earn a living, to travel, to live in peace as they want, to say what they want, to get food and shelter and healthcare if they cannot provide for themselves, to gather and advocate what they want, even for forms of government which, every time they have been tried, deny these same opportunities to their citizens, and some ingrates even accept payments from governments in the country to which they refuse to pledge allegiance.
Wow! What a great country!
_________________
The above was inspired by the following article, Pledge of Allegiance by Leo R. Sandy in the June 19, 2012 Laconia Daily Sun, http://issuu.com/dailysun/docs/lds6-19-12
Leo R. Sandy
The pledge of allegiance is currently
being challenged by people
who mainly see the phrase “under
God” as objectionable. They believe
that it is unconstitutional to force
children to utter those words because
it imposes religion on those who
do not believe in a deity. The actual
phrase, “under God” was added to the
pledge in 1954 by Congress responding
to a perceived threat by the “Godless”
U.S.S.R. It seems we wanted to
show the Russian communists that
God was on our side. This knee jerk
policy was similar to the one in the
60s when police began wearing American
fl ags on their uniforms to counter
anti-American sentiment during
the Vietnam War, at which times
some American fl ags were burned in
protest. The original pledge written
by Francis Bellamy in 1892 did not
contain the controversial phrase.
“The debate regarding the phrase
“under God” revolves around a
number of questions. Mainly, the
debate regards whether it is consistent
with the separation of
church and state. Does it give favor
to believers over non-believers?
Should we allow for leniency here?
Is the phrase consistent with the
use of religious wording by the
Founding Fathers in certain founding
documents such as the Declaration
of Independence? Is it
legitimate to consider our rights as
endowed by a creator, and include
this interpretation in everything
that follows in the U.S. Constitution
and things like the Pledge
of Allegiance? Is the pledge more
of a cultural or historic expression
than a religious expression or
prayer? Is it more about affi rming
the historic place of faith in American
history and in the lives of the
Founding Fathers? Is it an important
expression of patriotism, or
can such patriotism be suffi ciently
expressed without “under God”?
Does “under God” put inappropriate
pressure on citizens and children
in school to profess a belief in God?
Is it coercive? Would getting rid of
“under God” eliminate the controversy,
or would it worsen it? What
is the overall balance of pros and
cons? Should “under God” remain,
or should it be eliminated from the
American Pledge of Allegiance?”
(http://debatepedia.idebate.org/
en/index.php/Debate:_%22Under_
God%22_in_the_American_Pledge_
of_Allegiance).
While most of the focus has been
on the phrase, “under God”, there
may be a larger issue at hand, and
that it whether anyone should be
forced to pledge to any entity such
as a country. This may constitute
political coercion and indoctrination
based on the idea that patriotism
should not be imposed on anyone —
the type of patriotism that involves
oaths, symbols and songs. There
are many people who would argue
that such forms of patriotism are
basically jingoistic and that genuine
patriotism involves obeying
just laws, paying taxes, serving the
community, and engaging in actions
intended to better one’s country,
including dissent and nonviolence
applied to areas of social injustice.
When someone recites the pledge of
allegiance it means that one must be
loyal to the state and that no higher
authority than the state exists —
not the planet or the universe or
even God. Those people who live
outside of the borders of a state are
not to be considered and can even be
legitimately victimized. If the state
commits horrible actions against
humanity, allegiance commits
people to just follow orders. What
exactly is the state? Basically it is
the government. Thus, when people
pledge allegiance in the United
States, they are really pledging to
a small group of mostly rich, white
men who make the decisions about
the direction of the country, including
the waging of war. When people
join the military, it is said that they
are serving their country. It seems
that they are mostly serving a small
group of policy makers whose decisions
can be totally wrong and place
many people in uniform in harm’s
way. When people pledge to a small
geographical entity, they are also
giving up their consciences to the
group. Thoreau addressed this issue
well in Civil Disobedience:
“Can there not be a government
in which majorities do not virtually
decide right and wrong, but
conscience? — in which majorities
decide only those questions to which
the rule of expediency is applicable?
Must the citizen ever for a moment,
or in the least degree, resign his
conscience to the legislator? Why
has every man a conscience, then?
I think that we should be men fi rst,
and subjects afterward. It is not
desirable to cultivate a respect for
the law, so much as for the right.
The only obligation which I have
a right to assume is to do at any
time what I think right. It is truly
enough said that a corporation has
no conscience; but a corporation of
conscientious men is a corporation
with a conscience. Law never made
men a whit more just; and, by means
of their respect for it, even the welldisposed
are daily made the agents
of injustice. A common and natural
result of an undue respect for law is,
that you may see a fi le of soldiers,
colonel, captain, corporal, privates,
powder-monkeys, and all, marching
in admirable order over hill and
dale to the wars, against their wills,
ay, against their common sense and
consciences, which makes it very
steep marching indeed, and produces
a palpitation of the heart.
They have no doubt that it is a
damnable business in which they
are concerned; they are all peaceably
inclined. Now, what are they Men at all? or small movable forts
and magazines, at the service of some
unscrupulous man in power? Visit the
Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such
a man as an American government
can make, or such as it can make
a man with its black arts — a mere
shadow and reminiscence of humanity,
a man laid out alive and standing,
and already, as one may say, buried
under arms with funeral accompaniments,
though it may be” (http://thoreau.
eserver.org/civil1.html).
By contrast, “A very few, as heroes,
patriots, martyrs, reformers in the
great sense, and men, serve the state
with their consciences also, and so
necessarily resist it for the most part;
and they are commonly treated as
enemies by it.” (http://thoreau.eserver.
org/civil1.html).
There is also the opinion that because
we enjoy the benefits of living in the
USA, we should be willing to say the
pledge. I pay good rent to live in this
country and have contributed to it
through military service and being a
productive, law abiding citizen. If I have
received some of that investment back
that doesn’t mean that I need give up
my conscience to the state. What we
need is for more people to be proactive in
improving this country instead of mouthing
pledges in a rote manner. When I
taught grade school, I substituted the
pledge for readings of the Constitution
and Bill of Rights which some people
view as communist propaganda. This
promoted critical thinking and provided
students with a genuine understanding
of what this country stands for.
(Leo R. Sandy is professor of counselor
education at Plymouth State
University and a consulting school
psychologist.)
