Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear a case on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The case, decided by the 9th Circuit Court last summer, ruled that it is unconstitutional to require recitation of the Pledge in public school. The offending passage, the court ruled, is the phrase "under God," and cited the Establishment Clause of the Constitution as its authority.
I remember wondering what all the fuss was about but let the whole thing pass with little comment. Last week's Supreme Court decision prompted me to find out more so I did some research.
Most of us probably grew up reciting the Pledge and just assumed that it was a part of our patriotic tradition. In fact, the Pledge is only 111 years old and has been altered twice - most recently in 1954 because the Knights of Columbus felt that it sounded too much like a Communist oath and lobbied Congress to change it. That's when "under God" was inserted.
The Pledge was written in 1892 and introduced during a nationwide celebration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America as part of a National Education Association program. It was recited as part of that patriotic salute to America and its fledgling public school system.
As an aside, the event also saw about 26,000 American flags sold to public schools all over the land. This item generated the saw that the Pledge was written only to sell flags but the fact is, until then, American flags flew only over military bases.
At the time, the progressive Socialist movement was in full swing in America. If I can trust the historians, the Pledge was written by an avowed Christian Socialist, Francis Bellamy, who was ejected from the pulpit of the Baptist Church where he was employed for preaching Socialist rhetoric. One particular sermon, "Jesus was a Socialist," really earned the ire of the congregation.
Those early Socialists wanted the government to take over the whole economy and enforce equality of income, class and social standing. Their mission statement read like something straight out of a Communist Manifesto with ideals like "worker's paradise" and "industrial army" and "utopian society." (Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy - Francis' cousin - was published in 1888 and sold more copies than any book save for Uncle Tom's Cabin and Ben Hur. Apparently, American Socialism was quite popular.)
One important component of the movement is that Socialists believed that they could subvert society, incrementally, if it weren't for that pesky document called the United States Constitution.
Now, here's where it becomes interesting. Socialists believed that the state (or should I say: State?) reigned supreme. There was no way for them to realize their utopian ideals if the rights of individuals trumped those of the State and the U.S. Constitution was their biggest single roadblock.
In his comparison of American and English constitutions, Francis Bellamy is quoted as saying, "England's Constitution readily admits of constant though gradual modification. Our American Constitution does not readily admit of such change. England can thus move into Socialism almost imperceptibly. Our Constitution being largely individualistic must be changed to admit of Socialism, and each change necessitates a political crisis."
In addition to being difficult to modify, our Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence) consciously promoted certain principles. Under these documents, the rights of individuals come first and the state exists simply to protect those natural, pre-existing rights.
Collectivism, statism and socialism argue the opposite point: that the government comes first and any civil liberties are merely privileges bestowed at the whim of the all-powerful State.
Our Republic depends on the Constitution, not the other way around. If Americans are loyal to the Declaration and Constitution, the Republic is safe.
In other words, would you rather have our elected officials swear to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution (as they are required to do) or to "preserve, protect and defend" the government - whatever that vast, faceless organization might happen to be? The former is comforting. The later is, or should be, scary.
All this leads me to wonder how the Pledge became central to our patriotism ... and how the very people who stand for conservative family values, smaller government and individual responsibilities have such a knee-jerk response to any perceived slight against it.
I suspect that Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, et. al. spun in their graves when the Pledge entered our collective (no pun intended) patriotic consciousness and became commonplace.
Might it be more appropriate to teach our children respect for the Constitution? (Not if you are a Socialist and you are trying to indoctrinate children with Socialistic values and disdain for individual liberties.)
And, of course, a lot of people seem to prefer that we all march in unswerving, unquestioning lockstep with current ideology. It's just less contentious that way.
Does this mean that Francis Bellamy was un-American? Probably not; he just had a different vision for our country than the rest of us.
Nor am I trying to make the argument that the Pledge is somehow un-American or unconstitutional. This is just food for thought, context for the fracas surrounding this controversial Supreme Court case.
I'm interested in how things came to be the way they are.
I'll grant that the flag is a very important symbol and the Republic is due our respect but it's important to remember that everything this country stands for springs from the Constitution. Not the Republic. Not the flag. Not a particular political ideology. It's all about the Constitution.
We forget that at our peril.
This was published Oct. 30, 2004 in the Cameron Herald.
