The Pledge of Allegiance Revisited

[Just Wondering]

When I got back from vacation, I saw this article about 3 students suspended for refusing to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in their classroom. The students are 8th graders in Minnesota. This case presents us with a prime example of what "freedom" is NOT. Last week, I posted a piece about the importance of dissent and how a democracy's health is measured by whether dissent is "fostered, welcomed and heard."

These three students got a tough - but apt - lesson about this democracy's health when they were suspended for not following orders to make a pledge, by rote, to a flag. I voluntarily took an oath to uphold the Constitution, a document that contains something called the First Amendment (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.), which, frankly, stands at odds with a public school forcing students to utter an oath to a flag.

Hell's Bells. Uncle Earl (a.k.a. Karl Rove) and big oil execs don't think much of oaths either, especially oaths requiring that they promise to tell the truth to Congress. Why should school children be forced to make an oath of "allegiance?" Oh, I understand the temptation - 8th graders are easier to push around than the president's personal friends, and school principals do, therefore, wield more power than Congress these days.

This story about these students reminded of the post I did last year in response to the story about an Arizona town councilman refusing to stand and say the Pledge at the beginning of business at council meetings. At the time, I wrote:

I continue to be astounded that more people seem to be passionate about the Pledge of Allegiance than they are about the United States Constitution. The latter was meant to be a beacon of constancy and resolve, no matter how "terrifying" the circumstances of any given time. The former is intended to ... what? Apparently, these days, to promote blind loyalty, not to a living document or the rule of law or democracy, but indirectly to those people who have succeeded in co-opting "patriotism" for themselves, who have wrapped themselves in the flag merely to justify their personal agendas. Of course, this is merely my opinion, but the stories cited and linked to in this blog over the course of the last 16 months surely go a long way to support that opinion. An opinion, by the way, it gives me no pleasure to hold.

In that post, I also proposed a new pledge. Here it is again, updated slightly:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [but not to the symbol which this Administration has exploited for its own purposes, not the lapel pin, not the gigantic canvas that the people who are responsible for the war in Iraq are hiding behind] and to the Republic for which it stands [but not the war profiteers, and not the special interests that "govern" behind the scenes], one nation [the one nation that is no longer interested in partisan politics, but still believes in the hope of America] under God, indivisible [if we can make it through this primary without killing each other] with liberty [can you say FISA court, "due process," and a working D.O.J.?] and justice for all [including and especially anyone AND EVERYONE who acted criminally to start this dreadful war].