By Dexter MacBride, JD.
|
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” It is a weird experience, pledging to a flag, a republic, God, when currently “liberty and justice for all” is seemingly scorned by our elected representatives (our public servants) at all three branches of government. Ben Franklin understood: “God grant that not only the love of liberty, but a thorough knowledge of the Rights of Man, may persuade all the nations of the Earth...” And Abraham Lincoln cautioned: “It is not merely for today, but for all time to come that we should perpetuate for our children’s children this great and free government which we have enjoyed all our lives.” Few people know the Pledge was created for children; that it was first published in “Youth’s Companion,” a weekly Boston magazine, September 1892. The Pledge consisted of 31 words (1 dropped from the original; 8 added) and was officially recognized by the U.S. in 1942. In 1954, “under God” was added. Few people understand why the pledge is addressed to a republic...and not to a democracy. Further, very few understand the difference of the two. REPUBLIC: a state in which supreme power rests with the body of citizens entitled to vote and exercised by represen tatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. (L. republica res-matter; publica-public) DEMOCRACY: government by the people; supreme power vested in the people and exercised by their elected agents; A state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. (GR. demos-common people; kratia- rule, authority). Why introduce, and discuss, the relevance of a Pledge concerning allegiance to a flag and republic — and recognition that all is “under God”? Because a storm of protest is growing in the United States... a storm about “liberty and justice for all...under God”. Within the past few months we in Southern California have been blasted in the public press with blistering condemnation of the inequality of justice and denigration of democracy’s inherent respect for equality. First came a full page blast from nationally-recognized American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — protesting the current “state of the union”. Here are several issues: (1) Secret government spying “on American citizens without a warrant.” (2) Secret government searching “our homes and library records without telling us.” (3) Government kidnapping people “off the streets without charge”; “secretly fly them to other countries, torture them.... let them go after learning it was a mistake.” |
(4) Government holding people “in Guantanamo for four years without charging them with a crime.” (5) Government enacting “policies that allow torture, with officials hiding behind rank to pass the blame.” (6) In America, ”no one is above the law, not even the President”. On 4-14-06, LA Times columnist Steve Lopez delivered several trenchant criticisms at current U.S. government administrative activities: (1) A “government report on global warming was toned down by a White House ‘science advisor’ who then quit to go to work for Exxon Mobil” (2) “...the bloodbath in Iraq..” (3) “...the question of why our troops were sent to risk their lives in Iraq...a move that appears to have set off a civil war...when none of the terrorists were from there..” (4) “...the narrow minded bravado that suggested democracy could be delivered at gunpoint.” The foregoing comments address current government activities at the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. Surprisingly, the Judiciary must be included, because of its June 26, 2005 decision concerning power and use of Eminent Domain. Kelo vs City of New London-Conn., the Court in a 5-4 decision held it to be constitutionally sound for a government to seize land of private citizens in order to “spur economic development projects.” Further, the Court noted “Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government.” Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court eviscerated the Common. Law maxim “Every man’s house is his castle; even though the winds of heaven may blow through it, the King of England cannot enter it” .... Equally, the Court diminished our inheritance from Magna Carta (Chapter 39) and obliterated another maxim: “There is nothing more sacred, more inviolate, than the house of every citizen.” Is it reasonable, and fair, to ask: Does there exist a better way for government to represent all of us? Perhaps it’s time to act like adults, not “children”... and ask: what is meant by “one nation under God”? For a putative answer: consider the conclusion and advice of a leading British author and authority on the History of Religion: Karen Armstrong. She is convinced: “The only way we can end this hostility is to learn to think that other nations are as important as ourselves...it is the only way.” Armstrong suggests: “Great Faiths began with a theme...the Golden Rule.” It is an elegant concept advanced by sages and prophets from Socrates to Ezekiel”. She emphasizes the fact that “turbulent times accompanied the birth of Hinduism and Buddhism in India, Confucianism and Taoism in China, monotheism in the middle east and rationalism in Greece. All shared a core vision for building a better world.” “We are living in a world united now...whether we like it or not. Practice the Golden Rule...it is the only way...do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.” If you and I cannot accept this “religious Golden Rule”.... why “pledge allegiance” to a nation “under God”? |