Last weekend during the US Open, NBC aired the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God, indivisible" omitted. Because this is America, and we have nothing better to do than watch golf in the first place, this created an uproar, and the criticism lobbied at NBC (mostly through social media) caused them to issue an on air-apology and a statement from their Vice President of Sports and Olympics. It also once again opened the floodgates on the discussion on whether "under God" should be in the pledge to begin with.
Because first, a very brief history lesson: "under God" was NOT in the original Pledge of Allegiance. The original Pledge written by Francis Bellamy in 1892 was simply "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Then, in 1942, Congress officially recognized a modified version that read "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." This is pretty close to the verison we know today. Except that in 1954, after years of the Knights of Columbus including it themselves, congress passed and President Eisenhower signed a bill that added "under God" to the pledge.
But most of you know this. It is brought up every time the argument is breached. Which leads us to this most recent "offense." I use offense in quotation because it seems silly to become "distressed," as many claimed to be over the incident, over the exclusion of two words that weren't in it originally to begin with (this is overlooking the exclusion of "indivisible," granted, but that seems to have garnered far less attention and outrage).
But this outrage isn't what pisses me off. I expect that from the religiously fanatic, it's their job so to speak. They take this topic very seriously, and they don't pretend otherwise. No, what irks me are the ones who come out pretending it isn't. "Who cares if 'under God' is in the pledge? Why do you have to make a big deal about it? Stop making waves and accept it."
The problem with this line of thinking is that it betrays itself. If the implication is that the inclusion of the words is insignificant, then it should swing both ways. If atheists (or anyone who has a problem with the inclusion) should not make a big deal about it, then neither should the religious folk. You can't go to one side of a debate and tell them the issue isn't worth it unless you are willing to say the same to the opposing side. Yet, this reasoning is almost always directed at the secular side of the argument, and is usually delivered by someone who believes in some kind of god or creator. Somehow, it is logical to expect one side to admit that the issue on hand is frivolous while allowing the other to be in the right for standing by their ideals. If it truly is a frivolous debate, then both atheists and christians should drop it. Then christians should be just as expected to omit the phrase as atheists are to accept it.
But that isn't what these proponents mean. They want "under God" to be left in the pledge, but they don't want to come across as intolerant or fundamentalist or whatever other negative traits they associate with the really Religious Right. They want to come across as open minded, even though they aren't, not really, because they recognize that's the more socially acceptable mentality today. It's the more mainstream approach. But it's bullshit. They do care, otherwise they would address both sides of the debate. But they don't. At least the people who complained to NBC are upfront and honest about their views, even if I disagree with their stance.
Because it IS a big deal. The inclusion of the words "under God" implies that belief in a supernatural being is a requirement to being an American, which in turn implies that those of us who do not are somehow not real citizens. This is a terrible implication for country that prides itself on personal freedom to make. If the pledge is supposed to be able to be recited by everyone, then it needs to be as broad as possible so as to reflect as many people as you possibly can. "Under God" does the opposite, it helps to restrict which people can actually recite the Pledge. And for anyone who doesn't think it's a big deal for atheists to have to say "under God," I would ask them how they would feel about having to say "under Allah" or "under Zeus" whenever they were asked to recite it.
So yes, it is a big deal, and it is an important debate. There is a reason why each side gets as passionate as they do: words are powerful, as are the implications they carry. The people who fail to see what the big deal is about the pledge are the same ones, for instance, who can't grasp why the gay and lesbian community is not content with "civil unions," even if they have the same rights as those who are married. Because it isn't the same. If it was, we would use the same word for them. To use different words is to imply that they are in fact different entities, different unions between two people. It is the separate but equal mentality that was declared unconstitutional during the civil rights movement of the 60's. Words do matter, as does the way we use them.
So please do not pretend that it isn't. There is a reason that atheists and secularists have a problem with "under God" being in the pledge, just as there is a reason that religious people want to keep it in. To pretend otherwise is insane. Even if the words were judged to be unconstitutional and taken out, the debate would still rage on. The Religious Right would demand they be put back in, and the secularists would have to keep defending the separation of church and state. The debate would continue, as all debates over such important issues do. It is perfectly fine for an individual to not have an opinion of the matter, I'm not trying to say you have to take a side. But if being neutral really is your position, at least understand why the rest of us feel the to take a stand, and please do not try to belittle our passion.
No comments:
Post a Comment