Pledge of allegiance revisited

I find it interesting to look at Google's reports of this blog and of my website with many of my Reader Weekly articles.

One report is referring websites. That led to "Extremism continues on the Unfair campaign".

Another report is search words. One set today was "in defense of obama's patriotism a dissent on the pledge". Hm! What did I write that showed up in a Google search of that phrase? Doing my own search with that phrase, I found that one of my blog entries turned up fourth out of about 169,000 results!!! The entry is "Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance" from February 2008.

My only reference to the phrase is "Among the more interesting hits, you'll find "In Defense of Obama's Patriotism, A dissent on the pledge", Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Nov. 12, 2007 http://www.slate.com/id/2177838/fr/rss/". My tags didn't include that specific phrase but I guess I used enough other relevant tags to get a good position.

I did reread Rosenbaum's article, and I still agree with him. It makes me think that my renaming Republicans as Roboticans was very appropriate. Hm! I typed that new name as Roboticons; that might be appropriate too.

And since I'm running wild at the keyboard, I'll be an equal opportunity name changer. Given that so many Democrats also depend on big buck, corporate donors, shouldn't they be called Plutocrats?

By all means let us return to the intent of the Founders

But be careful what you ask for!

"The intent of the Founders" is one of the rallying cries of the Tea Parties and others who are unhappy with certain events in Washington.  One of their charges is that health care is not in the Constitution; therefore health care legislation is unconstitutional.  But the U.S. Flag and the Pledge of Allegiance are not mentioned in the Constitution, does that mean they are unconstitutional?

The Founders were against standing armies.  In his Farewell Address, George Washington said, "they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty…"  Yet some of those who want to follow the intent of the Founders, want an even larger military (without paying taxes for it).

One of the intent of the Founders was for Congress to establish post offices and post roads.  I wonder if the Founders would have called for the privatization of the Post Office.  This same section of the Constitution gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".  I wonder if gun-toting Tea Partiers realize that the Founders might consider them insurrectionists!!

One thing the Founders seem to have that few anywhere on the political map seem to have - humility.  Unlike partisans of all stripes who think they have all the answers, the Founders knew that they couldn't foresee how the country would develop.  Therefore, the Founders charged Congress with making specific laws and included in the Constitution the mechanisms for amending the Constitution.

Sources:
U.S. Constitution - http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/constitution.html
George Washington's Farewell Address - http://www.100megspop3.com/bark/Beware.html

Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance

Although I often dutifully recite the Pledge of Allegiance, I do so reluctantly and hypocritically. I do it more because of social conformity than any real attachment to the flag. To me, a pledge of allegiance, to a flag or a country, is un-American. We are a country founded on dissent; we should not have a legally or socially enforced act of conformity that serves no other purpose than to make some people feel good. Those who recite the pledge should remember that "liberty and justice for all" should include those who take the liberty of not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

As a measure of how emotional this can get, consider the campaign smearing Barack Obama for supposedly not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. Actually, it was during the singing of "The Star Spangled Banner"; I know hardly anybody that puts his or her hand over heart during the singing of the national anthem.

To me, "The Star Spangled Banner" and the Pledge of Allegiance are more worshiping an icon than respecting the idea of a democratic republic. It became even more a public worship when "under God" was added in 1954. I find this ironic in that the Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office. However, if a candidate doesn't dutifully recite the whole Pledge of Allegiance, including "under God", he or she is considered unpatriotic and unsuited for public office.

What makes matters worse is that some office holders wear their flag pins, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, call unpatriotic those who do not, and then trash the Constitution. There is no requirement of a flag or a pledge of allegiance to the flag or government. There is simply the requirement that all government officials down to the state level "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" (Article VI). The President is required more stringently to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" (Article II).

For more on the Pledge of Allegiance and dissent, search on "pledge of allegiance" and "Jehovah's witness". Among the more interesting hits, you'll find "In Defense of Obama's Patriotism, A dissent on the pledge", Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Nov. 12, 2007.