PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
(continued
from the home page)
extension, its public institutions, such as schools, from imposing
majority beliefs on a minority who may differ with those views.
I'm not impressed that the majority of Americans believe in God;
a majority of Americans also apparently believe in Creationism as
opposed to evolution. The majority’s beliefs speak not to
the correctness of an issue, but in many cases to ignorance or willful
disbelief of evidence that conflicts with their faith, as a majority
belief in Creationism demonstrates. Would these defenders of the
Pledge also have us teach Creationism in the schools? Sadly, many
probably would.
The Pledge of Allegiance itself is a relatively recent American
ritual, originating in l892 as part of a nationwide public school
observance in honor of the 400th anniversary of Columbus’
rediscovery of America; the phrase “under God” was only
added in the l950s, when, under the influence of McCarthyism, Americans
were all too eager to show their patriotism by unthinking public
conformity. In the once famous, but now probably largely forgotten
cases of the Jehovah’s Wtnesses, who refused to recite the
Pledge, based on their religious beliefs, the Supreme Court ultimately
defended their right to abstain. In eloquent language, the Justices
wrote: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,
it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall
be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters
of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith
therein.” The Justices then went on to say, “Words uttered
under coercionn are proof of loyalty to nothing but self interest
[and] love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds...”
While it may be, as one writer stated, that the Pledge issue is
a small one within the category of separation of state and church
issues emerging today, it is important because it is clearly part
of a larger movement by the religious right, under the leadership
of the President, to insert their religious beliefs into public
institutions, particularly the schools, and to erode the wall of
separation between church and state guaranteed by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, many Democrats, in an effort to further their own
political ambitions are not only going along but are sometimes leading
the pack. An example is the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, initiated
by John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. While seemingly innocuous, like
the Pledge issue, and even benign, it has vast and pernicious applications,
particularly in the area of women's right to choose, as it opens
the floodgates for pharmacists, health workers, and other public
employees to refuse to do their jobs if it conflicts with their
religious beliefs. Under this law a pharmacist could refuse to fill
a prescription for contraceptives and a police officer could refuse
to protect an abortion clinic.
It is because a journey starts with one small step that those of
us concerned with upholding the Constitution feel so concerned about
the climate of coercion overtaking our country. It is dismal to
think that teachers have become part of the problem instead of part
of the solution.
Sincerely,
—Serena Nanda
—New York
EDITOR’S NOTE:
Serena Nanda is Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, John Jay
College of Criminal
Justice, City University of New York.
|
