Maybe you’ve seen this, or even participated in it: the occasion is a public meeting of the local PTA, school board, town council, or what have you, and someone gets up and leads everyone in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Everyone, that is, except the local atheist/agnostic, who stands there quietly but visibly NOT reciting the pledge, in silent protest over the addition of the words “under God.” He or she might also object to the whole idea of a loyalty oath on general principles, but let me skip over that for the moment, because I want to zero in on the words “under God,” and suggest a way we can make a huge improvement.
The solution is simple: pledge allegiance, loudly and proudly, to one nation under gods, plural. After all, you’re not saying you believe in any of them. You’re not pledging allegiance to the gods, you’re pledging allegiance to a country, a republic, made up of people with all the flaws any large group of humans will have. You’re not saying they’re right, or that our country should be under the dominion of any gods, you’re just saying that you’re willing to band together with other citizens and to support the republic for the common good.
Thus, it doesn’t really compromise your principles to acknowledge the sad state of affairs which allow our country to be unduly influenced by superstitious beliefs. But think of the impact your pledge will have on those around you. It’s traditional to follow the word “God” with a brief pause before saying “indivisible,” and in that brief moment of silence, the plural “s” will ring out like a bell. No more standing in silence hoping to passively influence the culture by inaction alone! If 99 people pledge allegiance to “one nation under God,” and one person pledges “under gods,” all 100 will hear “one nation under gods.”
That’s the right pledge, because now the community is acknowledging that no one God is uniquely sovereign over our land. We are a nation of many gods, rightly or wrongly, and one of our chief First Amendment freedoms is that you can be both a citizen and a worshipper of Jehovah, or Allah, or Krishna, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We are, in fact and by design, one nation under many gods. But more than that, by pledging allegiance to one nation under gods, we’re reminding our community of the reason why it’s important to maintain a separation of church and state. Christians in particular believe that all other gods are false gods, and who wants to have the government forcing them to worship false gods?
Christian supremacists want to use the pledge to reinforce the idea that their God is sovereign over everyone else, believer or not. By pledging allegiance to one nation under gods, we use their own strategy against them, and keep the gods in their proper place.
PS — if you happen to have to opportunity to use the plural pledge in public, write to me and let me know how it goes, will you? High school graduation is coming up, so that would be the perfect time to take it for a public outing.
I’ve never really understood why you need a pledge of allegiance. Does anyone know, apart from the US which other countries have one?
I don’t know of any, and I’d certainly shed no tears to see it go. While it’s here, though, why not exploit it to teach people about the First Amendment? Far too many Americans think the First Amendment is supposed to give Christians the freedom to impose their religion on everyone else.
I agree with Richard Simons. How people can complain about only two words in the sick pledge is the real mystery. While it’s here, though, why not exploit it to teach people about the First Amendment by encouraging them to refuse to stand up or say a single word? Far too many Americans think the First Amendment is supposed to give other people the “freedom” to impose their robotic chanting on everyone else.
Well, then why not recite the First Amendment? Why all the malarky and ritual about the flag?
But that really is a side issue. Surely realize that 99% of the Pledges of Allegiances in this country are sworn to by little kids in public schools, where it seems to be true that the oath is only good for 24 hours. It’s rank indoctrination when applied like that.
School pledging also accounts for ALL of the state and federal Supreme Court cases and is far and away what atheists get up in arms about.
That’s a fair point, and school pledging deserves to be opposed. I’m just suggesting another means of opposing it. If we teach our kids this approach we can influence them and their classmates both.
As far as I know it’s not part of daily life in Canada or the UK. One does affirm, or swear (your choice), allegiance to the Crown, as part of a formula, on becoming a civil servant or joining the military but other than that….I’ve never heard of a pledge of allegiance being in use let alone in constant use. I think there may have been a pledge in schools back in the early cold war days in Canada, never in the UK.
When I was teaching in Texas, I had a foreign exchange student from Spain in my Latin II class for a while. She transferred from an afternoon class to my first period class because of a bad experience with a coach. He forced her (a foreign national) to say the American pledge of allegiance. I was as outraged as she was.
In my classroom, the students could choose to stand and say it or could remain sitting quietly, and they knew that I never criticized them. Also, several of them noticed that I pointedly left out the “under god” part when I recited it, and they started doing the same. As a military wife, I have no problem with reciting it as long as I leave out the “under god” part.
I was quietly subversive in my own classroom, and several of my students appreciated it.
“No, Constable, I am not a priest,” said Father Diddleswell, thinking about Father Neil, a priest.
No one should stand for the Pledge of Allegiance – it was the origin of the Nazi salute and Nazi behavior (see the work of the historian Dr. Rex Curry). When stories such as the one above come out, the old news media will never mention the Pledge’s putrid past, nor print a photo or video of the early American stiff-armed salute. If they did, then no one would stand for the pledge. The pledge continues to be the source of Nazi behavior wherein government schools (socialist schools) begin each day by teaching bullying and peer pressure and punish dissenters. The pledge is a daily repetition of the Milgram experiment and a demonstration of the banality of evil. It is sad to see that the news today has two stories: an adult selectwoman politician in Falmouth, MA who cowardly caved in to bullying regarding the pledge, and a 13-year-old student in a government school in Brownsville, PA who is not a coward and who defied the pledge despite ongoing persecution from cowardly adults. Francis Bellamy is sometimes referred to as America’s Leni Riefenstahl because of his earlier influence on spreading socialism (and the stiff-armed gesture) through government schools et cetera. Of course, Bellamy was very religious, a “Christian socialist” and his original pledge was a small part of a his much larger pledge program replete with hymns, prayers, references to the Bible and God, including the phrase “under God.” That is why the original pledge program cannot be performed in government schools, only the pledge’s tiny part (to which the deifiication was also added in 1954).
No matter how often the apologists for authoritarian capitalism insist on pretending otherwise, fascism was not socialism.
No matter how often the apologists for socialism insist on pretending otherwise, German socialists and Soviet socialists were socialists. Ditto for the worst killers of all time in the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): Stalin, Mao and Hitler. German socialists and Soviet socialists were allies in WWII in 1939 in a pact to divide up Europe, invading Poland together, spreading WWII. The swastika, although an ancient symbol, was altered and also used to represent crossed S-letters for “socialism” under German socialism.
Funny thing: those National “Socialists”, under Hitler, took out the socialists in Germany right after they took out the communists and also took out the trade unions – all long before starting in earnest on the jews. Nazi germany was a capitalist enterprise, one in which the party controlled the capitalists rather than the capitalists controlling the party,as in the USA. In fact some of Hitler’s policies were what americans would describe as socialist others what americans would describe as capitalistic and more that were merely dictatorial. Many capitalistic fortunes were made or improved under the third Reich. It should be a warning not to apply facile political labels which have no real meaning.
Funny thing: those Socialists, under Hitler, did what all socialists do (including Stalin and Mao) and took out anyone who opposed them. That is why they hold the worst world records for mass slaughter in the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): Stalin, Mao and Hitler. In addition, German socialists and Soviet socialists were allies in WWII in 1939 in a pact to divide up Europe, invading Poland together, spreading WWII. Before that Hitler supported the Bavarian Soviet Republic. The swastika, although an ancient symbol, was altered and also used to represent crossed S-letters for “socialism” under German socialism (and it had previously been used on the first paper money under Soviet socialism). Nazi germany was socialism no different from Stalin and Mao. In fact some of Hitler’s policies were what americans would describe as socialist. It should be a warning to you not to apply facile political labels which have no real meaning. No matter how often the apologists for socialism insist on pretending otherwise, German socialists and Soviet socialists were socialists.
Thank you for saying this. Some people are stuck in black-and-white land, and it’s important to remember that descriptive words generally provide only rough approximations of reality. Treating language like TR is here reminds me of the way people organize Bible studies out of series of prooftexts. Use one verse to define a word, then use that definition and the word in another verse to make an argument.
Tennessee Ray,
Repeating your lie about the Nazis does not make it true. In Germany itself they were allied with the right (the Nationalist Party, long-time right-wing political figures such as von Papen and Schleicher) and with sectors of big business, which provided much of Hitler’s funding; at a key moment in early 1933, when the Nazi Party was in dire financial straits and facing a crucial election, businesses including IG Farben, Deutsche Bank, the association of the mining industry and 14 other business groups provided millions of Reichsmarks to the Nazis and their Nationalist allies. Abroad, it was overwhelmingly the right who voiced approval of Nazi policies and the left who opposed them. Once in power, the Nazis suppressed the trades unions, and many thousands of trades unionists, socialists and communists were killed or sent to concentration camps, while leaders of big business such as Alfred Krupp, Fritz Thyssen, and Albert and Eugen Voegler worked in close collaboration with Hitler. In Spain they supported the army and the Catholic church in their rising against the elected left-wing government. The alliance with Stalin was purely opportunistic – as proved by the invasion of 1941.
Communist and fascist movements are socialist only so long as it attracts followers and helps elevate them to power. Once in control the only social programs to remain are those that facilitated repression and oppression. True socialism is only possible in a free society.
Can you believe those boobs above who are deniers of the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): Stalin, Mao, Hitler and the millions they slaughtered? And they want to pretend that German socialists did not work with Soviet socialists to invade Poland in a pact to divide up Europe, spreading WWII? They are proof that government schools (socialist schools) must end. They can’t stand the truth. Funny thing: those Socialists, under Hitler, did what all socialists do (including Stalin and Mao) and took out anyone who opposed them, including other socialists. When socialists aren’t killing non-socialists they are killing socialist. They will even do both at the same time. That is why they hold the worst world records for mass slaughter in the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): Stalin, Mao and Hitler. In addition, German socialists and Soviet socialists were allies in WWII in 1939 in a pact to divide up Europe, invading Poland together, spreading WWII. Before that Hitler supported the Bavarian Soviet Republic. The swastika, although an ancient symbol, was altered and also used to represent crossed S-letters for “socialism” under German socialism (and it had previously been used on the first paper money under Soviet socialism). Nazi germany was socialism no different from Stalin and Mao. In fact some of Hitler’s policies were what americans would describe as socialist. It should be a warning to you not to apply facile political labels which have no real meaning. No matter how often the apologists for socialism insist on pretending otherwise, German socialists and Soviet socialists were socialists.
^ Where do these people come from?
Dunno. But I wish they’d go back.
The amusing thing is, he keeps saying “the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part)”, sometimes twice in the same comment. He seems to be unaware that the ‘holo’ in ‘holocaust’ already means ‘whole’.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/holo-
As an appointed County (in California) Planning Commissioner (there were five of us) , we recited the Pledge before every meeting, and I said it as I had learned it, i.e. “indivisible” instead of `under God’, (which as you know was added only in the ’50s) and then said nothing as others said “indivisible”. No one paid any attention, apparently, as nothing was ever said to me – I served for four years – so perhaps no one even noticed, or cared…???.
Having the government reword the pledge to endorse polytheism instead of monotheism would not address the issue of the government endorsement of theism in violation of the first amendment.
Having nontheists reword their recital to state an endorsement of polytheism instead of monotheism would not address the issue any better. If anything, nontheists would be seen as quirky polytheists who confer an air of legitimacy to the government endorsement of theism, which could promote complacency among monotheists. Indeed, it could set the stage for an alliance between monotheists and actual polytheists to work together to undermine the first amendment.
The point of the exercise is not to create support for a polytheistic pledge. The point is to raise people’s consciousness regarding the government establishment of religion that’s already present in the pledge we already have. There’s a huge amount of inertia against changing the pledge back, and that’s because most people see nothing wrong with it. Make it a reference to plural gods, however, and a lot more people will become aware of the problem. That’s very much worth doing, because it presents an opportunity to explain the advantages of secularism, if nothing else.
I agree with Jesse M. You are playing with people’s lives and you do not know what you will do. How people can complain about only two words in the sick pledge is the real mystery. While it’s here, though, why not exploit it to teach people about the First Amendment by encouraging them to refuse to stand up or say a single word? Far too many Americans think the First Amendment is supposed to give other people the “freedom” to impose their robotic chanting on everyone else. There’s a huge amount of inertia against ending the pledge, and that’s because most people see nothing wrong with it in general (e.g. you). Encourage people to sit it out, however, and a lot more people will become aware of the entire problem. That’s very much worth doing, because it presents an opportunity to explain the advantages of true liberty as well as whatever other tiny parts of it offend different people.
The problem is that by sitting out the pledge, you’re not taking a stand for freedom of speech, you’re just playing into their stereotypes of atheists as outsiders and non-participants, while passively allowing them the role of mainstream citizens. Thus, you’re perpetuating the marginalization of unbelievers. By reciting an outwardly polytheistic pledge, on the other hand, you’re disrupting the stereotype. Suddenly the ritual that is intended to unite the Christian nationalists and to marginalize the non-Christians, becomes a ritual that openly flouts its intended Christian purpose. Passive self-marginalization isn’t going to be as effective as directly and openly subverting the ritual.
The problem is that by dropping two words in the pledge you are not taking a stand because no one will notice, because you are too scared to sit it out and make sure they notice. It is funny how the people who drop the two words think it is a big deal and the reality is no one notices. Sitting out the pledge is the only way you are taking a stand for freedom of speech. When you stand and go through almost the entire ritual, you’re just playing into their scheme. You are too afraid of being an outsider, afraid to do what is right, and you openly declare that you perceive them as the role of mainstream citizens and that scares you out of doing the right thing. Thus, you’re perpetuating the marginalization of everyone, including unbelievers. By reciting an outwardly polytheistic pledge you make it even less likely anyone will notice you, because you really do want to hide and you want to tell yourself you are being brave when you are not. Your passive self-marginalization isn’t going to be effective as directly and openly subverting the ritual by defying it. Stop being afraid to do the right thing. Stop evading the fact that you actually enjoy the robotic chanting, submitting to the daily command, making small children endure the brainwashing for 12 years. Go ahead and address that issue: that you are an authoritarian socialist similar to the person who wrote the pledge of allegiance.
At this point it’s clear you’re not disagreeing in order to further the discussion, but merely to be disagreeable. Thanks for sharing your opinion; it’s certainly welcome here—once. You’ve made the only point it seems you’re prepared to make, so as a courtesy to my other readers, I’m putting you on the moderation list. You are welcome to submit further comments, and the ones that make interesting, substantive, and reasonable points will be considered for publication.
Thank you.
Don’t dismiss TR too hastily. His point is well taken. If you stand during the Pledge to all appearance you are seen as giving consent, next to no one is going to notice if you change the words, or even if you remain completely silent.
Standing has been defined by the courts as speech for a reason. And the sitting for the Pledge has therefore been upheld as an important first amendment right.
You see, in public schools, the argument is that every kid should stand “out of respect to the flag.” The problem with that is, as far as any observer is concerned, there’s no way to tell that you’re not standing out of respect for the Pledge and every word in it.
That’s a fair point too, but remember they’re not mutually exclusive alternatives. You can just as easily say “under gods” sitting down as standing up.
I’m pretty sure the pledge originated after the Civil War – when the whole concept of an indivisible nation had been very much up for grabs.
As for me, I don’t like getting beat up, so I just don’t recite the words “under god”, hewing to the original text.
Which, of course, is meaningless anyway even with two words redacted. What traitor would not proudly and loudly pledge allegiance while working behind the scenes for the demise of the country? Just because they can make you speak it, that doesn’t mean that you believe it.
Which, of course, is pretty much the way I approached the Nicene Creed every Sunday until I was 18 and could stop going to church.
It strikes me that the ‘s’ might not be as noticeable as you think. Perhaps the alternative would be an audible hiss over the words (i.e. “One nation sssssssss indivisible”). If it became common knowledge that there would almost certainly be an undignified hissing whenever the god part was mentioned, then that might be a more effective consciousness raiser.
Or simply pick a rival god that takes longer to say, for example, “One nation under Huitzilopochtli, indivisible”.