Why the Pledge of Allegiance Matters

September 24, 2014

Education or Indoctrination, either not both

It is the most known sentence among those in this country, my country, as the words are recited in every state beginning with a child's first days of public school.  From standing up, placing the the right hand over the heart to completion it takes about twenty seconds.  "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."  Twenty three words, with two of them, "under God" added in 1954.  Yet I see it as important, a benchmark of what our country is to us and the world.

I recently came across this article written shortly after 9-11-2001, "Classroom Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, It's Educational Value, Analysis, Review and Pproposal" by Laurie J. Bennett  It is an attempt to look at research of various educational outcomes based on the recitation of this pledge, without too much success.  What struck me is the very concept of the word  "educate" which should be most clearly understood in contrast to the word "indoctrinate."  In fact, in authoritarian countries those who deviate from the official line are sent for "re-education" as if political power can redefine such indoctrination. This also occurs now when an individual makes a sociological empirical based statement that is inconsistent with our current social mores dealing with race and sexuality. 

 Another interesting word is "patriotism" which is epitomized by a standard, a design on cloth that becomes a proxy for the nation, as the words of the Pledge "...to the flag, and the Republic for which it stands." Thus the flag becomes the country, the nation that one is pledging fealty to, even if the act of reciting the pledge is inimical to the nation's principles.

The question of the Pledge was debated in two seminal supreme court cases; the first known as "Gobitas" in 1940 that ruled that instilling patriotism is justification to require that children recite it, while the next one, that happens to still be in effect, took the opposite position, that such official indoctrination even for this lofty goal is antithetical to our founding charter, and furthermore, debases the most profound principles of this country.  I like to think that the last one, referred to as the "Barnette" case, was about education in its purest form --  the learning of facts, relationships, values, and principles --- and what we call critical thinking, untainted by any dogma, any central organizing order that is imposed on the individual that must, inherently and inevitably, weaken the capacity to understand, to be an educated citizen.

The final part of the decision of "West Virginia State Board of Eductaion v. Barnette" that elevated freedom of speech, really freedom of thought over patriotism began with, " The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure, but because the flag involved is our own."  Justice Robert Jackson hit the nail on the head. We can all understand how those who revere other flags, be it that of our mortal enemy of that day bearing the swastika , or the flag of the Islamic State that we are about to go to war against now, are rallying points for pure evil; but that is theirs and ours is different.  We choose not to accept the harsh reality that for them, their flag inspires the very same emotions, faith in their ideals and the willingness not only to die for them, but to slaughter all who refute the purity of their cause.

In defiance of the Barnette decision, pledging allegiance to the flag is still compelled in our country.  It is not by statute, but by something more powerful, the unleashing of hatred on those who defy the mandate for our patriotic ritual.  There is no law that requires one to stand and place their hand on their heart and at the least mouth the words, just as there was no law against a black youth smiling at a white girl in Mississippi in the 1940s, yet I defy anyone to claim that the most severe punishment was not sanctioned by society for such behavior.  The black youngster was compelled not to make eye contact by a de facto law that was defined by cultural norms abetted by statutes that were not identifiable as relating to this restriction.  

The de facto law of the United States, does require that every child engage in this ceremony, yet some are able to defy it without results anythng like my example of routine lynching within the memory of some of us.  While this essay discusses the controlling 1943 Barnette decision not being honored,  it is prompted by our country about to militarily engage the chaos of the Levant, the hotbed of internecine hatred between ancient sects.  We are returning with the same hubris that we had when we invaded an Iraq that our leadership had only the faintest understanding of, believing that all that stood in the way of an enlightened democracy was the elimination of a single dictator, Saddam Hussein.  This was, and remains,  a profound national ignorance that I propose the Pledge is both a symptom and a cause.    

A famous writer of the last century once wrote, "If ever fascism comes to America it will be carrying a bible and wrapped in an American flag."  The political system of fascism is mostly an epithet that includes an oppressive dictatorship, surely nothing like our two party system.  Yet, when it comes to the Pledge, the USA is autocratic, of a single mind, which entails irrational  hatred of the "enemy" reinforced by unconditional love of country.  On Barack Obama's campaign website of 2008 there was this proud claim, "Senator Obama introduced legislation that every publicly funded high school class shall be required to lead the Pledge of Allegiance every day."  I noticed it, and it stayed up for a while and then was removed.  Obama resisted some of the symbolism such as wearing a flag pin, but in the midst of the campaign, he gave up the effort, claiming that the one he started to wear was sent to him by a wounded veteran.  He was attacked for a photo claiming that he did not have his hand on his heart during the national anthem, and ever after, even during a town hall forum, when anyone claimed he would not recite the pledge, he denied it and offered to do it again just to please the questioner.

It was his second opponent Mitt Romney who went the furthest in personalizing the Pledge, this time focusing on "under God."  He said that every time he recited this it was a personal pledge to keep God in our county, on it's currency, in it's symbols.  It was a declaration of war against secularism, perhaps to deflect any questions about his non- Trinitarian version of Christianity that had been called a cult by our national minister, Billy Graham.  Now both parties were unified on religio-patriotism without the need for a single dictator, as in a two party system the people really have no other option.

Why is it that the United States of American in spite of its high spending on education is constantly below other countries on reasoning skills.  This is certainly a complex issue, yet one thing stands out, that language, that tool of conveying information of all kinds, is debased from the first day in school by the recitation of words that have no meaning to the child.  And once these words do take on meaning, the youngster learns that there are forces that do not allow understanding of what words mean, and that a pledge, something that has both a legal and ethical connotation of a vow of personal commitment does not mean this when those in power choose that it means something else. 

Was it only to be at that single moment in our national history, when faced by a true fascist regime that demanded absolute obedience to the power of the state, that we could see clearly what this pledge actually was.  Did it require being at war with the heirs to the original Bellamy salute that only the Nazi's retained in it's pure form, that allowed a majority of Supreme Court Justices to liberate our children from this oppressive mandate to follow orders.  Is it the fate of our civilization that religious fervor catalyzed by patriotism shall always lead to the most disastrous clashes of civilizations.

"The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure, but because the flag involved is our own." Yet those whom we destroy, the innocent civilians of Iraq during our "shock and awe" campaign, hardly existed to us since our President made the decision that they should not be enumerated; as if our ignorance of their dire fate affected their reality.   But they did count to their families, those who loved them and shared their beliefs.  If revenge is sweet, it is offered in abundance by our new enemy, represented by the black flag of the Islamic State.  Just as our citizens were spared the reality of thousands of maimed and killed innocents caused by our Iraq incursion,  we have no understanding of the roots of the hatred towards us of our latest "evil empire."  Ironically, we both strongly believe we are "under God" each in its own way enforcing this belief on its people.

We continue recitation of our Pledge of Allegiance as submission to the authority of our leadership, not unlike our compliance in 2003 when over 40 percent of Americans believed that the Iraqi leader had personally orchestrated the attacks of 9-11, this in spite of his being the mortal enemy of Al Qaeda the actual perpetrators of that attack.  Daily recitation of a mythical simplistic false national story must take its toll.  Americans have a diverse view of the God that we affirm in the Pledge, and those who perform the ceremony while silent on these words are moral cowards according to the leader of one of our political parties.  Another assertion is equally insupportable. How many of us can really believe that in our diverse society, with a heritage of an enslaved caste, along with very different legal defenses available to rich and poor, that we truly have justice for all.   Does the reciting it thousands of times during growing up have some effect on our understanding of the very concepts? 

The Barnette case included a powerful dissent, the same argument that prevailed only three years prior to mandate the recitation, and very well could prevail if the case were litigated this day.  I would consider such an outcome unfortunate, but that's not my focus.  The law stands as decided in 1943, that under our constitution there is no authority that may dictate what is orthodox and require the expression thereof.  My effort for the time I have left is to push this decision to the fore.  To assert that it is the law of the land that must be adhered to.  Let Barnette be overturned by the Supreme Court if that is our fate, but until that day, I personally will do what I can to have our courts either enforce that decision or ultimately reverse it.  

We are a unique country, established during a moment of The Enlightenment that depended on an educated free thinking polity.  It is impossible for me personally to ignore what we have become, which is why I will continue to raise what seems like a trivial issue to the public's attention.  America must transcend the enforced patriotism that stokes hatred against those with different flags, different holy books, different values. The soft de facto compulsion of indoctrination from infancy to senility of the Pledge does not define America, but negates its essence.  This was the message of a decision made by our Supreme court during a time when such enforced inculcation of patriotism was only avoided because our enemy provided such a clear example of the ultimate tragic ends of such imposition.

The message of that decision is never more important than now. 

Al Rodbell
Encinitas CA