I had a strangely psychic occurrence yesterday that was most remarkable. For no apparrent reason, I could hear, vaquely, as though from a distance, from inside my house, with no radio or television playing, what sounded to be a group of people singing the pledge of allegiance. I heard it, over and over again, as I was planning this Blog update, and I didn't think it was ever going to stop, until finally, almost imperceptibly, it did. Later on in the day, I made the discovery that yestersay was the anniversary of the Pledge of Allegiance (though whether this was the anniversary of it's writing or of it's adoption as our national anthem I am still unsure, though probably it's the latter).
It turned out that yesterday was also another milestone. The 13th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, apparrently, decided to declare the law that established the Pledge of Allegiance to be spoken in schools, to be unconstitutional. Of course, this will not be the end of it. But Michael Neudow, who initially brought the suit, must feel some degree finally of justification and satisfaction.
Frankly, I think Michael brought this suit as a means of advertising his legal services on a national basis. That, of course, is not to say that his suit is without merit. In fact, I think he might be on very firm legal ground here. His suit is based on the proposition that the Pledge as required to be recited in schools amounts to an establishment of religion, and therefore is explicitly against the establishment clause ofthe Constitution. And I think that, frankly, he is correct.
Now, some conservative lawmakers and pundits would disagree with this assessment, on the grounds that it doesn't establish a specific religion. But in fact, if you look at the intent with which the law was passed at the behest of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the implication becomes ever clearer that this was precisely the intent. Or at least it is the seeming surface result.
The objectionable words "under God" of course, was not originally in the pledge, which was in fact to begin with a socialist pledge, before adopted, with some minor revisions, as the national pledge. The words "under God" were added in 1954, or thereabouts, and when Eisenhower became President, he pushed for the Pledge law to be adopted, making the statement that, to paraphrase him, it warmed his heart to think of the countless school children who would have God's name on their lips as they recited the Pledge.
In other words, Eisenhower was trying to establish the public schools of America as a place of religous instruction and edification with patriotic packaging. It might have been a secondary reason on his part, but it was nevertheless an important one, and his intent in doing so was clear. Remember, at one point, prayers and Bible readings were pretty much comonplace and accepted practice in most American schools. The Pledge of Allegiance, in effect, is the one archaic remnant of this mind-set. Neudow is right, if only in the most cold and technical sense, to want to see it removed.
Unfortunately, it is almost certainly destined to become yet another hot potato in the game of political got'cha toard the coming election season, and I don't hold out much hope for support of the ruling among the political elite, including among most Democrats. And I suspect that when it eventualy makes it's way toward the Supreme Court, as it certainly will in time, it will probably be reversed.
In the meantime, one cannot help but wonder how, assumming there is such an entity as the Judaeo-Christian God, he truly would feel about the numberless school children of today mindlessly invoking his name, without any real thought put into just what the hell they are talking about.
