|
I never really understood all the flak over the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Seems to me the focus is misplaced.
When I was about 14, MAD magazine published a pull-out poster with an American flag design. Instead of stars and stripes, it had these words in blue and red (emphasis added):
I will pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, when it is one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, including kikes, wops, spics, niggers, polacks, etc.
(Don't like those epithets? Neither do I. But MAD used them to emphasize a point; I do the same here.)
I took that poster out of the magazine and stapled it to my wall, where it remained until I moved out. Obviously, the words -- and their message -- have stayed with me. If we're going to get all twitterpated about a part of the Pledge, it should be "with liberty and justice for all." Those words aren't just disagreeable to some people or the topic a "separation of church and state" debate. They're an outright lie.
Oh, I suppose Francis Bellamy had good intentions when he wrote the original Pledge, including those words, in 1892. As a matter of fact, according to historian Dr. John W. Baer, "He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans." (Bellamy, a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association in 1892, wrote the original pledge as part of a program for a public school celebration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus' "discovery" of America.)
Even now, I don't think "equality" would have much chance of getting into the Pledge -- not when more than half of Americans, if you believe the polls, support a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
It seems like the Constitution, too, is to some people just a bunch of words etched in Jell-O -- at least, again, if you believe the polls... and a whole lot of internet posts, such as this one on the Supreme Court's ruling Monday on the rights of suspected terrorists in detainment:
All you wimps who think these guys should have their day in court, should have been the one's captured and beheaded, at least in that case it wouldn't have been a waste.
We're at war, you mindless rabble. When are you going to start realizing it. You're either for the US or against the US. If you don't like it here, get the flock out. But if you're going to stay, you ought to at least contribute in the support of the country instead of trying to tear it down.
It never occurs to them that their version of "supporting the country" in fact does tear it down.
Yes, I know about military tribunals and enemy combatants. The latter were defined in 1942 by the Supreme Court to allow Congress the right to try eight Nazi saboteurs. The eight were ultimately executed as they were considered "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war.
Now, maybe I'm just a freedom-lovin', tree-huggin', Birkie-wearin' lib-rul (actually, I hate Birkenstocks), but it seems to me that the 1942 ruling was made to give the U.S. a way to say, "If you send these bastards over here and we catch 'em, we're gonna kill 'em"... to the governments of sovereign nations opposing us in a declared war.
But The War On Terror (gotta love the acronym) is undeclared and considered by many to be illegal under international law. Further, al Qaida and the Taliban are not armies of a sovereign nation, so it could be argued that Middle East terrorists are not soldiers or agents, but renegade militants -- the same as Timothy McVey and Terry Nichols, who were afforded due process.
Don't misunderstand me; I'm not advocating that these guys should be allowed to call their wives and tell them to go down to Aladdin Bail Bonds. But the fact remains that they haven't even been charged, and if we indeed trust our intel, as W says we do, why haven't they? It's almost as if the Wregime is afraid to give them their day in court -- afraid that the evidence on which they're being detained wouldn't stand up, and they'd be cut loose to plan and perhaps execute more terrorism.
That's a reasonable fear, I suppose -- particularly when you're trying to get elected president. But if the government can define anyone they wish as an "enemy combatant" and hold them indefinitely without legal counsel or a date for a hearing or any recourse -- well, that scares me a lot more than the possibility of another attack. | 
