Dear Mr. President,
As a child I had an annoying habit of refusing to do anything that could not be justified as useful or necessary. Teachers, parents and other adults were often exasperated by my need to question their requests and refusal to follow orders I didn't see the purpose of. Though I believed in God as a child, I refused to say the pledge of allegiance. For one thing, I found the odd addition of "under God" to be a reminder of the worst aspects of American history. Additionally, reciting a pledge I'd heard so many times the words had lost their meaning seemed like a poor substitute for actual love of my country. Like compulsory displays of faith, these forced demonstrations of patriotism always rung falsely to my young ears. I wondered, don't the actions we choose mean more than the things we are compelled to?
I'd forgotten about this entirely as an adult. At 24 I'm not often required to say the pledge. I suppose as a student of public school it was only the daily reminder that stoked my objections, because I quite honestly have thought very little at all about the pledge of allegiance since graduation, at least until today. Today I saw a news story out of Mississippi, where a lawyer was held in contempt for his refusal to recite the pledge of allegiance when ordered by a judge.
When I saw this story I remembered my own days sitting or standing silently while the other students in the class said the Pledge. One devote Mormon used to say the words "under God" with more emphasis than the rest of the pledge, looking around defiantly as though waiting to challenge any of us to contradict her. I suppose I have no real objection to the idea of America being "under God", though, obviously, this is unfairly exclusive of atheist Americans; at least, I think it is important for Americans to see ourselves as under something, anything, so that we don't imagine our dominion as a superpower to be absolute. "One nation, under a regard for the rights and dignity of every human" doesn't exactly have the same ring to it, but is maybe closer to what I mean. The whole process felt close to idolatry or religious devotion; a kool-aid drinking I just didn't see as having any practical purpose. If an adult had ever explained to me why we say the pledge in a way that had made sense, I probably would have done it. Now that I'm all grown up and worried about more important things, I suppose I've reached the conclusion that the pledge is ultimately symbolic. And symbolism may have it's place, I suppose, but not when it comes at the direct expense of the rights and freedoms that make our country worth my allegiance in the first place.
Anyway, I hope that the charges against the Mississippi lawyer are dropped. His right, and my own, to refuse to say the pledge is what makes me proud of this country. I think that means ever so much more than the words themselves, which are, after all, subject to change at the whims of American foreign policy. I may not give the pledge much thought, now that I'm not asked to say it every morning, but I often think about and am grateful for the freedom of speech given to me and exercised by this lawyer. A pledge cannot have meaning when it is coerced and this man's stand against it is far more patriotic than the judge's attempt to force him to say words that ultimately mean nothing without the right to refuse to say them.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label pledge of alledgiance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pledge of alledgiance. Show all posts
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Day 120- National Prayer day
Dear Mr. President,
National displays of faith, or national calls for prayer make me uncomfortable. I'm not a religious person and I generally feel excluded, somehow, as though these days of prayer are meant to distinguish "real" Americans with Judeo-Christian values from those of us who don't have an easy religious definition. But our country is overwhelmingly religious, and while symbolic displays of faith by our supposedly secular government might make me feel uncomfortable and alienated, it doesn't do any one any real harm. If I can ask religious voters to set aside their discomfort about abortion and gay marriage, I can put up with a National Day of Prayer.
While I don't think this is harmful, and I understand the political benefit of making religious Americans feel as though they have a voice in our government, I wonder at the kind of religious belief that requires support in national policy. I think of spirituality as an intensely personal expression; I do not need my government to reflect, encourage or express my religious beliefs. (I'd prefer that it didn't try to, because there is simply no way for a government like ours to express all the myriad complexities and contradictions of the faiths of its people.) But I've heard the outrage from many Christians at the perception of our government, and especially your administration, as being against religious expression, and I just don't understand it. If people want to pray today, they should do so. If they want some one to lead them in prayer, they should go to a religious leader. Why is that a role for our government? Isn't faith, by definition, an act of personal will?
I think that believing in God should not require any action on the part of any one else. I don't believe the phrase "under God" has any place in our pledge of allegiance, which is meant to be a devotion to our nation, founded on the freedom to be any religion, or none at all. National Prayer Day does not do me any great injury, but I wonder if it does any one any real good, either. I think that any one who prays does so without prompting from their elected officials. In your declaration today you called upon "the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings." I am thankful for our many freedoms and blessings, and even for the goodwill that religious belief generates in people from all faiths. Maybe we look for too many reasons to complain. I'm certainly guilty of this, especially in the face of my relatively blessed existence, but I hope that you know how many of us are thankful to be spared government-imposed religious expression, as well.
I know you are a religious man, Mr. President, and so I hope that you found today to be helpful, comforting or inspiring. So long as you continue to defend the separation of church and state, I will put aside my discomfort at these symbolic displays of a faith that does not belong to me.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
National displays of faith, or national calls for prayer make me uncomfortable. I'm not a religious person and I generally feel excluded, somehow, as though these days of prayer are meant to distinguish "real" Americans with Judeo-Christian values from those of us who don't have an easy religious definition. But our country is overwhelmingly religious, and while symbolic displays of faith by our supposedly secular government might make me feel uncomfortable and alienated, it doesn't do any one any real harm. If I can ask religious voters to set aside their discomfort about abortion and gay marriage, I can put up with a National Day of Prayer.
While I don't think this is harmful, and I understand the political benefit of making religious Americans feel as though they have a voice in our government, I wonder at the kind of religious belief that requires support in national policy. I think of spirituality as an intensely personal expression; I do not need my government to reflect, encourage or express my religious beliefs. (I'd prefer that it didn't try to, because there is simply no way for a government like ours to express all the myriad complexities and contradictions of the faiths of its people.) But I've heard the outrage from many Christians at the perception of our government, and especially your administration, as being against religious expression, and I just don't understand it. If people want to pray today, they should do so. If they want some one to lead them in prayer, they should go to a religious leader. Why is that a role for our government? Isn't faith, by definition, an act of personal will?
I think that believing in God should not require any action on the part of any one else. I don't believe the phrase "under God" has any place in our pledge of allegiance, which is meant to be a devotion to our nation, founded on the freedom to be any religion, or none at all. National Prayer Day does not do me any great injury, but I wonder if it does any one any real good, either. I think that any one who prays does so without prompting from their elected officials. In your declaration today you called upon "the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings." I am thankful for our many freedoms and blessings, and even for the goodwill that religious belief generates in people from all faiths. Maybe we look for too many reasons to complain. I'm certainly guilty of this, especially in the face of my relatively blessed existence, but I hope that you know how many of us are thankful to be spared government-imposed religious expression, as well.
I know you are a religious man, Mr. President, and so I hope that you found today to be helpful, comforting or inspiring. So long as you continue to defend the separation of church and state, I will put aside my discomfort at these symbolic displays of a faith that does not belong to me.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
