An oh-so-rare post about politics
Posted on October 14, 2003 @ 7:12 pm
I just landed a story on Slashdot linking to the news that the Supreme Court decided earlier today to hear a case next year on the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Interestingly enough, I spent the better part of a class period a few weeks back discussing this very topic with my students. Most of them seemed to staunchly oppose any changes to the pledge, arguing that people should be “less sensitive” about these types of things. Then again, many–if not most–of my students went to school here in Georgia and began every day of their primary and secondary educations with the pledge. They were also surprised to hear that “under God” was only added to the pledge by Congress in 1954 and was not part of the original text.
In other news, I just found out from my department a little while ago that I passed my comparative politics comprehensive exam with distinction (w00t). Now, I just have to survive the trial by fire known as “oral comps.”
current music: OutKast, “Hey Ya”
Posted by Jess | Filed Under In the News |
4 comments so far...
Leave a Comment
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
Hey Jess–I had heard about the 1954 addition on NPR today; it was a surprise to me, too. I was wondering: what would cause Congress (who had arguably better things to do with their time) to amend the pledge at that time? What was the political climate? (Apologies if this is like asking a doctor for free health advice).
By the way, congrats on your exam.
Ugh. That’s Posted by: Ken, by the way.
*rolls eyes*
I’m switching to decaf…
Thanks for the post(s), Ken!
I’m far from an expert on the history of the pledge, but I do know that it was a campaign by a Catholic fraternal benefits organization called the Knights of Columbus that eventually led Congress to add the phrase “under God” in 1954. Their primary motive, not surprisingly, was of a religion nature, but Congress also saw some political utility in making the changes.
In terms of the political climate at the time, it’s worth noting that the movement took place during the Korean War–with the Cold War already well underway and McCarthyism in full swing at home. Although it certainly wasn’t the only reason that “under God” was added to the pledge, many historians note that a desire to draw a fudamental moral distinction between the United States and the “godless” Soviet Union played a central role in the decision.
Also, it was the 1950s–a relatively conservative era in American history. President Eisenhower certainly didn’t shy away from framing the decision in strictly religious terms, stating when he signed the bill into law that “[f]rom this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.”
Of course, the details of the history change slightly depending on whether they’re told by someone who supports keeping “under God” in the pledge or someone in favor of their removal. But, I think that I hit most of the highlights above. Thanks again for the post!
maybe it should just be ammended so that its “one nation under *insert deity here*”. then, at least for a time, people can pledge their devotion to whatever particular religion they sway towards. and we can pretend, for a little while, that we’re a truly free country.
the other benefit of this is that perhaps hearing a miriad of voices proclaiming their devotion to allah or bhudda or satan or Bob Dobbs will give the fundamentalist christian right a taste of their own medicine and light a fire under their ass to remove that ridiculous line once and for all.