image from: www.rationalrevolution.net
By Davi Barker
Published on SF Muslim Examiner, March 12, 2012
An appellate court has rejected arguments that the pledge of allegiance violates the wall of separation between church and state. Judge Carlos Bea noted that schools do not require students to recite the pledge. Tell that to the 10-year-old Arkansas boy who was yelled at by teachers and mocked by students for refusing to stand. Tell that to the 13-year-old Maryland girl who was escorted out of the classroom by armed police officers for refusing to stand. According to ACLU representatives she is now too traumatized to return to school. Or just tell it to me. When I was 10-years-old I was given detention for asking what the words actually meant and refusing to stand until I understood. People take issue with the pledge including the words, “under God” but I would argue that even without this phrase the pledge of allegiance is designed to inculcate the most nefarious form of idolatry, the worship of an omnipotent, omniscient omnibenevolent government.
- A brief history of the pledge
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by National Socialist, Francis Bellamy. He and his cousin, utopian novelist Edward Bellamy, were involved in the Nationalist movement which held that capitalism and individualism were dangerous to society and should be replaced by military socialism. The original ceremony was published in the September 1892 issue of The Youth’s Companion:
“At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the flag the military salute — right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it. Standing thus, all repeat together, slowly, ‘I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.’ At the words, ‘to my Flag,’ the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, toward the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side.”
Notice first that “under God” is not included in the original version, but more significantly notice that the hand was not placed over the heart. Students were made to give a “military salute,” but not the salute the army uses today. This became known as the “Bellamy salute” as the pledge became popular. Never heard of the Bellamy salute? Perhaps you know it by the modern name, the “Nazi salute.” The Nazi Party, also known as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, was influenced in part by the writings of Edward Bellamy, which were translated into German. It was only after Adolf Hitler and German National Socialism fell out of favor that the American ceremony was changed. But they got it from us. Just imagine, or if your daring go try it and see if this doesn’t change the feeling of the ceremony for you.
The pledge was amended slightly in 1920 in response to concern that immigrants might confuse “my flag” with the flag of their national origin. The American Legion proposed changing the phrase to “the Flag of the United States of America” in order “to foster and perpetuate a one hundred percent Americanism.” This creed of “one hundred percent Americanism” was espoused by many Nationalist organizations at the time, including the KKK. Nationalism is nothing more than an irrational chauvinism for the coincidences of one’s birth, no more valid than racism.
The pledge was amended the final time in 1954, during the McCarthy era, in response to “Godless Communism” when the now controversial, “under God” was added, but objection to the pledge actually predates this addition. Immediately after Congress officially recognized the pledge in 1942 many people, especially Jehovah’s Witnesses, considered the salute idolatry because students were made to pledge themselves to an inanimate object, an idol. Zealotry and mob violence against Jehovah’s Witnesses soon followed for their heresy until the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that “compulsory unification of opinion” violated the First Amendment. That’s a powerful precedent that we’ll be discussing in future articles, but it shows that freedom of religion truly means freedom conscience.
Today the pledge reads:
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
- Defining our terms
There is an old Chinese proverb which holds that the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their true name. For that reason my original question all those years ago is of utmost importance. “What do these words actually mean?” Let’s take a look.
Pledge (v) To offer or guarantee by a solemn promise; To give assurance as in by oath or binding commitment; To promise to join.
A pledge, in short, is a verbal contract. But this can’t possibly be a valid contract. A basic requirement of a valid contract is that the parties must have the legal capacity to enter the agreement. They cannot be a minor. A valid contract also requires free consent, which must not be obtained through duress, fraud or undue influence. In jurisprudence undue influence is when one person takes advantage of a position of power over another person, which is absolutely the case in the teacher/student relationship. There must be a meeting of the minds, which means an offer of consideration must be made and accepted by both parties. You can not merely order a person to recite words they don’t understand and call it a contract. The pledge of allegiance is not a valid contract by any criterion. It is what’s known in contract law as an “illusory promise” which is not enforcable because the terms of the agreement are unclear. What could possibly be Francis Bellamy’s purpose in making children affirm a verbal contract day after day without any understanding? The only reason I can fathom is conditioning the mind toward the National Socialist ideal.
Allegiance (n) The loyalty that citizens owe to their country, subjects owe to their sovereign or vassals owe to their lord.
Allegiance is derived from the word Liege meaning Lord or Sovereign. So, a “pledge of allegiance” is an oath of fealty where the people relinquish their innate sovereignty to a ruler. In this case to “the Republic”.
Republic (n) A political system which derives its power from a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them; A state in which the people, rather than a monarch, are sovereign.
A pledge of allegiance to a republic is a contradiction in terms. If the people are regarded as sovereign to whom specifically do they owe their loyalty? Is it those representatives whom they elect? It can’t be, because it is the representatives who owe loyalty to the people. They are the servants. It can only be an oath to the body of citizens themselves. Individuals subjugating themselves to the collective. This is the very essence of socialism
It makes no sense to argue that this loyalty is owed to the State prior to the contract. How would a free people incur such a debt? It must be that loyalty is pledged in exchange for something, presumably “liberty and justice for all.” But to demand that the individual be subservient to the collective is the very opposite of liberty, and to extract the sovereignty of a child by means of an invalid social contract is the very opposite of justice.
Most people when asked say that the phrase “liberty and justice for all” implies the rights and limitations outlined in the US Constitution which they expect the State to abide by. Even if you wanted to argue that the social contract was once a valid, the State voids that agreement when it acts without Constitutional authority. George Bush started a war without a formal declaration. Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the Japanese internment camps. Woodrow Wilson established the Federal Reserve. Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. John Adams made it a crime to criticize a government official. If it ever was a valid contract, it hasn’t been for a long time.
There is a new religion sweeping this country whose creed is National Socialism. I call it Statism. We have all been conditioned since childhood to believe that its god, the State itself, wields absolute supreme authority over our lives. Our taxes are its tithes, and our votes are its sacrament. There are people in this country that believe that if the clergy of the State religion just write the correct words that all of our problems will miraculously disappear. In its wrath the god of Statism can smite our enemies, and enforce our prejudices. In its mercy it can heal the sick, and feed the poor. In its power, these people believe, it can turn paper into gold, and even change the weather. This is magical thinking, and the highest form of idolatry.
1 pings