IN THEORY:One nation, divided by pledge?

Orange Coast College student government representatives recently voted to stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings, partly because they object to the phrase “under God” in it. What do you think of the students taking issue with the Pledge of Allegiance on separation-of-church-and-state grounds?

In response to these college students, let’s take an analytical attitude to the Pledge of Allegiance. A week before Thanksgiving, following their logic, let’s eliminate it from the American calendar. Whom are we giving thanks to, if there is no God? Also, if we don’t pledge ourselves to our community and our country, we can’t be thankful for it.

Conclusion and fact, class: There is no God and no country without the Pledge of Allegiance. Also, in December, next month, all you bright college students who are so bright to be agnostics or atheists, you can have your own holiday decorations. Right in the middle of the Hanukkah menorah and the Christmas tree (which are both religious symbols) there always is a space between the two of them. So this year it is for you, atheists and agnostics, it has nothing there.

Since atheists believe in nothing, they have nothing to celebrate. So, too, if you believe in nothing, then one logically concludes life has no purpose. There is no morality, no ethics, no rules. A person who refuses to pledge to anything has no order in his life. And if one does, however, believe in a community such as America with no God, how did we get here? A creation demands a creator. Humanity demands a higher intelligence that created and put it here, quite logically.

Our American way of life, our nation, was founded by religious people. Patriotism and nationalism implore loyalty and an oath of allegiance. Since America has no divine right of king or queen, America becomes a nation under God. God is on our currency. College students don’t find it disrespectful, or do they have a problem spending money with the name of God on it?

You OCC students should be proud to take an oath of allegiance to America and not find it to be an obligation. As to a nation under God, if you leave it out, you have to replace it, and dear reader, I believe there is nothing that even comes close to making sense of any word that would correctly fit. Therefore, leave God in the Pledge of Allegiance, and say it with pride in being an American this holiday season.

RABBI MARC S. RUBENSTEIN

Temple Isaiah

Newport Beach

I put people into three categories: traditional, modern and post-modern. The traditional folks are set in their ways and unlikely to compromise what they know to be right or wrong. A traditional person would never eliminate “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, nor would he or she accept the removal of the pledge from civic meetings.

Modern people are those who come from traditional settings but are more willing to listen to another point of view, even though they didn’t agree with it or are uncomfortable about the way it makes them feel.

Post-modern folks have little or no traditional or modern sense of life and view the pledge as an attempt to force them into saying something they don’t believe. This polarization defines how political life has become and how separated we feel, even though we would fight for the right to say it or not say it.

Personally, it doesn’t bother me to say the pledge or “under God,” but I can see why it bothers the post-modern. It takes maturity to understand others without becoming polarized. It’s too easy to objectify each other and thereby dismiss another’s humanity in favor of making them “nonhuman,” or worse yet “a commie nonhuman.”

This is what you do to an enemy so you can justify taking them out of the picture. Just as it is a mistake to think of someone as un-American if he or she doesn’t like “under God” in the pledge, it would be equally wrong to think of someone as an extremist if he or she does like “under God” and the pledge.

All in all, I don’t think it matters on a spiritual plane, but it does seem to matter on the political-religious plain.

The final question in my mind is this: Does it matter to God? I don’t think God knows a traditionalist from a hole in the ground or a post-modernist from a post in the ground. The only question that matters is this: Can you accept, forgive and understand? As St. Francis is reported to have prayed, “Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace; where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon …”

SENIOR PASTOR JIM TURRELL

Center for Spiritual Discovery

Costa Mesa

The U.S. flag is the emblem of our nation to which every good patriot pledges allegiance. A nationalism, though, that is not tempered by humility can become arrogant. The affirmation “under God” offers a needed dose of humility that above the state there abides a higher power, unfathomable in its mystery.

Acknowledgment of such a vast expanse of existence that dwarfs the square miles of America, and of a God before whom any earthly ruler’s powers are puny, tempers the tendency to wrap ourselves in the flag and proclaim “my country, right or wrong.” The flag is an inspiring symbol of which I feel enormous pride. But patriotism can slide into chauvinism, asserting that our nation enjoys a monopoly on morality and an exclusive grasp of virtue. Referencing God may lift our worldview to a higher ground and broader perspective.

Of course, it may accomplish precisely the opposite. Juxtaposing the words “God” and “nation” might justify a “God is on our side” mentality that violates the commandments proscribing idolatry and taking the Lord’s name in vain. God’s Kingdom is not the United States. As great as our country is, God’s governance does not end at our borders, and he does not reflexively champion the cause of America in world councils. God does not endorse the Democratic or Republican platforms and is supremely on the “side” of truth, holiness, justice, compassion and righteousness. To link God with the flag can encourage jingoism.

My hope is that the mention of God fosters the qualities I associate with a country that aspires to decency and responsible leadership: a little less certitude and a bit more questioning; an acknowledgment that we do not have all the answers to the world’s ills and divisions; a tendency toward reflection and eschewing mechanical or rash reactions; a deeper consideration of consequences in order to forestall ill-conceived adventurism.

The opposite of humility is pride, not the legitimate pride of satisfaction in a job well done, but the poisonous pride of self-satisfaction and self-glorification that engenders hubris. It is the introduction of “under God” into the pledge that reminds us that imperious White House strategies and tactics (regardless of occupant), and vainglorious congressional schemes and agendas (under either party’s control) may not further the higher purpose for which we were created.

The king of Israel was commanded to keep a scroll of the Torah by his throne, a reminder that he was not to consider himself above the moral law and was answerable to the King of Kings. Elected officials in a democracy, of course, are not accountable to God but to the Constitution, the electorate and their constituencies for their decisions and positions.

Still, it is good to periodically be reminded, by mentioning God, of Emerson’s counsel: “When a whole nation is roaring Patriotism at the top of its voice, I am fain to explore the cleanness of its hands and purity of its heart.”

Who better than God to assist in that exploration?

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

Growing up where the Pledge of Allegiance was usually a daily ritual at elementary schools, it obviously seemed to be a natural part of everyday life for me and my fellow students. That pledge probably helped give most Americans some emotional support during two world wars and other bad times, such as the Depression. But the pledge I knew and that helped us get through those rough times was without the “under God” phrase.

Why in the world, after well over a century of general use, did the Eisenhower administration decide it was necessary to add that phrase? Apparently it was in an effort to distinguish us from the communist government of Russia, which was commonly derided as being godless, as though that were absolutely the worst thing that anyone could be, no matter how honorable he or she was.

The insertion of the “under God” phrase was divisive at that time, and continues to be divisive to this day. It certainly is not a necessary part of the pledge, and despite OCC’s Christine Zoldos’ twisted claims to the contrary, it is clearly the one thing that keeps the pledge from being a unifying statement at this time.

It was also during the Eisenhower administration that the recently formed CIA, under the pretext of keeping us safe from communism, first started undermining and overthrowing any foreign government that might just possibly be influenced by Russia or other communist or socialist countries, with no ethical limits set on just how our goals were to be accomplished.

Somehow one cannot help but question the pristine honor of our flag when finding out some of the dirty tricks done by our government to the democratically elected leaders of some other countries. My guess is that God — assuming that there is a God — would prefer not to have his name included in our pledge, just as he would have preferred to not have been mentioned by the Nazis in Germany during World War II as in “Gott Mit Uns” on their military belt buckles.

JERRY PARKS

Member

Humanist Assn.

of Orange County

It is a credit to Orange Coast College that this community of students, teachers and administrators can engage in such vigorous debate of controversial issues. OCC does an extraordinary job of helping a truly diverse group of students sort through options and prepare for the next step in their lives, whether it is completing a two-year associate’s degree, transferring to a university program, learning a trade or joining the workforce. It is not surprising at any college for students to have strong political and religious views, some of which will be radical. Sit-ins, anti-Vietnam War protests, rock concerts, university closings and the Kent State killings were an influential part of my college years at the University of Iowa.

It seems to me that the students’ objection to saying the Pledge of Allegiance is based more on their political views about government than the “under God” phrase. Regardless of the motivation of these particular students or their explanations for their decision, the objection to the use of the phrase “under God” has found support in the lower courts (though the U.S. Supreme Court later upheld its constitutionality). The circuit court held that use of “under God” was an unacceptable endorsement of religious belief and a violation of separation of church and state, especially when children are expected to recite it in public schools. Belief in God is shared by Christians, Jews and Muslims, but it is not necessarily shared by those who belong to other religious groups, or those who do not have religious affiliation. I agree with the lower courts that it is best to have a public pledge that does not include religious references.

These students were elected, so those who disagree with their decisions should follow whatever democratic procedures are available for removing them now or not reelecting them in the future. Martha Parham, an OCC spokeswoman, upheld freedom of speech and religion in her response: “It’s my understanding that a few of the students, based on their own personal beliefs, are choosing to do this, and the district is not going to dictate personal beliefs.”

In most situations, placing the Pledge of Allegiance on the agenda is optional, to be decided by the group. I believe that use of “under God” in a public forum will provoke litigation because it is an endorsement of some religions to the exclusion of others, which is a violation of separation of church and state.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

Hooray for Orange Coast College’s students being aware of separation-of-church-and-state grounds, for “democracy in action,” as OCC President Bob Dees has said. I wish we Americans were intimately acquainted with our essential national documents (the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and Bill of Rights are examples) almost as often as I wish we Christians incarnated Jesus’ Our Father, the creeds of the church, and wisdom in our prayers and historical documents.

I wonder if students know the background of our Pledge of Allegiance, even the little bit I included herein on Independence Day weekend 2004: “The Pledge can be traced back to an 1892 Boston-based youth magazine and has been re-worded several times. And that “under God’ was added by President Eisenhower in 1954 on Flag Day.”

All nations should recognize that they are “under God.” I do not want to imagine being a citizen of a nation that does not understand it lives “under God.” As Saint Michael & All Angels’ Thanksgiving Day, at 10 a.m., preacher, Rabbi Mark Miller said in that same Independence Day weekend in 2004’s In Theory column that “to remain humble in the face of temptation, to feel protected when threats are all around us, to rise to every challenge no matter how daunting, will never be dated or unnecessary.”

Like the thoughtful and articulate contributors to Readers Respond (to this issue) in last Wednesday’s Daily Pilot Forum, I hope OCC students understand. I trust they will find resources other than our Pledge of Allegiance to so remind them of what (who?) blesses America.

(THE VERY REV’D CANON)

PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar