In the syndicated cartoon Zack Hill, the young boy Zach chose to take a stand regarding the recitation of the Pledge in his class room. A classmate, Winona, had taken exception to the phrase, "Under God", and decided to take her own stand. In the end, the teacher decided that a debate might be in order as a good learning point about how to settle such differences in a civilized manner.
There was a slight problem in the "rules", however. The teacher pointed out to Zack that "the school prohibits the use of the word 'God' during the debate." Even Winona's eyes are shown bulging at that bit of news.
I could not help but wonder: would it even be possible to have such a debate if the use of certain words were to be prohibited, especially a particular word around which the entire debate is centered? Of course the cartoon may very well have been doing nothing more than making light of a situation that has gotten completely out of hand. As a child growing up, it never occurred to me that saying a prayer before class and reciting the Pledge could possibly be offensive to some, and I do still question whether anyone is genuinely "offended". I do remember one kid who was always excused during Easter and Christmas parties (but not before he got his "stuff"!!) and was sent home. We all thought he was Jewish even though we didn't really know what Judaism meant. It turned out, however, that the boy was a Jehovah's Witness. Such celebrations are prohibited in the practice of their faith, as I understand, including even birthdays. Bummer.
I remember reading once where Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota, being quoted as saying that people who practice religion are generally weak and in need of a crutch. Then it occurred to me that if we are talking about "rights" in this nation, why can I not have my crutch and be left alone? Why must I be labeled or categorized as "weak", "insensitive", or "narrow-minded" just because my "crutch" is my Lord?
What Mr. Ventura and so many others like him fail to understand or appreciate is that our religious faith is precisely a crutch; the faithful should make no pretense about this. Without a little help, most of us would go over the edge. Mr. Ventura was a Navy SEAL. Tough guy and elite among the elite, but I guarantee he operated within a "team" environment. In military situations, it is absolutely essential to have faith in one's team members. A whole platoon of "crutches", if you will.
It crosses my mind, however, the irony of the Pledge itself. "One nation under God, indivisible ..." is an oxymoronic statement alone. Those of us who would prefer to sleep at night knowing that the US is under the watchful eye of the Lord are immediately divided from those who are "offended" by such statements.
Maybe it is time to retire the Pledge. While we're at it, let's take the flags down as well because there is no way I will pledge my allegiance to any piece of cloth. "I pledge allegiance TO THE FLAG ... AND to the republic for which it stands ..."
Does it not seem that a decision right then and there has become necessary? Are we loyal to a flag OR to the republic? Does it really matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment