Daily Show Sorts Wheat from Chaff (again)

The Pledge of Allegiance

"Congress added 'under God' during the cold war when our enemies were Godless commies. These days our enemies are religious fanatics. Maybe Congress should change it to, 'under our more reasonable God." (The Daily Show's John Stewart)

It's funny cuz it's true. Stewart's lead for this fake news story was critical of the latest suit against a school district for making an atheist's son say the pledge with those words in it. It's not that Stewart didn't sympathize with the atheist, it's just that he, like most of us, knew that the suit would bring even more attention and support for those words than anything since... well, since the last time this guy brought his suit against his kid's school.

The Supreme Court dodged the bullet the first time around when it was discovered that the atheist dad didn't even have custody of the child and therefore couldn't legally bring suit on the child's behalf. But now he's got custody and now the California court has ruled. And now Stewart, once again, is dead on with his prediction. This suit is the rallying cry for zealots (only a derogatory word if you take as such) who will force their brand of faith on everyone.

The harsh reality of Stewart's joke is that what we're arguing about here is whether or not to allow schools to do what we ousted Saddam for doing - telling subjects how to worship. Granted, the generic words in question don't specify a particular faith, but they assume faith in general thereby coercing anyone without it into pretending or going along. It's clearly not as extreme as Saddam, but it is, undeniably, the same the concept. (note I said "same concept..." I am not comparing public schools who say the pledge to evil dictators)

What makes Stewart's joke and the public outcry in support of "those words" even funnier is our lack of knowledge regarding the pledge's evolution (see new link: Pledge FYI). As it turns out, the Christian, that's right, I said Christian, who wrote the pledge in 1892, never included those words. Stewart was dead on again when referring to the 1954 revision of the pledge to include those words. He should have mentioned congress's revision of the "offical stance" one assumed while reciting the pledge while he was at it as well. Turns out congress changed that in 1942 because it was "too reminiscent of the Nazi salute." We've really come a long way.

Let's face it, one great reason to say that pledge, and mean it, is the freedom to choose not only how, but whether or not to worship at all. I know... I know, I can hear the keyboards buzzing already. "But Luth, we were founded on Christian principles, our money has Christian symbols and says we trust God." Yeah, yeah I hear ya. But our money also has pagan symbols, we were founded on pagan principles too, and even atheists know that you can't trust humans. The REASON this country was founded was specifically to avoid having this fight. I have some doubts over the complete accuracy and validity of that reason too, and I suspect that speculative dreams about easy money and free land might have lured some folks to this country as well, but I guess we'll never really know.

The point is this: at work, you don't want your boss telling you how, or even if you should pray (or not pray). For school kids, school is their "work" and the prinicipal is their "boss." Only the principal is a lot scarier to most schoolkids than your boss is to you. If everyone is saying the pledge with those words in it and it's being played over the principal's PA system, then the kids ARE being coerced to say it.

No it's not necesarily harmful. No it's not necesarily too much to ask to just put up with it. Yes I believe that a public school in the U.S. should be allowed to require its students to pledge their allegiance to the nation that makes the whole situation possible. I even believe in God. But those words weren't part of the original pledge congress adopted. Those words have nothing to do with the root meaning of the pledge. And in this nation, created and populated by folks seeking refuge from a government who told them how to worship, those words are contrary to what that flag stands for. I personally don't care if we take those words out of the pledge, but unless we do, we shouldn't make people say it.

-----------------------

More praise for Stewart and his role in modern politics:

I know... I've heard him say it... "it's fake news." Stewart is the first one to say people should NOT take him seriously or even hint at the idea that The Daily Show is their source of news. (Note the vast difference between his take on his role as an ENTERTAINER and say, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly's stance. Some of those guys think they're pretty damned important. One does not, but I digress...)

Stewart's going to have to work a lot harder at discrediting himself if he doesn't want to influence the way people see the world, especially in light of the actual events that many would never hear of were it not for the rather skewed and entertaining treatment of those events on The Daily Show. The guy had Kurt Vonnegut on last night! He's had past presidents, liberals and conservatives, wackos and respected authorities on all range of topics. Unlike mainstream press, which has bent so far backward to shed the "liberal" label that they now must find their heads in conservative asses, Stewart treats all guests the same - alternating between making them, and then him, the butt of his jokes while at the same time engaging in actual, civil discussion regardless of the topic. He makes no bones about his own liberal leanings, but unlike his conservative counterparts who claim to be fair and balanced, he treats all of his guests with the respect a fellow human deserves. (in all but the most extreme cases-hacks get skewered regardless of party affiliation too) And just when you start taking him seriously, he cuts to one of his "field correspondents." If you don't get it by then, you're a lost cause.

If you haven't seen it, you're a lost soul.