Congressional timewasting

[unixronin]

So, once again, the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance is in the news, as Congress attempts to tell the Supreme Court that they are forbidden from hearing any case on the Pledge of Allegiance.  (I wish them good luck with it, as I suspect if they do manage to get the bill past the Senate as well and signed into law by the President, the very first time the issue comes up the Supreme Court will simply rule the bill unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress lacks the authority to limit the Supreme Court's Constitutional authority to judge the law.)

Anyway, it seems to me the whole issue is rather silly.  To forbid the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge is apparently offensive to many Christians.  To mandate the inclusion of the same words can justifiably be taken as offensive to Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, Shintoists, atheists, followers of Wakantanka, etc, etc, etc.  Either can be considered religious discrimination.  Strict Muslims probably cannot take the Pledge with "under God" included without violating the religious strictures of Islam, which require them to affirm that there is no god but Allah.  (Unfortunately, in the current climate, a lot of idiots will probably think that's a good and sufficient reason for having them there.)

Well, come ON, people!  What's the big problem here?  Simply declare those two words OPTIONAL.  Declare the Pledge equally valid with or without them, and forbid anyone (under the religious-freedom clause) from compelling anyone else to either include them or omit them.  This discriminates against nobody, and ought to keep everyone happy -- except, of course, for the control-freak thought-police types who think they have a divine mandate to tell everyone else how to live their lives, and it'll show them up publicly for what they are.

Discuss.

---

Update:  tquid correctly points out that followers of some religions are forbidden from taking any such oath at all.  While not an insignificant point, and one that I had missed, this has more to do with the issue of whether anyone should be able to refuse the Pledge for religious reasons (which I propose that the First Amendment says they should), than with the presence or absence of specific words therein.  If religious strictures forbid you from taking the pledge at all, its wording is somewhat moot.

Comments

An even MORE radical idea

[bbwoof.livejournal.com]

The last time I recited the Pledge of Allegiance was in grade school. I was not of legal age to take such an Oath, and as such, it was not binding upon me.

When I became a soldier (voluntarily, mind you!) I took an Oath, but it was not the Pledge of Allegiance. No one has ever asked me to affirm my citizenship by taking the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why don't we simply do away with the stupid thing altogether? It is an empty ritual, used in schools in lieu of real training in civics.

I'm not sure even what the Pledge means anymore. Does it ask it's reciter to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth? Certainly not. To a Republic, symbolized by that cloth? Probably, but the concept of "republic" has gotten pretty murky in the USA lately. To the ideal of an indivisible nation? Doubtful; that's a hangover from the American Civil War. To the ideal of "liberty and justice for all"? If so, then it's not pledging allegiance to the United States of America, where "justice" has become an economic concept, rather than an ideal.

IMNSHO, real allegiance is not owed to the Flag, nor even to the Republic, but rather to the Constitution of the United States, which forms our social contract. (Oaths of office in the USA, from President on down, are taken "to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.") I don't see the word "Constitution" anywhere in the Pledge, so what does it matter to me?

Re: An even MORE radical idea

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oaths of office in the USA, from President on down, are taken "to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Indeed. I've often wondered whether they take their oaths with their fingers crossed behind their backs, parrot the words of the oath as a meaningless ritual without having the slightest intention of actually following them, or are simply so ignorant of the Constitution that they're incapable of understanding when they're writing legislation that's in conflict with it.

You're right, the Pledge is for the most part purely symbolic. And in some regards, that itself is an even stronger argument for stopping the silly wrangling over the wording. If we're going to have a symbolic gesture with no real meaning, which we go ahead and force people to recite anyway, we could at least try not to step all over their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in the process, unless we're going to officially throw out the freedom-of-religion clause of the First Amendment.

I agree, though, the more sensible step is to just drop it altogether. I mean, what, some foreign spy is going to break down and confess because he can't bring himself to lie when asked to recite a Pledge that doesn't mean a damned thing to him? Give me a break. But .... baby steps, baby steps. Softly softly, catchee monkey.