Marissa Barnwell didn’t show enough respect for the oath of allegiance. And for that she was punished.
She quietly walked down the hallway of River Bluff High School in Lexington, SC, where she is in ninth grade. The daily giving of the promise over the intercom began, but Barnwell continued.
A teacher called her several times, she says, but when she didn’t stop reciting the vow — or at least confirmed it by standing up — the teacher grabbed her, pushed her against the wall, and finally sent her to the director. The rector asked her, “Don’t you love your country?”
Barnwell says she chose not to swear allegiance to the flag because she doesn’t believe “freedom and justice” would be applied fairly or justly in the United States.
And that is their right, thanks to the US Constitution. It is indeed shocking that more than 70 years after the Supreme Court ruled unequivocally on this issue, there are still teachers who do not understand this simple reality.
I would go even further and add that it is mysterious that the United States, which claims to uphold freedom of thought, speech and expression, is nevertheless urging its students – including children young enough to understand the meaning of not yet fully understand words like “loyalty”. understood. can’t understand. and “indivisible” – to make a daily pledge of allegiance.
Earlier this month, Barnwell, who says he was inspired by former NFL player Colin Kaepernick, filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the school district and certain of its employees violated their First Amendment rights to free speech.
Unfortunately, Barnwell’s experience is far from unique. It’s just the latest chapter in the long, controversial history of the Pledge of Allegiance, a 31-word exercise in performative patriotism that often seems to cause more trouble than it’s worth.
The pledge has long been attributed to Francis Bellamy, a socialist minister who claims to have written it in 1892 as part of a magazine ad, believe it or not. As it spread through the country’s school systems, the pledge was usually accompanied by the so-called “Bellamy salute”, but it was eventually changed as it was too similar to the heavily armed fascist salute favored by the Nazis.
Amazingly, it wasn’t until 1943 – more than 50 years after it was written – that the courts finally realized that maybe we shouldn’t be getting married require of students in a country where the constitution states that the government “shall not make any law … restricting freedom of expression”. That year, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that Americans cannot be forced to salute the flag or swear allegiance in public schools.
“If there is a solid star in our constitutional constellation,” wrote Judge Robert H. Jackson, “it is that no official, high or low, should dictate what should be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or any other opinion. . or the citizens compel them to profess their confidence in words or deeds.”
Today, 47 states still require the pledge in public schools (although individual students can challenge it, thanks to the Barnette ruling). California law requires daily “patriotic drills” in public schools and states that the pledge is one way to meet that requirement.
When I heard about the Barnwell case last week, I was already thinking about the promise. That’s because I recently read the obituary of Alfred T. Goodwin, a federal appeals court judge who passed away at the age of 99 in late December.
Goodwin got embroiled in another controversial aspect of the pledge: the ludicrous addition of the Eisenhower-era words “under God.” They were added in 1954, at the height of the Cold War, for one reason: to distinguish the US from the evil communists in the Soviet Union.
However, in 2000, an atheist named Michael Newdow sued his daughter’s school district near Sacramento, reasonably saying that it violated the First Amendment to make students recite the words “under God” because it was an endorsement of religious beliefs. faith was by the government.
He said that while his daughter could refuse to renege on the promise, it wasn’t enough. The pledge itself, he claimed, was unconstitutional.
Incredibly, Goodwin agreed and wrote the majority opinion for a three-judge panel on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that banned the recitation of the Pledge in public schools because it violated the founding clause of the First amendment.
Goodwin, a Republican and Nixon commissioner, wrote that calling the United States a nation “under God” is just as reprehensible as calling it a nation under Jesus or Vishnu or Zeus or any god.
It was not a popular verdict and it was not destined to survive. The U.S. Senate immediately passed a resolution—99 to 0—reaffirming the terms of the pledge and condemning Goodwin’s arguments. President George W. Bush called the decision “ridiculous.” The Los Angeles Times called it “fundamentally stupid.”
Congressmen gathered on the steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge and chant “God Bless America.” More serious critics have argued that temporary “recognition” of religion is hardly the same as establishing an official state religion.
In 2004, the Supreme Court overthrew Goodwin – not on constitutional grounds, but because it concluded that Newdow lacked the authority to even bring the case.
Still, I think Newdow and Goodwin were courageous and principled and right to address the issues. As an unbelieving American, I am put off, to say the least, by the reference to God in the promise.
While promise isn’t our main problem, it’s certainly unnecessary and all too often empty images. The goal is indoctrination. This is fodder for the culture wars. Too often it is just recitation. It’s anti-secular because it’s pro-God.
Marissa Barnwell is right. We need to spend less time declaring and promising our commitment to freedom and justice – and more time making those aspirations a reality.
Source: LA Times
Roger Stone is an author and opinion journalist who writes for 24 News Globe. He is known for his controversial and thought-provoking views on a variety of topics, and has a talent for engaging readers with his writing.
