IS DISSENT BEING UNPATRIOTIC?
Dissent In Pursuit Of Equality, Life, Liberty And Happiness
An Interview With Historian Howard Zinn
Sharon Basco is executive producer of TomPaine.com.
Howard Zinn is an historian and author of A People's History of the United
States. Sharon Basco interviewed him for TomPaine.com.
TomPaine.com: Dissent these days seems to be a dirty word. The Bush
administration has, at least since September 11th, usually termed any criticism
of its policies "unpatriotic."
Howard Zinn: While some people think that dissent is unpatriotic, I would
argue that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. In fact, if patriotism
means being true to the principles for which your country is supposed to
stand, then certainly the right to dissent is one of those principles. And
if we're exercising that right to dissent, it's a patriotic act.
One of the great mistakes made in discussing patriotism -- a very common
mistake -- is to think that patriotism means support for your government.
And that view of patriotism ignores the founding principles of the country
expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That is: the Declaration of
Independence makes it clear that governments are artificial creations set
up to achieve certain ends -- equality, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness
-- and when governments become destructive of those ends it is the right
of the people in the words of the Declaration, to alter or abolish the
government.
In other words, obedience to government certainly is not a form of patriotism.
Governments are the instruments to achieve certain ends. And if the government
goes against those ends, if the government is not defending our liberties,
but is diminishing our liberties, if the government is sending young people
into war or making war which is unjustified, well then the government is
not following the principles of caring about life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness. When the government is taking huge sums of money from education
and health, and using that money for military purposes, that's a violation
of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And a government like
that cannot be obeyed. To obey a government like that is not being patriotic.
At that point, when a government behaves like that, it is the most patriotic
thing to disobey the government.
TP.c: Is it odd that a country founded by a bunch of dissenters now seems
to have a population who are largely disapproving of dissent?
Zinn: When you say the country was founded by people who believed in dissent,
well, they believed in their own right to dissent in the relationship with
England. But it happens very often that people who believe in their own right
to dissent, when they gain power they don't really accept the idea that other
people have the right to dissent. And so, for instance, when the Founding
Fathers, who very powerfully defended their right to dissent against the
British when they expelled the British, and then they were faced with dissenters,
like the former rebels of Shay's Rebellion in 1786, they sent an army to
put them down.
Then when they were installed in office, and the new government in 1798,
Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made dissent -- that is,
criticism of the government -- punishable by going to jail. So the right
to dissent has always been a very difficult thing to defend because the people
in power generally do not grant that right to those people who are out of
power.
TP.c: Does the United States' lack of dissent have anything to do with
the fact that we generally enjoy a reasonably prosperous economy?
Zinn: What other reasonable and prosperous societies are there? Not too
many. I mean there are countries in western Europe that are reasonable and
prosperous -- what we call the advanced, industrial countries, you know:
Britain, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries and so on -- they I
think have a stronger tradition of allowing dissent than the United States
does. And I think it has to do with the degree to which the United States
has become a world power, an expansionist power, a military power.
It is always easier to suppress dissent when you are in a war, when you
are engaging in military activity, and therefore when you can claim dissent
cannot be allowed because it's dangerous to the security of the nation.
And since the other empires fell, since the Dutch and French and Germans
and British empires have gone and the United States remains the one great
empire of the world, then the United States is in a position to say, "Well,
we're at war." And we are at war a lot. We've been at war a great deal since
the end of World War II. And whenever we're at war, or near war, or worried
about war, or finding an enemy -- whether it's communism or terrorism --
in a situation like that (and that's a situation that the other countries
I mentioned are not facing), when you're in a situation like that, when you're
a military power, expansionist power, then it becomes easier to argue that
you must not allow dissent because national security is involved.
TP.c: If we see the Bush administration quashing dissent are we seeing
something unusual? Or is this just the way presidents behave during a crisis
or in wartime?
Zinn: Well it is, if you look at, I mean Lincoln suppressed dissent during
the Civil War. In World War I, Woodrow Wilson (who was a liberal, a Democrat;
I mean, just to show that dissent is not limited to conservative Republicans
like Bush). But Wilson, a liberal Democrat, passed legislation just as Bush
has passed legislation, the Patriot Act; and in Wilson's time, the Espionage
and Sedition Act, which sent 1,000 people to jail. And it was under Wilson
that they rounded up thousands of non-citizens and sent them out of the country
without due process. I mean, civil liberties were really smashed under Wilson.
So, yes, Bush is not the first. Although this is one of the worst cases
that we've had. But still it is typical in American history, and particularly
in the 20th century, particularly as the United States has grown in military
strength and has engaged in more and more military operations. It doesn't
matter who the president is -- liberal, Democrat, Republican, conservative
-- we get attacks on civil liberties. It was true of Truman as much as
Eisenhower.
TP.com: And the citizenry must not mind, since we see Bush's approval
ratings bobbing way up in the stratosphere.
Zinn: I believe that those numbers that register large degrees of popular
support for Bush have been misleading. That is, I think there is an immediate
tendency when a nation goes to war, for the public to rally around. Especially
since, when a nation goes to war, the public has no other information given
it about the war except what the president gives it.
Just as the nation supported the war in Vietnam at first because it got
all of its information at first from the government. It's only when other
kinds of information begin coming in, and when people start questioning what
the government does, and become skeptical and have second thoughts about
their support for the government, it's only then that you begin to get more
and more dissent.
And I believe that already -- I've seen signs of it myself just going
around the country speaking to many different groups of people, including
many high school students -- I see signs of more and more skepticism about
Bush policies, about the war on terrorism, and more and more worry about
the attacks on our civil liberties.
I'm not saying that what I'm talking about has yet become a majority
phenomenon. The majority probably still supports Bush. But, after all, during
the Vietnam War we saw the public opinion change dramatically from support
of the government's policy on Vietnam to opposition to the government. And
of course it took a couple of years in the case of Vietnam.
I don't know how long it will take in this instance, but I certainly think
that the direction in which we are going is a direction in which there is
going to be more and more questioning of the government and its presumed
omniscience about foreign policy. I think more and more people are going
to question what we're doing. And in questioning what we're doing, they're
likely more and more to defend the right of other people to question what
we're doing.
TP.c: If the war against terrorism continues apace and yet shows no result,
do you think that will erode Bush's success with the public?
Zinn: I think that's so, although it's impossible to predict at what point
that happens.
It is possible, if you look at the situation in Israel for instance, and
you see that the suicide bombers in Israel are met with overwhelming force
by the Sharon government, and the people in Israel are of two minds. That
is, on the one hand they declare that they'd like to see a Palestinian state;
on the other hand they support Sharon because they're afraid of the suicide
bombers. And yet, as the military action against the Palestinians grows,
becomes more intense, and it doesn't stop the suicide bombers, I believe
there begins to be an uneasiness among the Israeli people about whether this
policy of Sharon, of using force against terrorism, works.
And I think in the case of the United States, we've been at war bombing
Afghanistan for over six, eight months, and there's no sign that the threat
of terrorism has abated. No sign that the American people feel more secure.
Every day we get more and more warnings of possible terrorist actions. And
it seems to me that at a certain point the American people must ask if this
is so, if we still live under fear of terrorism which has not lessened at
all, then what in the world was the government doing, spending all this money
and expending all these lives -- the lives of other people -- in bombing
Afghanistan. And now possibly going to bomb, or possibly invade another country
like Iraq. I think there's bound to be -- and I don't know when this will
happen -- but there's bound to be a growing disillusionment with such a policy.
TP.c: As an historian, you're used to looking at the big picture, and
today's big picture has another very dark cloud looming, and that's the misdeeds
of corporations now rattling the economy.
Zinn: I think there's a connection. Whether people are drawing that
connection, I don't know. And whether people will draw that connection I'm
not sure. But, yeah, here are these two things going on simultaneously. Here
is this war on terrorism, and here is a kind of sickness in the economy --
that's how I would describe what this scandal represents -- emerging. And
it seems to me at some point one must begin to affect the other.
Published: Jul 03 2002
FROM:
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5908 |
| Gun Control, Patriotism, and Civil
Disobedience
by Jacob G. Hornberger, May 1991
The State of California recently enacted a law which
requires owners of semiautomatic weapons to register their gum with the state.
But when the law went into effect thousands of California gun owners, although
risking a felony conviction, refused to comply with its requirements.
The gun owners were immediately showered with harsh
criticism, not only from their public officials but from many of their fellow
citizens as well. The critics implied, among other things, that since the
law had been passed by the duly elected representatives of the people, the
gun owners, as members of society, had a duty to comply with its terms.
The controversy raises important issues concerning
liberty, property, government, patriotism, and civil disobedience.
As I have repeatedly emphasized, by adopting the
welfare-state, planned-economy way of life, the American people of our time
have rejected and abandoned the principles of individual freedom and limited
government on which our nation was founded. But they have also rejected and
abandoned something of equal importance: the concept of patriotism which
characterized America's Founding Fathers.
There have been two different notions of patriotism in American history.
The one which characterizes the American people of the 20th century —
the one which is taught in our public schools — is this: patriotism
means the support of one's own government and the actions which the government
takes on behalf of the citizenry.' The idea is that since we live in a democratic
society, the majority should have the political power to take any action
it desires. And although those in the minority may not like the laws, they
are duty-bound, as "good" citizens, to obey and support them.
The distinguishing characteristic of this type of patriotism is that the
citizen does not make an independent, personal judgment of the rightness
or wrongness of a law. Instead, he does what he has been taught to do since
the first grade in his government schools: he places unwavering faith and
trust in the judgment of his popularly elected public officials.
The other concept of patriotism was the type which characterized the British
colonists during the late 1700s. These individuals believed that patriotism
meant a devotion to certain principles of rightness and morality. They believed
that the good citizen had " duty to make an independent judgment as to whether
his own government's laws violated these principles. And so, unlike their
counterparts in America today, these individuals refused to automatically
accept the legitimacy of the actions of their public officials. Let us examine
how "real-world" applications of these two concepts of patriotism differ
dramatically.
In the late 1700s, the British colonists were suffering under the same
type of oppressive regulatory and tax system under which present-day Americans
are suffering. What was the reaction of the colonists to this regulatory
and tax tyranny? They deliberately chose to ignore and disobey their government's
regulations and tax acts. Smuggling and tax evasion were the order of the
day! And the more that their government tried to enforce the restrictions,
the more it met with disregard and disobedience from the citizenry.
Sometimes smugglers or tax evaders would be caught and brought to trial.
The result? Despite conclusive evidence of guilt and the judges' instructions
to convict, the defendants' fellow citizens on the juries regularly voted
verdicts of acquittal.
And civil disobedience was not limited to economic regulations and taxation.
There was also widespread resistance to conscription, especially during the
French and Indian War. Those who were conscripted deserted the army in large
numbers. And those who had not been conscripted hid the deserters in their
homes.
This was what it once meant to be a patriot — the devotion to a certain
set of principles regarding rightness, morality, individualism, liberty,
and property; and it meant a firm stand against one's own government when
it violated these principles.
If an American of today were magically transported back to colonial America
of the late 1700s, he would immediately find himself at odds with the colonists
who were resisting the tyranny of their government. How do we know this?
By the way which Americans of today respond to what is a much more oppressive
and tyrannical economic system: with either meekness or, even worse, with
ardent "flag-waving" support for the actions of their rulers. And what is
their attitude toward their fellow citizens who are caught violating the
rules and regulations? Again either meekness or fervent support of their
rulers. After all, what was the reaction to the Internal Revenue Service's
seizure of Willie Nelson's property? "I'll make a small donation but otherwise
don't get me involved — I don't want them coming after me!" And to the
conviction of Michael Milken for violating such ridiculous economic regulations
that even King George would have been embarrassed? "He got what's coming
to him — he shouldn't have made so much money anyway!" And to Leona
Helmsley's conviction for having taken improper deductions on her income
tax return? "She's obnoxious — she should go to jail." The thought of
rising to the defense of these victims of political tyranny is an anathema
to the present-day American patriot."
And what about jury trials involving economic crimes? Like the good, little
citizens they have been taught to be, especially in their public schools,
American "patriots" dutifully comply with the judge's instructions to convict
their fellow citizens of violating this regulatory and tax tyranny. Although
they have the same power as their ancestors to disregard the judge's instructions
and to acquit their fellow citizens, the thought of doing so is repugnant
to present-day "patriots." They choose instead to do their "duty" hereby
become "patriotic" agents of their own government's tyranny. Therefore, there
is no doubt that the American of today would feel very uncomfortable if,
all of a sudden, he found himself in the British colonies in 1775 —
in the midst of smugglers, tax evaders, draft resisters, and other patriots
of that time.
This brings us back to the individuals in California who are refusing
to register their guns.
As our American ancestors understood so well, the bedrock of a free society
is private ownership of property. And there are fewer more important rights
of private ownership than the unfettered right to own weapons. Why is ownership
of weapons so vitally important? Not for hunting. And not even to resist
aggression by domestic criminals or foreign invaders. No, as history has
repeatedly shown, the vital importance of the fundamental right to own arms
is to resist tyranny by one's own government should such tyranny ever become
unendurably evil and oppressive.
The lesson which Americans of today have forgotten or have never learned
— the lesson which our ancestors tried so hard to teach us — is
that the greatest threat to our lives, liberty, property, and security lies
not with some foreign government, as our rulers so often tell us; instead,
the greatest threat to the well-being of all of us lies with our own government.
Of course, there are those who suggest that democratically elected public
officials would never do anything seriously harmful to the American people.
But let's look at just a few twentieth-century examples. They confiscated
people's gold. They repudiated gold clauses in government debts. They provoked
the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor and then acted like they were surprised.
They incarcerated Japanese-Americans for no crime at all. They injected
dangerous, mind-altering drugs into American servicemen without their knowledge.
They radiated the American people in the Pacific Northwest and then deliberately
hid it from them. They have surreptitiously confiscated and plundered people's
income and savings through the Federal Reserve System. They have terrorized
the citizenry through the IRS. And, most recently, they have sent our fellow
citizens to their deaths thousands of miles away in the pursuit of a relatively
insignificant cause.
Those who believe that democratically elected rulers lack the potential
and inclination for destructive conduct against their citizenry are living
in la-la land.
Of course, the proponents of political tyranny are usually well motivated.
Those who enacted the gun-registration law in California point to those who
have used semiautomatic weapons to commit horrible, murderous acts. But the
illusion — the pipe-dream — is that bad acts can be prevented through
the deprivation of liberty. They cannot be! Life is insecure — whether
under liberty or enslavement. The only choice is between liberty and insecurity,
on die one hand, and insecurity and enslavement on the other.
The true patriot scrutinizes the actions of his own government with unceasing
vigilance. And when his government violates the morality and rightness associated
with principles of individual freedom and private property, he immediately
rises in opposition to his government. This is why the gun owners of California
might ultimately go down in history as among the greatest and most courageous
patriots of our time.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
FROM:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0591a.asp
|
| Published on Sunday, February 16, 2003 by the Boulder Daily Camera
Patriotism and Protest
The Peace Movement Needs a Moral Vision Grounded in American Ideals
by Michael Kazin
As the U.S. military prepares for war, millions of Americans are seeking
a way to stop it. Hundreds of thousands of them have attended national
demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco. Local protest — on campuses,
in churches and by labor union members — is broader and louder than
at any time since the Vietnam War, more than three decades ago. Most Democrats
running for president, eager to keep step with the party's base, have warned
the White House against rushing into war.
But the American left, the natural vehicle for opponents of imperial
overreach, remains a tiny persuasion — and a sharply divided one at
that. The organizers of the recent Washington and San Francisco marches refuse
to say anything critical of Saddam Hussein; many belong to the Workers World
Party, whose stated goal is "solidarity of all the workers and oppressed
against this criminal imperialist system." That viewpoint dismays liberals
such as philosopher and editor Michael Walzer, who calls for a "decent" left
that would never apologize for tyrants. But whatever their views on Iraq,
no one in the current peace movement has put forth a moral vision that might
unite and sustain it beyond the precipice of war.
Progressives once had such a vision, and they derived it from unimpeachable
sources — the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They
articulated American ideals — of social equality, individual liberty
and grass-roots democracy — and accused governing elites of betraying
them in practice. Through most of U.S. history, this brand of patriotism
was indispensable to the cause of social change. It made the protests and
rebellions of leftists comprehensible to their fellow citizens and helped
inscribe those movements within a common national narrative.
Thomas Paine, born in England, praised his adopted homeland as an "asylum
for mankind" — which gave him a forum to denounce regressive taxes and
propose free public education. Elizabeth Cady Stanton co-authored a "Declaration
of Rights of Women" on the centennial of the Declaration of Independence
and argued that denying the vote to women was a violation of the 14th Amendment.
The Populists vowed to "restore the Government of the Republic to the hands
of the 'plain people' with which class it originated" through such methods
as an eight-hour day and nationalization of the railroads. In the 1930s,
sit-down strikers proudly carried American flags into the auto plants they
occupied and announced that they were battling for "industrial democracy."
Twenty years later, Martin Luther King Jr. told his fellow bus boycotters,
"If we are wrong — the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong" and proclaimed
that "the great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right."
One could list analogous statements from pioneering reformers such as
Jane Addams and Betty Friedan, industrial unionists John L. Lewis and Cesar
Chavez, and the gay liberationist Harvey Milk. Without patriotic appeals,
the great social movements that weakened inequalities of class, gender and
race in the United States — and spread their message around the world
— never would have gotten off the ground.
A self-critical sense of patriotism also led activists on the left to
oppose their nation's expansionist policies abroad. At the end of the 19th
century, anti-imperialists opposed the conquest of the Philippines by invoking
the words of Thomas Jefferson and comparing President William McKinley to
King George III. Foes of U.S. intervention in World War I demanded to know
why Americans should die to defend European monarchs and their colonies in
Africa and Asia. When Martin Luther King spoke out against the Vietnam War,
he explained simply, "I criticize America because I love her. I want her
to stand as a moral example to the world."
It's difficult to think of any American radical or reformer who repudiated
the national belief system and still had a major impact on U.S. politics
and policy. The movement against the Vietnam War did include activists who
preferred the Vietcong flag to the American one — and a few star-spangled
banners were actually torched. But the antiwar insurgency grew powerful only
toward the end of the 1960s, when it drew in people who looked for leadership
to such liberal patriots as King, Walter Reuther and Eugene McCarthy rather
than to Abbie Hoffman and the Weathermen.
Since then, however, many on the left have viewed national ideals as fatally
compromised by the racism of the founders and the jingoism of flag-waving
conservatives. Noam Chomsky derisively describes patriotism as the governing
elite's way of telling its subjects, "You shut up and be obedient, and I'll
relentlessly advance my own interests." Protesters against the International
Monetary Fund and World Bank echo Malcolm X's description of himself as a
"victim of Americanism" who could see no "American dream," only "an American
nightmare." For such activists, fierce love for one's identity group —
whether black, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay or lesbian — often
seems morally superior to devotion to a nation that long tolerated that group's
exclusion or abuse.
Progressives have certainly had some cause to be wary of those who invoke
patriotism. After World War II, "Americanism" seemed to become the property
of the American Legion, the House Un-American Activities Committee and the
FBI. In the 1960s, liberal presidents bullied their way into Indochina in
the name of what Lyndon Johnson called "the principle for which our ancestors
fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania." On the contemporary right, popular
talk-show hosts routinely equate a principled opposition to war with a "hatred"
for America.
Yet the left's cynical attitude toward Americanism has been a terrible
mistake. Having abandoned their defense of national ideals, progressives
also lost the ability to pose convincing alternatives for the nation as a
whole. They could take credit for helping to reduce the sadism of our culture
toward homosexuals and racial minorities. But the right set the political
agenda, in part because its activists were willing to speak forcefully in
the name of American principles that knit together disparate groups —
such as anti-union businessmen, white evangelicals and Jewish neo-conservatives
— for mutual ends.
When progressives abandoned that vision at the end of the '60s, they lost
something precious and necessary. The left could no longer speak convincingly
to individuals and groups who did not share its iconoclastic assumptions.
The economic interests of many of those "Middle Americans" whom Richard Nixon
and Ronald Reagan lured to the GOP clashed with those of the pro-business
right. But the left's grammar of protest, with its emphasis on rights for
distinct and separate groups, failed to mobilize an aggrieved majority.
On the Mall last month, some protesters carried signs that read "Peace
Is Patriotic." If the left hopes to become more than an occasional set of
demonstrators and grow, once again, into a mass movement, it will have to
build on that sentiment and elaborate the wisdom behind it.
Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the stakes have been raised. Even
if war — against terrorism and against Iraq — doesn't continue
to overshadow all other issues, it will inevitably force activists to clarify
how they would achieve security, for individuals and the nation. How can
one seriously engage in this conversation about protecting America if the
nation holds no privileged place in one's heart? Without empathy for one's
neighbors, politics becomes a cold, censorious enterprise indeed.
Progressives should again claim, without pretense or apology, an honorable
place in the long tradition of those who demanded that American ideals apply
to all and opposed the efforts of those, from whatever quarter, who tried
to reserve them for privileged groups and ignoble causes. When the attorney
general denies the right of counsel to a citizen accused of terrorism or
a CEO cooks the books and fires workers who take him to task, they ought
to be put on the defensive — for acting in un-American ways. A left
that scorns the very notion of patriotism is wasting a splendid opportunity
to pose a serious alternative to the arrogant, blundering policies of the
current administration and its political allies. Now, as throughout its history,
the most effective way to love our country is to fight like hell to change
it.
Michael Kazin teaches history at Georgetown University.
FROM:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0216-03.htm
|
| An Online Research Center on the History and Theory of Anarchism
PATRIOTISM
A MENACE TO LIBERTY
WHAT is patriotism? Is it love of one's birthplace, the place of childhood's
recollections and hopes, dreams and aspirations? Is it the place where, in
childlike naivete, we would watch the fleeting clouds, and wonder why we,
too, could not run so swiftly? The place where we would count the milliard
glittering stars, terror-stricken lest each one "an eye should be," piercing
the very depths of our little souls? Is it the place where we would listen
to the music of the birds, and long to have wings to fly, even as they, to
distant lands? Or the place where we would sit at mother's knee, enraptured
by wonderful tales of great deeds and conquests? In short, is it love for
the spot, every inch representing dear and precious recollections of a happy,
joyous, and playful childhood?
If that were patriotism, few American men of today could be called upon
to be patriotic, since the place of play has been turned into factory, mill,
and mine, while deafening sounds of machinery have replaced the music of
the birds. Nor can we longer hear the tales of great deeds, for the stories
our mothers tell today are but those of sorrow, tears, and grief.
What, then, is patriotism? "Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of
scoundrels," said Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest anti-patriot of
our times, defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the training
of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better equipment for the exercise
of man-killing than the making of such necessities of life as shoes, clothing,
and houses; a trade that guarantees better returns and greater glory than
that of the average workingman.
Gustave Hervé, another great anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism
a superstition--one far more injurious, brutal, and inhumane than religion.
The superstition of religion originated in man's inability to explain natural
phenomena. That is, when primitive man heard thunder or saw the lightning,
he could not account for either, and therefore concluded that back of them
must be a force greater than himself. Similarly he saw a supernatural force
in the rain, and in the various other changes in nature. Patriotism, on the
other hand, is a superstition artificially created and maintained through
a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his
self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.
Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism.
Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little
spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune
of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler,
grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot.
It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight,
kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.
The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course,
with the result that, from early infancy, the mind of the child is poisoned
with bloodcurdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians,
etc. When the child has reached manhood, he is thoroughly saturated with
the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against
the attack or invasion of any foreigner. It is for that purpose that we are
clamoring for a greater army and navy, more battleships and ammunition. It
is for that purpose that America has within a short time spent four hundred
million dollars. Just think of it--four hundred million dollars taken from
the produce of the people. For surely it is not the rich who contribute to
patriotism. They are cosmopolitans, perfectly at home in every land. We in
America know well the truth of this. Are not our rich Americans Frenchmen
in France, Germans in Germany, or Englishmen in England? And do they not
squander with cosmopolitan grace fortunes coined by American factory children
and cotton slaves? Yes, theirs is the patriotism that will make it possible
to send messages of condolence to a despot like the Russian Tsar, when any
mishap befalls him, as President Roosevelt did in the name of his people,
when Sergius was punished by the Russian revolutionists.
It is a patriotism that will assist the arch-murderer, Diaz, in destroying
thousands of lives in Mexico, or that will even aid in arresting Mexican
revolutionists on American soil and keep them incarcerated in American prisons,
without the slightest cause or reason.
But, then, patriotism is not for those who represent wealth and power.
It is good enough for the people. It reminds one of the historic wisdom of
Frederick the Great, the bosom friend of Voltaire, who said: "Religion is
a fraud, but it must be maintained for the masses."
That patriotism is rather a costly institution, no one will doubt after
considering the following statistics. The progressive increase of the
expenditures for the leading armies and navies of the world during the last
quarter of a century is a fact of such gravity as to startle every thoughtful
student of economic problems. It may be briefly indicated by dividing the
time from 1881 to 1905 into five-year periods, and noting the disbursements
of several great nations for army and navy purposes during the first and
last of those periods. From the first to the last of the periods noted the
expenditures of Great Britain increased from $2,101,848,936 to $4,143,226,885,
those of France from $3,324,500,000 to $3,455,109,900, those of Germany from
$725,000,200 to $2,700,375,600, those of the United States from $1,275,500,750
to $2,650,900,450, those of Russia from $1,900,975,500 to $5,250,445,100,
those of Italy from $1,600,975,750 to $1,755,500,100, and those of Japan
from $182,900,500 to $700,925,475.
The military expenditures of each of the nations mentioned increased
in each of the five-year periods under review. During the entire interval
from 1881 to 1905 Great Britain's outlay for her army increased fourfold,
that of the United States was tripled, Russia's was doubled, that of Germany
increased 35 per cent., that of France about 15 per cent., and that of Japan
nearly 500 per cent. If we compare the expenditures of these nations upon
their armies with their total expenditures for all the twenty-five years
ending with 1905, the proportion rose as follows:
In Great Britain from 20 per cent. to 37; in the United States from 15
to 23; in France from 16 to 18; in Italy from 12 to 15; in Japan from 12
to 14. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the proportion in
Germany decreased from about 58 per cent. to 25, the decrease being due to
the enormous increase in the imperial expenditures for other purposes, the
fact being that the army expenditures for the period of 190I-5 were higher
than for any five-year period preceding. Statistics show that the countries
in which army expenditures are greatest, in proportion to the total national
revenues, are Great Britain, the United States, Japan, France, and Italy,
in the order named.
The showing as to the cost of great navies is equally impressive. During
the twenty-five years ending with 1905 naval expenditures increased approximately
as follows: Great Britain, 300 per cent.; France 60 per cent.; Germany 600
per cent.; the United States 525 per cent.; Russia 300 per cent.; Italy 250
per cent.; and Japan, 700 per cent. With the exception of Great Britain,
the United States spends more for naval purposes than any other nation, and
this expenditure bears also a larger proportion to the entire national
disbursements than that of any other power. In the period 1881-5, the expenditure
for the United States navy was $6.20 out of each $100 appropriated for all
national purposes; the amount rose to $6.60 for the next five-year period,
to $8.10 for the next, to $11.70 for the next, and to $16.40 for 1901-5.
It is morally certain that the outlay for the current period of five years
will show a still further increase.
The rising cost of militarism may be still further illustrated by computing
it as a per capita tax on population. From the first to the last of the five-year
periods taken as the basis for the comparisons here given, it has risen as
follows: In Great Britain, from $18.47 to $52.50; in France, from $19.66
to $23.62; in Germany, from $10.17 to $15.51; in the United States, from
$5.62 to $13.64; in Russia, from $6.14 to $8.37; in Italy, from $9.59 to
$11.24, and in Japan from 86 cents to $3.11.
It is in connection with this rough estimate of cost per capita that
the economic burden of militarism is most appreciable. The irresistible
conclusion from available data is that the increase of expenditure for army
and navy purposes is rapidly surpassing the growth of population in each
of the countries considered in the present calculation. In other words, a
continuation of the increased demands of militarism threatens each of those
nations with a progressive exhaustion both of men and resources.
The awful waste that patriotism necessitates ought to be sufficient to
cure the man of even average intelligence from this disease. Yet patriotism
demands still more. The people are urged to be patriotic and for that luxury
they pay, not only by supporting their "defenders," but even by sacrificing
their own children. Patriotism requires allegiance to the flag, which means
obedience and readiness to kill father, mother, brother, sister.
The usual contention is that we need a standing army to protect the country
from foreign invasion. Every intelligent man and woman knows, however, that
this is a myth maintained to frighten and coerce the foolish. The governments
of the world, knowing each other's interests, do not invade each other. They
have learned that they can gain much more by international arbitration of
disputes than by war and conquest. Indeed, as Carlyle said, "War is a quarrel
between two thieves too cowardly to fight their own battle; therefore they
take boys from one village and another village, stick them into uniforms,
equip them with guns, and let them loose like wild beasts against each other."
It does not require much wisdom to trace every war back to a similar
cause. Let us take our own Spanish-American war, supposedly a great and patriotic
event in the history of the United States. How our hearts burned with indignation
against the atrocious Spaniards! True, our indignation did not flare up
spontaneously. It was nurtured by months of newspaper agitation, and long
after Butcher Weyler had killed off many noble Cubans and outraged many Cuban
women. Still, in justice to the American Nation be it said, it did grow indignant
and was willing to fight, and that it fought bravely. But when the smoke
was over, the dead buried, and the cost of the war came back to the people
in an increase in the price of commodities and rent--that is, when we sobered
up from our patriotic spree it suddenly dawned on us that the cause of the
Spanish-American war was the consideration of the price of sugar; or, to
be more explicit, that the lives, blood, and money of the American people
were used to protect the interests of American capitalists, which were threatened
by the Spanish government. That this is not an exaggeration, but is based
on absolute facts and figures, is best proven by the attitude of the American
government to Cuban labor. When Cuba was firmly in the clutches of the United
States, the very soldiers sent to liberate Cuba were ordered to shoot Cuban
workingmen during the great cigarmakers' strike, which took place shortly
after the war.
Nor do we stand alone in waging war for such causes. The curtain is beginning
to be lifted on the motives of the terrible Russo-Japanese war, which cost
so much blood and tears. And we see again that back of the fierce Moloch
of war stands the still fiercer god of Commercialism. Kuropatkin, the Russian
Minister of War during the Russo-Japanese struggle, has revealed the true
secret behind the latter. The Tsar and his Grand Dukes, having invested money
in Corean concessions, the war was forced for the sole purpose of speedily
accumulating large fortunes.
The contention that a standing army and navy is the best security of
peace is about as logical as the claim that the most peaceful citizen is
he who goes about heavily armed. The experience of every-day life fully proves
that the armed individual is invariably anxious to try his strength. The
same is historically true of governments. Really peaceful countries do not
waste life and energy in war preparations, With the result that peace is
maintained.
However, the clamor for an increased army and navy is not due to any
foreign danger. It is owing to the dread of the growing discontent of the
masses and of the international spirit among the workers. It is to meet the
internal enemy that the Powers of various countries are preparing themselves;
an enemy, who, once awakened to consciousness, will prove more dangerous
than any foreign invader.
The powers that have for centuries been engaged in enslaving the masses
have made a thorough study of their psychology. They know that the people
at large are like children whose despair, sorrow, and tears can be turned
into joy with a little toy. And the more gorgeously the toy is dressed, the
louder the colors, the more it will appeal to the million-headed child.
An army and navy represents the people's toys. To make them more attractive
and acceptable, hundreds and thousands of dollars are being spent for the
display of these toys. That was the purpose of the American government in
equipping a fleet and sending it along the Pacific coast, that every American
citizen should be made to feel the pride and glory of the United States.
The city of San Francisco spent one hundred thousand dollars for the
entertainment of the fleet; Los Angeles, sixty thousand; Seattle and Tacoma,
about one hundred thousand. To entertain the fleet, did I say? To dine and
wine a few superior officers, while the "brave boys" had to mutiny to get
sufficient food. Yes, two hundred and sixty thousand dollars were spent on
fireworks, theatre parties, and revelries, at a time when men, women, and
child}en through the breadth and length of the country were starving in the
streets; when thousands of unemployed were ready to sell their labor at any
price.
Two hundred and sixty thousand dollars! What could not have been accomplished
with such an enormous sum? But instead of bread and shelter, the children
of those cities were taken to see the fleet, that it may remain, as one of
the newspapers said, "a lasting memory for the child."
A wonderful thing to remember, is it not? The implements of civilized
slaughter. If the mind of the child is to be poisoned with such memories,
what hope is there for a true realization of human brotherhood?
We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we
are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility
of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens.
We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity,
will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate.
Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the
most powerful nation on earth, and that it will eventually plant her iron
foot on the necks of all other nations.
Such is the logic of patriotism.
Considering the evil results that patriotism is fraught with for the
average man, it is as nothing compared with the insult and injury that patriotism
heaps upon the soldier himself,--that poor, deluded victim of superstition
and ignorance. He, the savior of his country, the protector of his nation,--what
has patriotism in store for him? A life of slavish submission, vice, and
perversion, during peace; a life of danger, exposure, and death, during war.
While on a recent lecture tour in San Francisco, I visited the Presidio,
the most beautiful spot overlooking the Bay and Golden Gate Park. Its purpose
should have been playgrounds for children, gardens and music for the recreation
of the weary. Instead it is made ugly, dull, and gray by barracks,--barracks
wherein the rich would not allow their dogs to dwell. In these miserable
shanties soldiers are herded like cattle; here they waste their young days,
polishing the boots and brass buttons of their superior officers. Here, too,
I saw the distinction of classes: sturdy sons of a free Republic, drawn up
in line like convicts, saluting every passing shrimp of a lieutenant. American
equality, degrading manhood and elevating the uniform!
Barrack life further tends to develop tendencies of sexual perversion.
It is gradually producing along this line results similar to European military
conditions. Havelock Ellis, the noted writer on sex psychology, has made
a thorough study of the subject. I quote: "Some of the barracks are great
centers of male prostitution.... The number of soldiers who prostitute themselves
is greater than we are willing to believe. It is no exaggeration to say that
in certain regiments the presumption is in favor of the venality of the majority
of the men.... On summer evenings Hyde Park and the neighborhood of Albert
Gate are full of guardsmen and others plying a lively trade, and with little
disguise, in uniform or out.... In most cases the proceeds form a comfortable
addition to Tommy Atkins' pocket money."
To what extent this perversion has eaten its way into the army and navy
can best be judged from the fact that special houses exist for this form
of prostitution. The practice is not limited to England; it is universal.
"Soldiers are no less sought after in France than in England or in Germany,
and special houses for military prostitution exist both in Paris and the
garrison towns."
Had Mr. Havelock Ellis included America in his investigation of sex
perversion, he would have found that the same conditions prevail in our army
and navy as in those of other countries. The growth of the standing army
inevitably adds to the spread of sex perversion; the barracks are the incubators.
Aside from the sexual effects of barrack life, it also tends to unfit
the soldier for useful labor after leaving the army. Men, skilled in a trade,
seldom enter the army or navy, but even they, after a military experience,
find themselves totally unfitted for their former occupations. Having acquired
habits of idleness and a taste for excitement and adventure, no peaceful
pursuit can content them. Released from the army, they can turn to no useful
work. But it is usually the social riff-raff, discharged prisoners and the
like, whom either the struggle for life or their own inclination drives into
the ranks. These, their military term over, again turn to their former life
of crime, more brutalized and degraded than before. It is a well-known fact
that in our prisons there is a goodly number of ex-soldiers; while, on the
other hand, the army and navy are to a great extent plied with ex-convicts.
Of all the evil results I have just described none seems to me so detrimental
to human integrity as the spirit patriotism has produced in the case of Private
William Buwalda. Because he foolishly believed that one can be a soldier
and exercise his rights as a man at the same time, the military authorities
punished him severely. True, he had served his country fifteen years, during
which time his record was unimpeachable. According to Gen. Funston, who reduced
Buwalda's sentence to three years, "the first duty of an officer or an enlisted
man is unquestioned obedience and loyalty to the government, and it makes
no difference whether he approves of that government or not." Thus Funston
stamps the true character of allegiance. According to him, entrance into
the army abrogates the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
What a strange development of patriotism that turns a thinking being
into a loyal machine!
In justification of this most outrageous sentence of Buwalda, Gen. Funston
tells the American people that the soldier's action was "a serious crime
equal to treason." Now, what did this "terrible crime" really consist of?
Simply in this: William Buwalda was one of fifteen hundred people who attended
a public meeting in San Francisco; and, oh, horrors, he shook hands with
the speaker, Emma Goldman. A terrible crime, indeed, which the General calls
"a great military offense, infinitely worse than desertion."
Can there be a greater indictment against patriotism than that it will
thus brand a man a criminal, throw him into prison, and rob him of the results
of fifteen years of faithful service?
Buwalda gave to his country the best years of his life and his very manhood.
But all that was as nothing. Patriotism is inexorable and, like all insatiable
monsters, demands all or nothing. It does not admit that a soldier is also
a human being, who has a right to his own feelings and opinions, his own
inclinations and ideas. No, patriotism can not admit of that. That is the
lesson which Buwalda was made to learn; made to learn at a rather costly,
though not at a useless price. When he returned to freedom, he had lost his
position in the army, but he regained his self-respect. After all, that is
worth three years of imprisonment.
A writer on the military conditions of America, in a recent article,
commented on the power of the military man over the civilian in Germany.
He said, among other things, that if our Republic had no other meaning than
to guarantee all citizens equal rights, it would have just cause for existence.
I am convinced that the writer was not in Colorado during the patriotic
régime of General Bell. He probably would have changed his mind had
he seen how, in the name of patriotism and the Republic, men were thrown
into bull-pens, dragged about, driven across the border, and subjected to
all kinds of indignities. Nor is that Colorado incident the only one in the
growth of military power in the United States. There is hardly a strike where
troops and militia do not come to the rescue of those in power, and where
they do not act as arrogantly and brutally as do the men wearing the Kaiser's
uniform. Then, too, we have the Dick military law. Had the writer forgotten
that?
A great misfortune with most of our writers is that they are absolutely
ignorant on current events, or that, lacking honesty, they will not speak
of these matters. And so it has come to pass that the Dick military law was
rushed through Congress with little discussion and still less publicity,--a
law which gives the President the power to turn a peaceful citizen into a
bloodthirsty man-killer, supposedly for the defense of the country, in reality
for the protection of the interests of that particular party whose mouthpiece
the President happens to be.
Our writer claims that militarism can never become such a power in America
as abroad, since it is voluntary with us, while compulsory in the Old World.
Two very important facts, however, the gentleman forgets to consider. First,
that conscription has created in Europe a deep-seated hatred of militarism
among all classes of society. Thousands of young recruits enlist under protest
and, once in the army, they will use every possible means to desert. Second,
that it is the compulsory feature of militarism which has created a tremendous
anti-militarist movement, feared by European Powers far more than anything
else. After all, the greatest bulwark of capitalism is militarism. The very
moment the latter is undermined, capitalism will totter. True, we have no
conscription; that is, men are not usually forced to enlist in the army,
but we have developed a far more exacting and rigid force--necessity. Is
it not a fact that during industrial depressions there is a tremendous increase
in the number of enlistments? The trade of militarism may not be either lucrative
or honorable, but it is better than tramping the country in search of work,
standing in the bread line, or sleeping in municipal lodging houses. After
all, it means thirteen dollars per month, three meals a day, and a place
to sleep. Yet even necessity is not sufficiently strong a factor to bring
into the army an element of character and manhood. No wonder our military
authorities complain of the "poor material" enlisting in the army and navy.
This admission is a very encouraging sign. It proves that there is still
enough of the spirit of independence and love of liberty left in the average
American to risk starvation rather than don the uniform.
Thinking men and women the world over are beginning to realize that
patriotism is too narrow and limited a conception to meet the necessities
of our time. The centralization of power has brought into being an international
feeling of solidarity among the oppressed nations of the world; a solidarity
which represents a greater harmony of interests between the workingman of
America and his brothers abroad than between the American miner and his
exploiting compatriot; a solidarity which fears not foreign invasion, because
it is bringing all the workers to the point when they will say to their masters,
"Go and do your own killing. We have done it long enough for you."
This solidarity is awakening the consciousness of even the soldiers,
they, too, being flesh of the flesh of the great human family. A solidarity
that has proven infallible more than once during past struggles, and which
has been the impetus inducing the Parisian soldiers, during the Commune of
1871, to refuse to obey when ordered to shoot their brothers. It has given
courage to the men who mutinied on Russian warships during recent years.
It will eventually bring about the uprising of all the oppressed and downtrodden
against their international exploiters.
The proletariat of Europe has realized the great force of that solidarity
and has, as a result, inaugurated a war against patriotism and its bloody
spectre, militarism. Thousands of men fill the prisons of France, Germany,
Russia, and the Scandinavian countries, because they dared to defy the ancient
superstition. Nor is the movement limited to the working class; it has embraced
representatives in all stations of life, its chief exponents being men and
women prominent in art, science, and letters.
America will have to follow suit. The spirit of militarism has already
permeated all walks of life. Indeed, I am convinced that militarism is growing
a greater danger here than anywhere else, because of the many bribes capitalism
holds out to those whom it wishes to destroy.
The beginning has already been made in the schools. Evidently the government
holds to the Jesuitical conception, "Give me the child mind, and I will mould
the man." Children are trained in military tactics, the glory of military
achievements extolled in the curriculum, and the youthful minds perverted
to suit the government. Further, the youth of the country is appealed to
in glaring posters to join the army and navy. "A fine chance to see the world!"
cries the governmental huckster. Thus innocent boys are morally shanghaied
into patriotism, and the military Moloch strides conquering through the Nation.
The American workingman has suffered so much at the hands of the soldier,
State and Federal, that he is quite justified in his disgust with, and his
opposition to, the uniformed parasite. However, mere denunciation will not
solve this great problem. What we need is a propaganda of education for the
soldier: antipatriotic literature that will enlighten him as to the real
horrors of his trade, and that will awaken his consciousness to his true
relation to the man to whose labor he owes his very existence. It is precisely
this that the authorities fear most. It is already high treason for a soldier
to attend a radical meeting. No doubt they will also stamp it high treason
for a soldier to read a radical pamphlet. But, then, has not authority from
time immemorial stamped every step of progress as treasonable? Those, however,
who earnestly strive for social reconstruction can well afford to face all
that; for it is probably even more important to carry the truth into the
barracks than into the factory. When we have undermined the patriotic lie,
we shall have cleared the path for that great structure wherein all nationalities
shall be united into a universal brotherhood, --a truly FREE SOCIETY.
FROM:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/patriotism.html |
| Squabbling over the Pledge
The U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals ruled in 2002 to render unconstitutional
the pledge of allegiance. But there was also a public reaction, both found
and fanned by the press.
New York newspapers unanimously panned the ruling. "The judges do not
understand the ocean of difference between two small words and the constitutional
prohibition against establishing an official religion," said the Daily News
in an editorial titled "Somebody Bless America," which blamed "fanatical
civil libertarians" and called the decision "stupefyingly silly." "This is
a land blessed," continued the News. "If you don't like the pledge, you don't
have to say it. If you don't like the phrase 'under God,' you don't have
to say that. But those who wish to recite it should be permitted to do so.
Even in school."
"Where's a San Francisco earthquake when you really need one?" asked the
New York Post's editorial "Left Coast Lunacy." Complaining that "the loopy
left has pressed for the broadest possible interpretation of the Establishment
Clause," the Post praised "the natural inclination of any society to distill
its basic beliefs into civic shorthand," and called "the Pledge of Allegiance
. . . an easily digested version of the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution.
"A Left Coast federal-court decision" is how the Post began a news article
titled "God-Awful," its reporter adding, "In the wake of the 9/11 terror
attacks, the court's timing couldn't have been worse."
"Why They Hate New York" was the title of a Post editorial criticising
House of Representatives Gary Ackerman, Jerrold Nadler, and Nydia Velazquez
for abstaining from a 416-3 vote that endorsed keeping the words "under God"
in the pledge.
The New York Times said that though the 1954 addition of "under God" was
"a petty attempt to link patriotism with religious piety . . . after millions
of repetitions over the years, the phrase has become part of the backdrop
of American life," and that the "well-meaning ruling . . . lacks common sense.
A generic two-word reference to God tucked inside a rote civic exercise is
not a prayer." The decision "invit[es] a political backlash for a matter
that does not rise to a constitutional violation. . . . The ruling trivializes
the critical constitutional issue of separation of church and state." Also
calling the issue "trifling," Newsday said that the court "went way
overboard."
Local and syndicated columnists raged in New York papers. "The entire
moral inheritance of our Founding Fathers is predicated on the repeated idea
that something beyond the power and wisdom of mere mortals is necessary for
the survival of the United States," said Victor David Hansen in the New York
Post. "It is the worst form of modernist condescension. . . . It is also
elitist. . . . It's arrogant. . . . Finally, the decision is dangerous for
the message it sends to our enemies at a time of war. They claim that our
creed is as intolerant of religion as theirs is of reason. They say that
they believe in something, we in nothing."
"Even the wild-eyed Tom Paine invoked 'the Word of God' in his Common
Sense," said another New York Post writer.
Complaining about the "foam-at-the-mouth hostility to religion that grips
our elites," John Leo said in the Daily News that "the ruling opens the door
to a serious discussion of the aggressive ideological campaign against religion.
. . . While using high-road rhetoric (safeguarding church-state separation
allows all faiths to flourish, etc.), the elites have pursued low-road policies,
relentlessly working to drive religion from the public square."
Marc Gellman and Thomas Hartman, the rabbi-priest pair who write folksy
interfaith advice once a week in Newsday, actually wrote the most wrathful
opinion, titled "In the Court Of Secular Fanaticism." "Since Sept. 11, we've
been living with the specter of religious fanaticism," they said (meaning
only Islamic). "So it's grimly refreshing that two judges from the Ninth
Circuit on the Left Coast have now offered us a glimpse of secular fanaticism.
. . . We Americans believe our rights come from God -- not from the state.
What God gives, no state can take away. . . . There must be some power higher
than the state, or there's no way to critique the state. Without God, politics
is idolatry."
Peter Steinfels' weekly "Beliefs" column in the New York Times suggested
that the First Amendment clauses barring Congress from making any law "respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
became popular more because of late-nineteenth-century anti-Catholicism from
nativists such as the Ku Klux Klan, and less because of late-eighteenth-century
Jeffersonian ideals.
But there were other commentaries. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., wrote in the
Times in 1943, after the Jehovah's Witnesses won for all the right to abstain
from the pledge, "the American people then, far from denouncing the court,
applauded the decision as a pretty good statement of what we were fighting
for. Are we backsliding today?" Daily News columnist Michael Kramer called
the decision foolish, but added that after talking to an atheist child who
unhappily said "under God" because of peer pressure, he felt that the values
of tolerance outweighed the inclusion in the pledge of that exclusionary
phrase.
"The decision is entirely correct in constitutional terms, although, as
an atheist and a civil libertarian, I wish that a more substantive issue
than the pledge were responsible for reigniting the passions of the religiously
correct," wrote columnist Susan Jacoby in Newsday. "The furor is rooted in
a common modern American misconception -- that the nation was founded upon
religion from the beginning and that 'secular humanist' courts in the second
half of the 20th century are responsible for banning public demonstrations
of religious allegiance once taken for granted. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The issue of whether to use the word 'God' in the Constitution
was fully debated at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and the secularists
prevailed. The first five American presidents, from George Washington to
James Monroe, eschewed any public statements of their private religious beliefs.
The now-sanctified Pledge . . . was entirely secular in its original
wording."
Jacoby concluded by describing a teacher who had said of her students,
" 'They don't know the words to the Bill of Rights and they don't know the
Declaration of Independence, but they can all recite the Pledge.' That many
students don't know anything about the Bill of Rights is precisely the problem
-- one that cannot be corrected by retaining or removing God from the Pledge
of Allegiance."
The fact that "boards of education are educating the young for citizenship
is reason for scrupulous protection of constitutional freedoms of the
individual," said atheist columnist Nat Hentoff in his Village Voice article
"God Is Not in the Constitution." Hentoff was quoting from -- and praising
the 9th Circuit court for following -- the 1943 U.S. Supreme Court suit that
rejected a board of education's policy that Jehovah's Witness children who
refused to join in the pledge should be expelled, sent to reformatories,
and their parents threatened with prosecution. Responding to Attorney General
John Ashcroft, who said that "this decision is directly contrary to two centuries
of American tradition," Hentoff replied that "an even longer American tradition
is that there is no mention of God in the Constitution. The Declaration of
Independence, heralded by opponents of the Ninth Circuit decision for its
references to God, does not have the force of law. And the Constitution says
plainly, 'No religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
any Office or public trust under the United States.' We all have the right
to freedom of belief, or nonbelief, in God."
Daily News columnist E. R. Shipp praised the ruling "even though I am
a Baptist and a regular churchgoer. . . . While the decision in the case
brought by Dr. Michael Newdow has given the talk-show gasbags a lot to howl
about and the candidates something to run on, it really doesn't affect how
and what we believe theocratically. It merely limits our abilities to force
others to see, feel, and believe as we do. I always think of the hypocrisy
of the Pilgrims and their contemporaries who supposedly came to North America
from England in search of religious freedom. Once they got here, they usually
set up such an oppressive system that religious freedom was denied to dissenters.
Have no fear: You may still live your life "under God," but the Constitution
does not mandate God in our polity or our civic lives. Speaking of which,
how many people have actually taken the time to read the document and learn
that?"
"[Cold-war hysteria] came back with a vengeance after Sept. 11, with an
infusion of God and patriotism in all aspects of public life, practically
coercing people into waving flags," concluded Shipp. "Newdow and the 9th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the villains in this drama as far as preachers,
politicians, editorialists, and talk-show hosts are concerned, may have really
done the country a favor by reminding us that we are a democracy, not a
theocracy."
"Under God" was inconsequential to Daily News columnist Richard Cohen,
but he was upset that when "the entire Congress rose as one and . . . recited
the Pledge, not one member had the guts to dissent. . . . After a lifetime
in journalism, I can tell you that some members of Congress are religious
skeptics. Some are even agnostics or atheists. That's true of society in
general, and it is no less true of our national leaders. Yet not one questioned
the consensus. Not one stood up for that school kid in California. If these
men and women, adults with immense influence, were cowed into acting like
8-year-olds in the classroom, then how can we expect real 8-year-olds to
assert their constitutional right to delete the phrase or not recite the
Pledge at all? What kid can stand up to that kind of pressure? Certainly,
no member of Congress could. . . . A court understood her plight -- and then
Congress, virtually to a person, stood as one and effectively declared she
should, as the law allows, make a stand on principle by staying silent. They
covered their hearts -- but they were really covering something else
instead."
Reporters' people-in-the-street interviews were uniformly negative. "What
is so wrong with saying the word 'God'?" said a Long Island woman. "It's
not a prayer to God, it's a pledge to a country." "The pledge is a symbol
and we are crying out for symbols these days," said a Woodmere, New York,
public school principal. "'Under God' could mean whatever your definition
of God is, not any one person's definition," said a Great Neck parent of
elementary school students.
September 11 was often invoked. "After 9/11 we all turned to God, and
now we want to turn our backs on him?" said clerk in Ridgewood, New Jersey.
"We need to have more respect for our faith since God carried us through
9/11," said an Elmhurst real estate agent.
How did clergy react? "Taking God . . . [out of the pledge] is raping
the very fabric of the Constitution," said the minister of Westbury's Long
Island Bible Baptist Church. "The name of God should be mentioned whenever
possible," said the rabbi of Temple Israel in Riverhead, New York.
A rare positive comment came from Long Island Secular Humanists' Gerry
Dantone in Newsday: "Every day, children are forced to say a prayer in school
and it's just inappropriate." He said his two children attend public school,
but that they recite the pledge without the words "under God."
The pledge fillip ended with a hiccup a week later, when the Associated
Press reported that Newdow's 8-year-old daughter, who had given Newdow standing
in the case but was now under her religious mother's custody, routinely said
"under God" during the pledge and is attending a church. "I have a right
to send my child to a public school without the government inculcating any
religious beliefs," replied Newdow, adding that the mother taking the child
to church doesn't mean the 8-year-old is choosing to be religious.
The New York Times reported that Newdow planned to "to ferret out all
insidious uses of religion in daily life," including the use of "In God We
Trust" on currency and prayers at presidential inaugurations. "Why should
I be made to feel like an outsider?" he said.
Sources: "God-Awful," New York Post, 6/27/02; " Ruling Will Change Nothing
in City Schools," Newsday, 6/27/02; " Somebody Bless America," Daily News,
6/27/02; "Left Coast Lunacy," New York Post, 6/27/02; " 'One Nation Under
God'," New York Times, 6/27/02; "No Need to Throw God Out of the Pledge of
Allegiance," Newsday, 6/27/02; "America's Pledge," New York Post, 6/28/02;
"By God, These Elitists Are Making Me Cringe," Daily News, 7/1/02; "In the
Court Of Secular Fanaticism," Newsday, 7/1/02; "Evolution of Words That Aren't
There," New York Times, 7/6/02; "When Patriotism Wasn't Religious," New York
Times, 7/7/02; "Pledging Ourselves to Tolerance," Daily News, 7/7/02; "Much
Ado About Propagandist Pledge," Newsday, 6/28/02; "God Is Not in the
Constitution," Village Voice, 6/28/02; "Congress Cowardly on Religion," Daily
News, 7/9/02; "Court's 'Under God' Ruling Fits the Constitution," Daily News,
6/30/02; "On Island, 9/11 Made Pledge Even More Vital," Newsday, 6/27/02;
" Girl in Pledge of Allegiance Case Recites It at School," Associated Press,
7/12/02; " 'Under God' Iconoclast Looks to Next Targets," New York Times,
7/1/02.
FROM:
http://www.foody.org/atheist/insanity0802.html
|
