| Pledge Travesty | |||||||||||||||||||
| Back to Social Issues Index Back to Columns Index Home | |||||||||||||||||||
| The Arizona Republic September 25, 2002 Pledge article a travesty Betty Reid's article on the Pledge of Allegiance in Arizona schools ("Kids want pledge as is," Sept. 18) was a travesty of journalism normally not seen in The Arizona Republic. The article addressed what kids thought about the pledge itself, and the words "under God," but the kids were never asked what they thought about freedom of religion or the Constitution. The kids were only asked for, and they only gave, their religious opinions. Ms. Reid mentioned the appeals court case in question, but did not discuss the constitutional issues. Saying the court found the words "under God" to be unconstitutional, without explaining why, is a disservice in any discussion of the issue. It turns what could have been an informative article into an opinion piece supported by a few quotes from weak interviews. Later in the article, Ms. Reid makes the highly offensive and inaccurate implication that those who want the words removed are unpatriotic. I am a patriotic American and always have been. I oppose the inclusion of the words "under God" in our pledge because it inextricably intertwines the state and religion, by tying allegiance to country to an allegiance to God. My feelings and beliefs about God are my own and nobody's else business. But this does not affect my patriotism. Indeed, how can exercise of one's constitutional rights - specifically exempted from governmental authority - be unpatriotic? What good is freedom if we cannot use it, or teach it? (Author's note: My original letter also included the following, final paragraph. "This article could have been an excellent opportunity to educate children, their parents and the general public about the current issues surrounding the Pledge of Allegiance, religion in America and (most importantly) the U.S. Constitution, in an unbiased and informative manner. Instead, the content was restricted to uninformed opinion. What a waste." The excision of this paragraph does not change the thrust of the letter, change its meaning, or otherwise reflect poorly on the Republic. This is the first letter of mine that has been edited for other than spelling, grammar or other technical problem.) |
|||||||||||||||||||