http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0304montini04.html
And to the republic . . . whatever that is Mar. 4, 2003 A lot of people don't know that the man who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance was a Baptist minister, and that he purposefully left out any reference to God. I didn't know. A teacher at a local high school told me on Monday. She doesn't want me to use her name or to identify where she works because she's afraid that some of what she has to say might reflect poorly on her students. "And to be honest," she said, "I don't believe my students are much different from students all over the city. All over the country, really. And I'd guess their parents aren't much different either. We often have very strong feelings about emotional issues like putting the words 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. But how many people really understand what they're pledging allegiance to?" Not many, according to her. In addition to being a minister, the man who wrote the pledge, Francis Bellamy, was also a socialist. His original pledge read, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Bellamy wanted to include the word "equality" in the text, but in those days there was no equality. Sadly, the word still didn't apply in 1954, when Congress added the words "under God." Even then, politicians were more inclined to invoke religious references than to live by them. The change in wording from "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America" happened in the 1920s. The local teacher initiated a discussion about the pledge after reading that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled, again, that the words "under God" violated the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue later. "The kids were split on whether the 'under God' part belonged in the pledge or not," the teacher said. "Most found it perfectly OK. Even good. One student asked how we'd feel if it said "under Allah." It was a good discussion. Until I asked what I thought was a fairly simple question." She very innocently said, "By the way, who can define 'republic,' as in when we say 'the republic for which it stands?'" Silence. No more hands in the air. No more talk. So, the teacher began asking specific kids. "One told me confidently, 'Republic means a democracy,' " she said. "When I answered, 'No, not really,' he looked shocked." Right now you're probably scrambling for a dictionary. You learned this. Maybe. Me, too. Luckily, the teacher was kind enough not to ask for the answer. She continued, "I talked about how in a republic individuals are vested with rights, as we are, while in a democracy the majority simply rules. I spoke of how the U.S. has elements of both systems. I talked about how individual rights are what keep us from a kind of mob rule. In a democracy the citizens are the government. In a republic, the government works for the citizens. It has authority to govern, but it cannot trample on individual rights." For example, an individual's right not to have religion forced upon him. Obviously, these are concepts that many citizens - and most elected officials - understand even less than high school students. From the White House on down, officials denounced the 9th Circuit's ruling as incorrect and anti-American. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said his office "will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag." Of course, nothing in the ruling keeps citizens from pledging their allegiance to the flag. Or to the republic for which it stands. Even so, there are Americans both in and out of public office who seem hell-bent on injecting the Lord's name into every government utterance. However, ask them what type of government they're talking about and, well, God only knows. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
