Requiring pledge is un-American

I have been following with interest in the Daily Herald the controversy swirling around the public recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, stemming from an incident at a pre-election political debate in Grayslake. My contention is that it is un-American not to tolerate and respect other people's right to refrain from uttering the Pledge.

First of all, the U.S. Constitution, under the First Amendment, protects every citizen's right not to be compelled to recite any pledge or oath at a public meeting. Freedom of speech encompasses equally one's right not to speak in such a forum.

Secondly, the pledge, which did not exist during the first 100 years of our history, is of suspect origin and intent. First published in an 1892 publication for children at a time of exploding immigration, its purpose was clearly patriotic indoctrination. As Matthew Lowry pointed out in Fence Post, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1943, on First Amendment grounds, that schoolchildren cannot be compelled to recite the pledge.

Eleven years after this decision, as a retort to the “godless Communists,” an act of Congress added the words “under God,” which has been the basis for a number of subsequent court challenges.

As a non-theist myself, I cannot in good conscience recite “under God”; but, for the sake of decorum, when confronted with the pledge, I will rise and face the flag. However, in place of “one nation, under God,” I always substitute “one nation, under a constitution,” which is how I believe the pledge should preferably read. The U.S. Constitution itself contains no mention of God, so I'm going with that!

Thorn Randall

Libertyville