"history of the Pledge" & more . . .
'Our secret pledge'
By Charles Paul Freund,
Turns out that the Pledge of Allegiance was
written in 1892 by a Christian socialist, Francis
Bellamy -- first cousin of Edward Looking
Backward Bellamy -- a hater of capitalism whose
sermons about "Jesus the Socialist" got him
fired from his Boston church. Turns out that
before World War II, many schoolchildren
recited the Pledge not with their hands over their
hearts, but with their right arms outstretched
toward the flag in a pose we now associate with
fascist storm troopers. Turns out that until the
20th century, the flag was rarely displayed in
classrooms at all, and that the Pledge was part of
a campaign by the ostensibly anti-capitalist
owners of the magazine Youth's Companion --
where the Pledge first appeared -- to sell a whole
lot of flags to schools.
That information -- and much more like it --
comes from a history of the Pledge that was
originally written in 1989, and which has long
been sitting on the ACLU's Web site. After a
federal court found the Pledge to be in violation
of church/state separation Wednesday, this
secret history began bouncing around the Net.
That exemplified not only the quicksilver fluidity
of context in an open system of debate, it
illustrated even more the fluidity of meaning of
an artifact like the Pledge. A recitation whose
leftist author apparently intended it to instill
regard for a benevolent central authority was
soon read by rightists as an indispensable
performance of patriotism. This rightist
interpretation long ago established itself as the
only valid reading. . . .
[click for link to article --->
http://reason.com/links/links062702.shtml
? 2002 Reason
==================================================
The view from Los Angeles: 'A blow to U.S. education'
A Los Angeles Times Editorial
It's been quite a week of extremes for the courts
and religion. A federal appeals court said God
couldn't be mentioned in the Pledge of
Allegiance; now a closely divided Supreme
Court held Thursday that spending public
money to pay tuition costs at religious schools
was constitutional and did not violate the
separation of church and state.
The appeals court decision regarding the pledge
was more silly than threatening; the high court's
voucher ruling, however, has serious
implications. Public money should not be used
to promote proselytizing and religious training,
key parts of the mission of any religious school. . . .
[click for link to article --->
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...28jun28.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials
? 2002 LA Times
==================== + _
_ + =================
My comments:
My two younger brothers are "school teachers" and members of a 'professional teachers union'. In most cases the conditions "set" for how a "publick" school district conducts it's business is the direct product of the "District School Board". If the wimps (ah, members) of the district board want to live with "a piece crap" school system then the voters of said 'district' should get off their collective "lazy arases" and vote the "slackers" out of office. IMHO
What criss decries as the status quo in the Boston area couldn't be farther from the truth of the "working conditions" that my brothers endure; easily a 60 hour work week, chaperoning class field trips (over night) and summer trips to foreign countries, all manner of after class school activities, Internet help with class work questions, and meeting the requirements of "mandatory" continued education for advancement.
I'm also the product of a 100% "publick" education, doz' it show?
regards,
. . . CES