Time to ditch the Pledge of Allegiance

The concept of freedom has always been a double-edged sword, one that we hide behind and cheer when it keeps our ideological foes at bay, but curse silently when we find ourselves with its point in our chest.

It's that very irony that appears to have so many of us tied in knots over the recent lawsuit brought by an anonymous New Jersey family against the Matawan-Abderdeen Regional School District that seeks to have the state requirement that students recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning declared unconstitutional because it features the words "under God."

The suit, which was filed in Monmouth County Superior Court by the American Humanist Association, alleges that the mere presence of the phrase discriminates against atheists by disparaging a child's belief (or lack thereof), calling their patriotism into question, and turning them into second-class citizens.

And let's be frank: they're absolutely right. Unequivocally so, to my law-degreeless mind, and I'm shocked that the federal courts, aside from the occasional rogue judge, haven't cited the First Amendment and sought to have the words removed already.

This suit doesn't challenge it on those grounds. It just seeks to have the current practice declared a violation of New Jersey's constitution, and it'll let the courts work out a solution.

But it's an important question, especially because the controversy is shrouded with misinformation. Although most folks think that "under God" is a throwback to the fervent Christianity of our eighteenth century forbears, it was actually inserted in 1954 in an attempt to distinguish our noble nation from the godless Communists who sat on the other side of the Cold War trenches.

Then there's the fact that the phrase simply isn't true. In reality, the Founding Fathers, those brilliant children of the Enlightenment, were not a particularly religious bunch, and a number of them could more easily be described as deists rather than pious Christians. This nation wasn't founded - nor does it remain - "under" a deity whose existence can never be proven. No, it was formed by men. Who (or what) inspired those men is certainly up for debate, but the time to reflect on that particular subject is not the middle of the pledge.

What is not up for debate is that this nation was founded on the unequivocal separation of church and state, and having students of all colors and creeds recite the words "under God" every morning in a publicly funded school doesn't mesh well with my personal notion of what it means for the state to not push religion on its people.

But I'll take it one step further, and offer a simple solution to the conundrum: how about we ditch the pledge altogether?

After all, there's nothing inspiring or inherently patriotic about that collection of words. Unlike our national anthem, it isn't written about a stirring moment in our history or a point of national pride, and it serves little purpose other than drilling into the heads of the children that we're supposed to be loyal to the state ... no matter what.

As a child, I thought the solemn morning recital was a just a little creepy and cultish, and now, as an adult, it reminds me more than a little of something that might be found in Orwell's "1984."

This country is a republic, true, and the ideas it was founded on are some of the finest that humanity has ever conceived of, but was it really necessary for me to affirm that before starting my daily routine? Would it make the government sleep a little easier if I had continued that tradition after I graduated, just in case I forgot where I was born and who I was loyal to?

The whole thing has never sounded very "American" to me, especially in a nation created upon the very idea that allegiance must be earned, not given. It's time to end this practice and let the classrooms be what they were intended to be: a bastion of unceasing inquiry and education - not indoctrination.

Email: janoski@northjersey.com

- See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/news/education/time-to-ditch-the-pledge-of-allegiance-1.1006199#sthash.8ZGbMM0p.dpuf

Wake me up when November ends

BY STEVE JANOSKI

With five months left until the fateful day, the general election circus of national politics is roaring with all of its pitiful melodrama, boring speeches, and media pundits who are hired simply to hash, rehash, and re-rehash what the boring speeches and pitiful melodrama all means to the nation.

I try to ignore the up-to-the-minute minutia because I am not one might call a "swing voter." (See "one who votes for a different set of principles every four years.") I know where I stand and I vote accordingly, and that more or less keeps me above the fray.

But I can never help but worry about the effect that all of the garbage "narratives" have on the outcome of a given election, and while petty issues have always been a part of politics, one could easily be inundated with worthless information due to the incessant tickers of the 24-hour news cycle.

The latest "story" to gain traction has come from the Republican camp. The GOP, desperate to win back the ever-important dog-lover vote in the wake of criticism over Mitt Romney's practice of strapping his dog's crate to car roofs for long trips, has attacked President Obama over a passage in his autobiography where he states that he ate dog meat while living in Indonesia at the age of 7 — at the age of 7.

Although it's disgusting that the election has gotten to this point already, I know where it comes from, and I can't say I'm surprised. Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan explained it concisely when she said, "There are literally thousands of people in the United States now who are employed to cover these campaigns minute by minute, and they need something to say."

I, however, was truly hoping that they'd say something of a bit more consequence that doesn't further encourage this awful practice of digging further and further back into a candidate's past to "expose" innocuous, meaningless events and shape them to reflect on that person's ability to lead.

Evidently, if one holds the slightest notion of running for president some day, they must watch every step and guard every action from childhood onwards so as to not give the media fodder in 35 years when they decide to put their name on a ticket.

Many of the presidents whose names decorate the very top of the "Greatest U.S. Presidents" lists would likely not even be seen as near electable today if the current standards had been applied to them.

Andrew Jackson, the legendary general nicknamed "Old Hickory," was a quarrelsome man who had killed an attorney in a duel 22 years before he was elected. It was said that he had taken so many bullets as a result of the practice that he "rattled like a bag of marbles."

Did that make him "unfit to lead?" Or, perhaps, in today's terms, "unelectable?"

Thomas Jefferson is another. His indiscretions with his own slaves have been slowly revealed over the centuries, and one can't help but wonder if they would have been laid out in detail the day after it was announced that he'd be writing the Declaration of Independence had Fox News been around.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt married his own fifth cousin. JFK couldn't keep his hands off of women, before or after being elected. Ulysses S. Grant (along with many other presidents, including W) was known as a heavy drinker in his youth. Lincoln was, well, ugly, as well as a borderline depressive.

And some of the finest leaders from other countries — Winston Churchill springs to mind — would never be allowed near the highest office given their natures.

Leaders, no matter how perfect they seem, are still just people. They are flawed. They screw up, they falter when others push on, they lose faith, they regret.

But elections are not about the past. They're about looking toward the future and putting faith in the intellectual ability of a candidate to set a strong course for the country and drag it toward that objective.

It's not about being a celebrity, and it's not about being perfect. It's about being the right fit for the nation at the time it needs them most. Like Jackson. Like Jefferson. Like Roosevelt. Like Lincoln.

It's troublesome that this country, which once prided itself on being the land where one could forget the past, forge a new life, and meet with unbridled success (so much so that it became known as the "American Dream") seems to be on this path of making the ghosts in one's closet the focus of so much attention.

Email: janoski@northjersey.com