Originally posted from 08-22-04 to 08-29-04
Your Fair Share
by Lady Liberty

I don't recall that I've ever heard any rational man or woman seriously suggest that people or groups be treated unfairly by other people or groups. Meanwhile, I've heard a whole lot of people demand their fair share of fair treatment. This strikes me as eminently reasonable and, well, fair. The problem that's been blatantly brought home to me lately, however, is that those demanding fair treatment are somehow deeply offended and even angered when that same fair treatment is given to others.

Within relatively recent memory, a story out of Pennsylvania made the national news scene. It seems a teacher's aide was wearing jewelry including a crucifix pendant. The necklace (which was quite small and unobtrusive - I checked) was interpreted by some in the school administration to be a promotion of Christianity, and public institutions aren't supposed to promote religion. Well, last time I checked, they weren't to deny religion, either. But the teacher's aide was never-the-less fired. Fortunately, the subsequent outcry at the inherent unreasonableness of both the school policy and her termination saw her reinstated to her job.

School students are also typically required to adhere to some sort of a dress code. In the vast majority of codes, crucifixes and Star of David necklaces or other items are rarely singled out for any kind of ban. Unfortunately, in blatantly discriminatory dress code rules, some schools do prohibit the Muslim crescent and the Wiccan pentagram from display on student clothing or jewelry. (Students who adhere to the latter religions have some recourse via the legal system and can thus often reconcile the problem, though it's regrettable they should be forced to go to the trouble and expense of doing so.) At the same time some struggle for fair treatment, the people who are wearing crucifixes - who will fight, if necesssary, to do so - demand that those of other religions not be permitted to wear religious symbols of their own.

Prayer in the classroom is also a perennial issue in politics, churches, and school districts across the country. Schools that prohibit Bible clubs from meeting on school property outside of school hours usually say that they're doing so because the First Amendment prohibits the endorsement of religion. Their underlying rationale is correct, but their reasoning is not. Since such club meetings are outside of class hours, no student can be compelled to go or can be forced to be exposed to their content. If there is to be fair treatment in a taxpayer funded facility, then all taxpayers should have equal access. A Bible club should be treated no differently than, say, a chess club. Bible clubs have fought and won their cases accordingly. But once again, those promoting the idea of a Bible club all too often just can't graciously accept their share of fair treatment and enjoy it. No, instead, they have to take signs to school board meetings and protest the right of groups of which they don't approve to enjoy the same access to meeting space.

Schools are far from being alone in such debates. The ACLU tells of a county that permitted a Christian religious display on its lawn during the Christmas holiday season, saying it wasn't a religious endorsement but was rather an allowance for a church to its right to free speech in a public square. When a local Wiccan circle, however, tried to erect a sign wishing local residents a Happy Yule, the county had the display removed. The county was sued as a consequence, and rightfully so. Had officials been willing to treat all groups equally, there would never have been any argument or legal action. (As an added bonus, the spate of atheist lawsuits could be abated if municipalities would handle matters of such displays fairly.)

In the news just a few weeks ago, I read of a library that refused to permit a religious group to meet in one of its rooms. The problem with that prohibition was the fact that the library's rooms were available to any member of the public who scheduled the use and paid a nominal rental fee. Refusing the religious group was discriminatory, and the library is going to have to change its policies accordingly. I have to wonder, though, how many people would have stood up in support of, say, an area gay advocacy group under similar circumstances.

It's said that the two topics not to be discussed at casual dinner parties are religion and politics. So it's interesting that what actually got me started thinking about the idea of discriminatory discrimination as it is so often exemplified in religious issues is a political matter only lately brought to my attention.

I'm told that a certain high school - like many others - has made available its facilities for rent. Individuals or groups can rent a small classroom or the entire gymnasium; they can reserve and use the auditorium, or the cafeteria. The criteria are relatively simple for the rental: the room must be available, and you must pay the set fee. Because a room did happen to be available, and because the set fees are quite reasonable, a large room was rented for an evening during the Republican National Convention. In that room, a party of sorts will be held to celebrate the nomination of George W. Bush for President of the United States. People will eat snacks, mill around chatting with each other, and watch the President's acceptance speech on a big screen TV. They'll probably have fun.

But like those people who don't like those who are of other religious persuasions, the Democrats in that town are apparently not happy that the Republicans are having a party in a taxpayer funded facility. Doesn't that, they ask, constitute an endorsement of the Republican Party by the school? It is, they say, just not fair that the Republicans are being allowed to rent space there.

In actuality, it's perfectly fair. I'm sure that many Republicans pay their taxes, so they have a stake in that taxpayer funded facility at least as much as do any Democrats. And the Democrats could have rented a room of their own during their own convention - or they can rent one in the future, if they like. Because they have thus far chosen not to should have no bearing on whether or not the Republican event can move forward. Most important of all insofar as equal treatment is concerned, other groups have rented rooms in the school. To deny the Republicans solely because they are Republicans would be discrimination of the worst and most obvious sort.

It's sad that more people are apparently not capable of understanding that fair treatment for them also means fair treatment for others. If there are Boy Scouts or chess clubs permitted to meet after school hours on school grounds, then the Bible club, the Science Fiction club, and the Teen Firearms Safety club ought also be able to meet. If Christians can wear crosses, then witches should be allowed pentagrams. And if the NAACP can rent a room in a city or state facility, then so can the Republicans, Democrats, or PETA franchises for a given area.

There's only one other way that we can be entirely non-discriminatory, and that's to refuse permission to anyone or any group to use public facilities for anything other than the services that facility provides. And while that would certainly be equal treatment, it would undeniably be unfair. It would also be openly contemptuous of the First Amendment (simply because that's already true for any number of government policies these days - particularly on the federal level - doesn't mean we should encourage further inroads into one of our most precious freedoms).

Despite the fact that, as I said, I've never heard anyone stand up and say, point blank, "Yes, I think discrimination is good!" there's a first time for everything. Which of you would like to be first to suggest that government entitities of any and all kinds be encouraged to play favorites in an official capacity? Before you get up, don't forget what favoritism in the eyes of the government entails (if you can't recall, perhaps you should consider asking a Native American or a black man from the Tuskegee syphilis experiment if you can find one alive; or spend some time reading up on the fate of the handicapped, gypsies, homosexuals, and Jews at the hands of the Nazis). Or which of you would openly advocate that, rather than allowing groups you don't like to use certain facilities, no groups at all be allowed to use them?

Still sitting, I see...So here's the bottom line: All of those who don't have the nerve to stand up should have the decency to sit down, be quiet (or at least civil), and wait their turn to take advantage of their share of what's fair.

Originally posted from 07-25-04 to 08-01-04
Free Speech Isn't So Free
by Lady Liberty

When I publicly endorsed Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik last week - the first time I've ever endorsed any candidate - I expected to get some feedback from readers. What I didn't anticipate was the overwhelming tone of those e-mails: gratitude. One writer even thanked me for "having the courage" to say what I thought. While I'm grateful for the notes and the kind words, I was particularly struck by the idea that it should require much courage at all to simply say publicly what I believe to be the truth.

In the First Amendment to the Constitution, it is quite specifically stated (in part) that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people to peacably assemble." The Bill of Rights were demanded by the people at the time the Constitution was ratified by the states as an additional level of protection against government infringements of such unalienable rights. At the time the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights was written, both the Founders and the people in general were particularly concerned with religious matters and political speech. Many early American colonists had suffered under religious intolerance courtesy of the government "back home," and the Founders themselves risked grave danger speaking out against that government. They fully intended to learn well the lessons history taught and to ensure that their posterity should never suffer a similar fate.

The First Amendment has historically one of the more popular amendments (the First, for example, isn't spoken of in derogatory terms as is the Second on a regular basis, nor has it been suggested it is outdated as is the case with the Second, Third, and all too often the Tenth). Perhaps that's why so many are so sure that the First remains largely intact. It might also explain why the general public seems to believe its rights under the First are all but untouchable.

Yet in those rare instances where there is a First Amendment debate, far too many people are willing to see parts and pieces of the protections chipped away "for the children," or "for our own good," or even so as to supposedly better ensure the equality technically enshrined in all of the Constitution. After all, it's not really going to have much effect on what they would personally say or do, is it? This overall lack of attention and the acceptance of curtailments for politically correct or expedient reasons are the factors that, despite apparent public opinion to the contrary, find the First Amendment today in grave danger indeed.

Consider for a moment the notion of protest against the government. We seem to think that we're free to criticize and compliment, or debate and discuss as we see fit. Yet preparations for the Democratic Convention in Boston involved the establishment of a "protest zone" where demonstrators would be placed largely out of sight and behind fences, razor wire, and black netting. Some protesters sued the city, likening the "zone" to a "concentration camp." A federal judge toured the facility to get a firsthand look for himself; later, despite statements from the judge saying he found the setting even worse than a concentration camp, the suit was decided in favor of the city. The judge said in his ruling that "precautions such as those at the demonstration zone were necessary" because "protests have become increasingly violent and terrorism has grown into a new threat since Sept. 11, 2001." So citizens aren't alone in rationalizing away such abridgements. A federal judge has also swallowed the "for your own good" reasoning, at least as concerns convention attendees as opposed to the suffering and largely stifled demonstrators.

Another uncommon but often striking method of protest against the government or a government action involves the burning of an American flag. The Supreme Court ruled some years ago that flag burning was protected political speech and that, per the First Amendment, Congress couldn't abridge that freedom no matter how deplorable some might find the action. Since the measure wasn't Constitutional under the Constitution as it currently exists, a movement was started to amend the Constitution to prohibit that particular form of political speech. That movement died down for a brief while, but it's now back in the Senate with a vengeance. Such is particularly poignant when we consider that flag burning isn't illegal anywhere else in the world except in places notorious for tyrannical governments such as China.

Two hundred years ago, political speech consisted of such things as standing on a street corner and speaking out, or printing and posting handbills or newspapers. Today, while speeches are still common and printed materials abound, political speech has also broadened into forums such as radio, television, and the Internet, and the amount of money spent on such political speech is mind-boggling. As a result of such massive expenditures and the very real dangers of corruption involved, Congress passed a campaign finance reform measure that theoretically would make candidate and issue campaigns more honest. Instead, under the guise of reform, it enacted extreme abridgements of political speech.

President Bush signed the campaign finance reform bill into law in 2002 (despite ongoing protests from free speech advocates and campaign promises he wouldn't do so); the Supreme Court upheld the law in 2003, something a First Amendment Center analysis on the matter called "a drubbing" of the First Amendment. In the end, fears for the implications of the law have come to pass, and now those who actually lobbied in favor of the measure are suffering curtailments to their free speech along with those who knew all along the law was nothing but trouble where political discussion was concerned. The ACLU continues to oppose the law and is working toward modification or repeal; the National Rifle Association has worked on ways to do a legal "end run" around the provisions of the law. Despite these ongoing efforts to make changes, at the moment all of us must deal with the fact that the orgnizations and/or candidates we support are bound by a law that abrogates their former First Amendment right to say whatever was on their minds whenever it occurred to them to do so (the law tightens its restrictions even further during those time periods within 60 days of an election, and that's coming up in just about a month).

These relatively recent events are merely the latest in a series of rules, regulations, laws, and decisions that mitigate the First Amendment. For example, the notion of criminalizing hateful words has been around for several years now (although new hate speech laws are being discussed and passed all the time). The First Amendment doesn't say anything about "freedom of speech except where someone might be offended by what is said," and I have been unable to find anything else in any other segment of the Constitution that says American citizens have a right to not be offended. Yet the majority of Americans are completely acquiescent - or even supportive! - when such laws are proposed and passed.

Many colleges and universities across the country used to be famous - and justifiably so - for the public debates that occurred on campus. Protesters railed against involvement in the Viet Nam War; women rallied in favor of legalized abortion; the civil rights movement gained additional attention and adherents from students across the country. Whatever your position on any of these issues, the point wasn't whether you agreed or disagreed, but rather that the issues got a good deal of public attention.

It's always been my opinion that the more information we have on the various sides of any debate, the more intelligently we can choose and defend our own side. But even if that weren't the case, surely the First Amendment guarantees your right to your own opinion as well as the right to voice it accordingly! Yet the vast majority of college campuses today have established what are euphemistically known as "free speech zones." These zones are the only places on campus where students can freely hand out literature or give impromptu speeches expressing their position on one topic or another. If they try to do so elsewhere, university administrators fear another student's sensibilities might be offended, or that the education process might be disrupted. Such attempts have resulted in repercussions ranging from censorship to censure, and from admonishment to arrest. Frankly, the reality is that the education process can only be enhanced by alternative viewpoints on politics, policy, or the issue-of-the-day. Unfortunately, the fear of offense is outweighing any other argument no matter how weighty.

And simply because you or I may not be college students or planning to attend protests in Washington, Boston, or New York doesn't mean that our stated opinions are protected by law or safe from repercussions from employers or government authorities. Most people are well aware of the FBI's computer software to monitor the Internet (called "Carnivore," the name has since been changed and its role in investigations downplayed, but both the software and the program that runs it remain intact). They've also heard of the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness program (TIA was "killed" by Congress after vociferous complaints about privacy violations were received; only recently has it been made public that TIA still exists albeit under some other name and as a "black" budget item). And who could forget the National Security Agency's "Echelon" software, which probes the 'net as well as other electronic communications, zeroing in on certain key words that will target conversations or e-mails for investigation? (To the best of my current knowledge, Echelon remains in place and working.)

Just recently, I learned that there's now a company that will, for a price, search the Internet for whatever phrases or words an agency might like investigated, including "awareness of online discussion by hostile groups associated with planned demonstrations..." Being an equal-opportunity discriminator, the company will also search on behalf of corporations which fear "the Internet poses threats to corporations that can take many forms." After all, "activists use the Internet to plan rallies and boycotts," don't they?

Make no mistake: Despite the First Amendment, our free speech rights are not only not protected any more but are actively under attack from virtually all corners. There's also no disputing the fact that, under some law or ordinance somewhere, virtually all of us who do express opinions critical of the government - or of pretty much anything else now that I think on it - are at the very least suspects to be investigated, if not outright criminals. Saddest of all, there are more than a few citizens who are inclined to agree that some of the rest of us ought to just shut up.

If we want to make the government better and more respectful of liberty - and who among us doesn't? - we're each going to have to get better at recognizing and respecting the rights that others have. At the same time, it's crucial that we all accept that we do not have the right not to be offended, nor are we entitled to have everybody agree with us all the time, even on those issues we feel most strongly about. As we work toward a more literal understanding and respect for the First Amendment ourselves, we must also engage in the effort to get our politicians to begin the same process. If we don't, the First Amendment will be in tatters before we're able to stand up and say so; and after it is, I suspect we won't be permitted to bring up the subject at all, at least not in public.

I still don't consider myself particularly courageous for expressing my opinions in a public forum. I do know, however, that I'm taking risks that, only a few years ago, wouldn't have been risky at all. I also know that, given today's political climate and the paranoia amongst authorities toward any who love liberty, there's a possiblity I'll someday see some repercussion for something I've said. Still, it seems to me that, when the coward's way out involves silence in the face of such obvious wrongs, courage isn't really courageous. It's quite literally the only acceptable course of action for any who still value freedom.

Originally posted from 02-29-04 to 03-07-04
Freedom is My Religion
by Lady Liberty

Some years ago, a movie depicting the last days of Jesus was made and released. The Last Temptation of Christ opened to picket lines and protests across the country, and director Martin Scorcese (who said he made the film as an homage to his Christian beliefs) seemed both wounded and bewildered at the negative reaction. Obviously, I was intrigued by both crossing a picket line and the idea of seeing a movie that had inspired such events.

At the time, I lived in a large city. When we arrived at the theatre, the protesters were marching en masse. Many carried Bibles. Some were Catholic nuns dressed in their old fashioned black and white habits. As I moved toward the theatre entrance through a gap in the picket line, a woman shouted at me, "Don't go! It's evil!" Of course, I went anyway. Demands for bans of The Last Temptation of Christ continued until the movie died a natural death at the theatre. Since then, I've rarely seen it available for rent or on store shelves, which is a pity because the movie is amazing.

All these years later, we're seeing a similar phenomenon where a newly released film - The Passion of the Christ - is concerned. Only this time, the protests are coming from the opposite side of the spectrum. Christian churches of many denominations, particularly those that are the most conservative, are urging their congregations to see the movie. Yet some in the Jewish community are accusing the movie of being anti-Semitic, and others confess to being horrified by what they say is the graphic and non-stop violence of the film.

One thing the two movies do not have in common is the juggernaut that is the marketing machine for The Passion of the Christ. From pewter nails on black thongs to Bibles with the image of actor Jim Caviezel as Jesus gracing the cover; from the airbrushed hood of a Nascar racer to medals with "passion" printed on them in Aramaic; from the myriad magazine covers to the pervasive talk show presence; The Passion of the Christ is everywhere to be seen, and it's making more money and adding more "buzz" for the film in virtually every one of those places.

Whether you think the hype for The Passion of the Christ is warranted or not (I didn't; read my review to see why), and whether or not you're made uncomfortable by the unusual interpretation of the Martin Scorcese film, the real lesson to be learned from these two very different movies is a simple one: the First Amendment is a crucial protection for all of us.

In the case of both films, the men who made them felt the need to offer a very personal and creative expression of their faith. The First Amendment assures all of us that we can enjoy freedom of religion. So criticize the movies if you will for their script or production values, and buy a ticket or don't. But that some people have demanded in each case that the films be suppressed, censored, or even banned is a frightening threat to the freedom of us all.

The night I went to The Last Temptation of Christ, I saw a movie that was both the creation of a gifted filmmaker and one of the most emotionally wrenching films I've ever seen. When I left the theatre, much subdued and with tear tracks running down my cheeks, a man tried to push a pamphlet into my hands condemning the movie. I looked at him and asked, "Have you seen it?" He was horrified. "Of course not!" he said. I quietly told him," Maybe you should," and went on my way.

When I left the afternoon showing of The Passion of the Christ, I considered for a moment whether or not the film was particularly anti-Semitic or if the violence went too far. I concluded that yes, there is some anti-Semitism in the film if you acknowledge the fact that it was some of the Jews who demanded the Roman execution of Jesus. But that's a Biblically backed part of the story, something many are choosing to ignore probably because attacking Mel Gibson is a whole lot less dangerous than is attacking the Bible itself. And does the violence go too far? Well, it depends on the context. In this isntance, yes, probably it's a little over the top. But in comparison to other movies, it's no bloodier than scenes we've all watched before but which didn't inspire this kind of criticism.

What I continue to find difficult to understand is not that these movies are polarizing, or that they generate debate or even disgust from those who disagree with one interpretation or another. No, what I see as both hypocritical and exceedingly dangerous is that people who haven't even seen a movie will ask that it be banned because they think it expresses a religious viewpoint with which they do not agree. Of course, at the same time, these people would be incensed if someone ordered them to stop talking about their views.

I find it reprehensible that people who have seen a movie and didn't like it, or were offended by some line or some action, would demand - during the course of exercising their own right to free speech and basing their expression on their own freely exercised religion - that a movie be altered or censored. Imagine their reaction if it were suggested that they omit one facet of their own expression of faith because someone somewhere found it offensive!

The First Amendment doesn't exist to protect the members of the most popular religions, or to ensure that we're allowed to say things that pretty much everybody agrees with. No, it was written to make sure that religious freedom is for everyone and for every religion, regardless of the number of followers it claims or what the followers of other creeds might think of it. The First Amendment exists so that even words many deem offensive can still be spoken without fear of arrest or enforced censorship.

At least, that's the way it is today. The only judgments forced on filmmakers, performers, or writers are currently - and should be - those of the box office, the ticket booth, and the best seller lists. But judging from the escalating demands of people representing various viewpoints at varying times, I have very little faith that that's the way it will stay. Unless, that is, all of us who believe in the First Amendment for ourselves will step up to defend it for others, even when we don't particularly care to hear what those others are saying.

Originally posted from 02-22-04 to 02-29-04
An Allegiance to Truth
by Lady Liberty

NOTE: A copy of this essay was forwarded to Rex Curry. His response is published as this week's Your View commentary.

The Supreme Court calendar for March 24, 2004 will see the long-awaited hearing of the evidence in the so-called Pledge of Allegiance case. (For those of you who've lived in a cave for the last two years, that's the case where a California atheist sued on the grounds that, because the Pledge contains the words "under God," it's a violation of separation of church and state to require its recitation in public schools. Wikipedia offers a good, concise synopsis of the rulings that have led to the upcoming Supreme Court hearing.) There are strong feelings on both sides of the issue, and many will be watching both the evidence presented to the High Court as well as waiting with great interest for the subsequent ruling.

Prompted by the upcoming hearing, I received an email from a man who claims that the National Socialist German Workers' Party (more commonly known by its abbreviated name of Nazi Party) in some way based its stiff armed salute on the original salute suggested and implemented for the Pledge of Allegiance. He has posted photographic "evidence" of the salute on his web site. He also blames the Pledge writer - Francis Bellamy - for being inspired by the same ideas that "resulted in mass atrocities worldwide."

Far from being a "foil hat" conspiracy theorist, this man has enough of the facts stated accurately that others not quite so right could slip past the casual reader as also being truthful. After being asked to spread the information he was disseminating, however, I ceased to be a casual reader and did a little research before passing the word along. And here's what I was able to find:

According to the National Flag Day Foundation, Inc., there is no argument that the original Pledge of Allegiance was written and published (in the Youth's Companion magazine) in September of 1892 with the intent of having the Pledge said at public schools across the country on what was traditionally viewed as the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America. There was, however, some question as to who actually wrote the Pledge. Magazine staffer Francis Bellamy was one contender; the other was fellow staff member James Upham. The families of each had some supporting evidence for the authorship. It wasn't until 1939 that a committee appointed by the United States Flag Association determined that it was Bellamy who wrote the Pledge.

Francis Bellamy was a Baptist minister and a Christian Socialist. Prior to his involvement at Youth's Companion, he had been forced from the pulpit due to the unpopularity of his socialist sermons. His cousin, Edward Bellamy, was the author of a socialist utopian novel entitled "Looking Backward." The book, the third most popular novel of the era, told the story of a man who fell asleep in 1887 and woke in the year 2000 to find the United States a single giant corporation. All citizens between certain ages worked for this corporation, and all received identical compensation for their efforts. Francis, who was an active speaker for Christian Socialism, denied that his cousin's book depicted totalitarian socialism and claimed that it was instead a democratic form of the same. In fact, Edward's book itself described the transition as a peaceful and gradual one rather than one which involved some sort of a class war, and the "corporation" was one in which citizens were equally stockholders with stockholders' rights. Be that as it may, the two Bellamy men did, indeed, support socialism. (You can get additional and more detailed information from "The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History" by Dr. John W. Baer.)

James Upham, the nephew of Youth Companion's founder Daniel Ford (himself a self-effacing religious philanthropist), was in charge of the Premium Department at the magazine. In 1888, he launched a premium campaign to see that every public school in America had an American flag. His stated goal was not only to sell flags but to "raise the level of patriotism in the schools." The Flag Over the Schoolhouse campaign proved a resounding success, with promotional articles in the magazine that said, "...the time does not seem far distant when no public school shall be too poor, too remote, or too indifferent to have the stars and stripes float over its roof." Stated goals were to inspire in "boys and girls the hope of living to be brave men and women," and an impetus to "grow a thoroughly American feeling." As part of his campaign, Upham determined he wanted some sort of a pledge, and he described his ideas to Bellamy accordingly. (More is available online in the public posting of Chapter Two of "The Pledge Of Allegiance: A Centennial History, 1892-1992" by Dr. John W. Baer.)

It seems clear from his writings and from other promotional campaigns that Upham's efforts were toward patriotism and unity rather than the socialism espoused by Bellamy. In fact, it was published in Youth's Companion that Upham had received correspondence from teachers that indicated the presence of the flags in schools had "a marked influence...upon foreign born children and the children of foreign born parents" and that the raising of the flag every morning inspired "children cheering the old flag." Whatever Bellamy's secret thoughts when he wrote the words, neither the words nor the intent that commanded them were socialist in nature. Patriot Drive says that some accounts even claim that Bellamy wrote a pledge rather than a verbal salute because a pledge was "a stronger expression of loyalty" and that was important "even 27 years after the Civil War ended."

The original Pledge of Allegiance as penned in September of 1892 by Bellamy simply read, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all." The next month, the word "to" was added before "the Republic," and that's how thousands of schoolchildren learned the words in time for that year's Columbus Day celebrations. They also simultaneously saluted the flag with what was known as the "Bellamy Salute." It involved a salute with the right hand at the forehead, and then an extension of the hand toward the flag in mid-recitation.

The "Bellamy Salute" is not original to Francis Bellamy. It is, in fact, an old Roman military salute. While some lower-ranked Roman troops merely raised their hands to their foreheads as do many military men and women today, those higher-ranked soldiers first touched their foreheads and then reached their right arms outward with the cheer, "Hail, Caesar!" At the time Bellamy co-opted the idea for the Pledge of Allegiance, the Roman salute was being - or had been - used in many parts of the world. By the early 1930's, however, Mussolini was using it and Hitler was soon to follow. When the similarities between the American Pledge salute and the Nazi salute became apparent to the general public, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered that it be changed.

There is no question that the "Bellamy Salute" was once used for the Pledge of Allegiance, and there are some photographs on my correspondent's web site to prove the point. I recall that when I was first asked to review the evidence some months ago, there was a line drawing there - meaningless, since anything can be sketched - and a clearly faked photograph. (After I complained - and to his credit - the author changed the labels to say the drawing and photo were "illustrations" of how the salute would have looked.) The drawing and the first falsified photo I saw have since been removed. But the current photos offered as evidence of some sort of Nazi relationship or conspiracy are also not all legitimate.

For example, one of them shows a flag with stars in an incomplete circular pattern, a pattern which has never existed on an American flag. In 1891, one year before the earliest possible date such a photograph could have been taken (and I suspect this photo was taken significantly later than that in that there's an electric light fixture on the ceiling), the US flag had 44 stars arranged in rows. Several other photos do appear legitimate, but a couple of others have various indicators that they may have had some alteration done (photo alteration is one of the things I do for a living, so I recognize the signs of it - particularly when it's mediocre work - when I see them).

The labels on the photos are also suspect. One says that, "A Socialist in the US created the salute and pledge to promote socialism..." which is unlikely at best. Aside from Upham's patriotic motivations, Bellamy wrote in his own words that the words of the Pledge "began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards" and that he felt the "true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.'" He also wrote that he had rejected using the words "liberty, equality, fraternity" in the Pledge (words that were part and parcel of the French Revolution), viewing it as "too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization." So while acknowledging his own preference for socialism, he also explicitly left such verbiage out of the Pledge he wrote. (See The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History by Dr. John W. Baer.)

Another photo is labeled, "Without gun rights, we would still be saluting the flag like the National Socialist German Workers' Party." But the right to keep and bear arms is something that has nothing to do with the salute, the Pledge, or, in fact, Nazi Germany. Roosevelt wasn't threatened with an armed insurrection to make the change of salute; there was never any call to arms over domestic matters involving the Pledge or the salute, nor was the Second Amendment threatened by either of these things. This label appears to be histrionics at best, or a hamhanded attempt to mislead. (It would be far more accurate to say that, without the National Socialist German Workers' Party, we'd still be using the salute today...)

The upcoming Supreme Court case deals with the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, something on which my correspondent really takes no position. He views the entire Pledge as a socialist and, to put it plainly, Nazi-like tradition he calls "un-Libertarian" (the latter is, to be fair, arguably true depending on the definition of Libertarian and the Libertarian doing the defining).

The words "under God" weren't written by the religious Baptist Bellamy, but were added in 1954 by then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower who said, "In this way, we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future..." As historian Dr. John W. Baer puts it, following Eisenhower's action the Pledge became "both a patriotic oath and a public prayer." I agree with Dr. Baer in that including the words "under God" do make the Pledge a public prayer, and I believe that the Supreme Court should uphold the Ninth Circuit Court decision that says the words should be removed if the Pledge is to be said in public schools. (A 1942 Supreme Court decision, by the way, exempts students from saying the Pledge if they do not wish to participate for whatever reason, but I don't believe that a lack of participation changes in any way the fact that a student is essentially coerced into attendance for a prayer service, however brief).

That being said, I do not consider the words of the original Pledge to be in any way objectionable and, in fact, I find them important particularly for newcomers to American soil. Allegiance to the United States means allegiance to the notion of unalienable rights and a tacit agreement to fight against those who would usurp those liberties. Allegiance to a country where the First Amendment remains intact means it's okay if we don't agree with our government because we can still love and defend the Constitutional principles that created it. What I do find objectionable, however, is someone who, while making a point (whether I agree with the point or not), uses falsified* information in the process of doing so. In the midst of what has become a highly polarized argument, I suspect that's one thing on which most of us can agree.

*It's entirely possible he's not doing so intentionally, and I am not accusing him of deliberately pulling the wool over people's eyes. But it didn't take a lot of time for me to research many of the facts involved, and it would behoove him - particularly since he's presenting himself as something of an instructor in the history behind the Pledge - to do a little more of the same himself.