Once again, a sitting Senator is now focused on such important national business items as monitoring what decisions are made by a television network.
NBC's edit of the Pledge of Allegiance has infuriated Dan Coats (R-IN) and he is concerned that:
Without the mention of God, the pledge "is more than incomplete," claims Coats, but "also empty."
Really?
I'm concerned about a lot of things and at the top of my list is our government working on the issues of the nation... not political grandstanding.
Mr. Coats' letter is here:
Dear Mr. Burke,
I am writing to express my serious concern, and the concerns of the Hoosiers I represent, regarding NBC’s decision to air an edited version of the national Pledge of Allegiance not once but twice during the June 19, 2011 broadcast of the U.S. Open golf tournament. In the opening of this broadcast, NBC aired video showing schoolchildren reciting the Pledge, but omitted the words “under God, indivisible” during the segment. Moments later, NBC again aired an edited version of the Pledge, this time omitting the words “one nation, under God, indivisible.”
Since its adoption by Congress in 1942, the Pledge of Allegiance has served as a statement of our heritage. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated, the Pledge of Allegiance:
serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded and for which we continue to strive: one Nation under God -- the Founding Fathers' belief that the people of this nation are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” and “indivisible--although we have individual states, they are united in one Republic.”
Omitting the section of the Pledge that affirms these beliefs strips the message of its meaning. More than any political connotation, this is why the Pledge of Allegiance is more than incomplete without the words “under God” and “indivisible.” It is also empty.
I am disturbed with NBC’s decision to modify the Pledge for this broadcast. I understand that NBC acknowledged its error at a later point in Sunday’s broadcast, and has since stated that this action was a “bad decision” made by a small group of individuals. Nonetheless, I remain concerned that such a decision to selectively edit the Pledge could be made in the first place. As a result, I would like to request that NBC provide me with a full written account of its decision-making process in this matter, including an explanation of why these specific words were omitted, and what actions NBC intends to take to prevent such inappropriate edits from occurring in the future.
I look forward to receiving your response.
Sincerely,
Dan Coats
United States Senator
What Mr. Coats does not grasp is that the inclusion of "under God" was a politicized event, exactly what he is now railing against.
The original pledge was :
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. (1892-Francis Bellamy)
In 1924, a change to the pledge was championed by the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution. It was changed from "my Flag" to "the flag of the United States of America". The original author protested the change to no avail.
62 years after the original pledge, in 1954, the addition of "under God" was championed by the Knights of Columbus. Mr. Bellamy, a Baptist minister, did not include the reference to God in his original pledge and fought until his death against changes to the original.
In fact, Mr. Bellamy
was a Christian Socialist who "championed 'the rights of working people and the equal distribution of economic resources, which he believed was inherent in the teachings of Jesus.'" but he was forced to leave his Boston church the previous year because of the socialist bent of his sermons.
Does Senator Coats feel that the pledge was "empty" and "incomplete" for the first 72 years? Were the American's who spoke the pledge before 1942 somehow less of an American?
Seeing that changes to the pledge have come from both political and religious viewpoints, Mr. Coats now feels that he has a legal obligation to inspect NBC's internal workings to define what
actions NBC intends to take to prevent such inappropriate edits from occurring in the future.
There is U.S. law around the flag and the pledge, but there are no penalties.
It is Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code (4 U.S.C. § 1 et seq). This is a U.S. federal law, but there is no penalty for failure to comply with it and it is not widely enforced — indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that punitive enforcement would conflict with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. --wikipedia
And now for the hypocrisy watch part:
U.S. Flag Code
§ 8. Respect for flag
The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free.
and yet...
Mr. Coats comments about the photo above are summed up by his public statements about it:
-- Dan Coats, U.S. Senator
Mr. Coats should call for a full explanation of the disrespectful picture that Sarah Palin took with our American Flag. He should call on her to provide the decision-making process associated with this picture and what she plans to do to ensure that her disrespect of our Flag does not occur again.
My open letter to Senator Coats:
June 21, 2011
Senator Coats,
Until you can equally express your outrage at all violations of the U.S. Flag code, please return to our Nation's business that demands your full and undivided attention: Fixing our economy.
FOCUS!
Skip.