The Case of the Hindu Pledge
by Mister Thorne
OpEdNews.Com
The mayor of San Francisco started it. He decided that since California ¹s
constitution said no one could be denied "equal protection of the
laws," that meant he could not deny marriage licenses to men who want
to marry men. What a notion!
After that, fundamentalist Mormons from Utah and Arizona headed west. They
set their sites on Temecula, California, and made it their new home.
Several years after the mayor of San Francisco made his decision, the city
council of Temecula made theirs. They began issuing marriage licenses to
men with several brides. If a man can marry a man, then surely a man can
marry several women.
A few years later, a group of immigrants took action. The school board in
Union City, California a town that had become a haven for Hindus
altered the Pledge of Allegiance. They voted to require public school
teachers to lead willing students in a pledge to "one nation under
the gods." And they had reason on their side. If monogamists and
monotheists can do their thing, then - by golly - polygamists and
polytheists can do theirs.
A century ago, immigrants from Europe transformed New York City into a
confederation of ethnic neighborhoods: Italian, German, Irish, etc. Today,
immigrants from Asia are transforming the San Francisco Bay area into a
confederation of ethnic communities: Japanese, Chinese, Fillipino, etc.
According to Census 2000, less than half the people living in California
are what you might call European-Americans. One-third of those living in
San Francisco are Asian, and one-third of those living in Daly City, right
next door to San Francisco, are Fillipino.
The fastest growing group of immigrants in California between 1990 and
2000 were Asian Indians - Hindus - adherents to this world ¹s
third-largest religion. Hindus now make up 10% of the population of a
number of cities in the Bay area. Like other immigrant groups, they tend
to hang together, to form their own communities, to preserve their culture
and pass it on to their children.
Imagine a few years from now. Silicon Valley is booming, just as it was
during the1990s, when so many well-educated Hindus moved to the Bay area.
Computer companies and bio-tech companies are hiring at a brisk pace, and
another wave of immigrants are drawn from India to the Bay Area.
After a few years, most of those living in Union City are Hindu, and 80%
of the students at Delaine Eastin Elementary School are the children of
Hindu parents. One evening, there's a school board meeting and there's so
much talk about the controversial Pledge of Allegiance. Back in 2004 (in
the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Michael Newdow),
the Supreme Court ruled that it was OK to lead students in a pledge to
"one nation under God." But that version of the pledge doesn ¹t
sit well with most folks in Union City. They're teaching their children
about many gods, and they don't want them to recite a pledge that says
there's only one god.
The school board alters the pledge. Now students pledge their allegiance
to "one nation under the gods." There's nothing unlawful about
this and there's nothing unconstitutional about it either: if it's OK to
have public school students recite a pledge to a nation under one god,
what could be wrong with a pledge to a nation under many gods?
Of course, this doesn't sit well with Mr. Jones, a long-time resident of
Union City, a devout Catholic whose daughter attends Delaine Eastin
Elementary. He doesn't want his daughter reciting a pledge to many gods;
he doesn ¹t even want her to hear such a pledge, but what can he do? The
matter was settled back in 2004.
Back then, the U.S. Solicitor General argued that the Pledge of Allegiance
doesn ¹t endorse a religious belief. The Elk Grove school district argued
that the pledge doesn't even take a stand on the existence of the gods.
And they both argued that since the girl isn't required to say the
pledge, there's nothing unconstitutional about it. The court agreed.
What's fair is fair. Equal rights for all. If it's no infringement of one
man's rights to ask his daughter to pledge allegiance to a nation under
one god, then it's no infringement of another's rights to ask his daughter
to pledge allegiance to a nation under many gods, right? If two men can
marry one another, then a man can have six wives, right? After all, this
is America, and diversity is honored.
Click here to read Mr. Thorne's amicus brief in the case of Elk Grove v. Newdow:
---------------
Mister Thorne lyricalreckoner@yahoo.com
is a mathematics editor living in San Francisco. He
filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Elk Grove
v. Newdow.
