Just a quick observation here. Watching/reacting Clinton’s victory speech, so please forgive if this is somewhat disjointed commentary and isn’t a full of links citing things and such. Anyway, as a Sanders supporter (full disclosure), I’m generally listening to hear what she has to say and what she plans to do to appeal to persons like myself and try to unify the party, etc. Generally, I thought it was a good speech. But, there was one point of a sour note for me, the point where she basically recited the “One Nation, Under God, Indivisible” part of the (current) Pledge of Allegiance. And I just have to register a measure of protest. 1) She is now the head of a party that claims to support the separation of church and state principle, and 2) this is now a country where the number of atheists, agnostics, and “nones” equal or outnumber those who identify with the religious right. I see how far the Rs go to cater to those who would prefer to tear down that separation entirely on the right and institute a Christianist theocracy. So, should we not command at least some measure of respect from our party in this--at least enough not to be insulted in the speeches of high party officials?
So, is it too much to ask that the person who expects to represent people like me, who wants to be the head of the party that still generally holds to an ethic of upholding separation of church and state, and who wants to be president of a nation with that value enshrined in its very constitution, should continue to promote this rightwing-created (not to mention discriminatory) version of “America under God” patriotism that essentially tells religious minorities that they are not “real” Americans? It was jarring to hear her preach inclusion with one breath, and then recite a phrase of exclusion and division in another. I don’t particularly care for the almost-obligatory “God Bless America” bit at the end of the speech either, but that at least seems more an expression of personal belief than an endorsement by the public government. I hope a future Hindu for president (or Game of Thrones fan) might, for example, say “May the gods bless America.” So, I can (kinda) deal with that bit.
But reciting that part of the pledge is jarring for those of us who don’t believe that the government has any right to endorse theism over non-theism, or monotheism over polytheism. It is the government taking a religious stance and it is exclusionary and wrong, not to mention blatantly unconstitutional when enshrined by law. If she is serious about really making this the inclusive country we all hope for, then Hillary Clinton will purge that phrase from her own vocabulary and lexicon immediately (and as president encourage the nation to do the same on the official Pledge and on the money and whatnot). Nothing would have been lost from her speech if she’d just said “one Nation, indivisible” instead. Indeed, I doubt anyone would’ve noticed, focusing on the rest of the (good) speech instead.
I’m not so sure Ms. Clinton (or her campaign speech writers) understand the divisiveness this stuff causes and the message it sends: To non-believers, it tells us we are excluded from the life of the nation. Worse, for believers, it creates an exclusionary sense of entitlement that they and only they have a right to a place at the proverbial table. But, I for one am tired of having to get stares and sit out the pledge to my country in protest at various and often unexpected occasions. I just want those who say they want us to truly be “indivisible” to quit dividing us by implicitly denigrating a significant portion of the population’s lack of faith (or even “too much” faith if you believe in more than one deity). Will Hillary Clinton have our back, too, as she promised tonight? Doesn’t look much like it from here.