safety

The United States Pledge of Allegiance

Posted by

0

It’s endured a lot in its history. The basic tenets of the symbol remain constant.

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

Last month I volunteered to lead a group in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag. The words of this pledge have haunted me for at least the past four years. Each time they’re uttered, either mentally or aloud, their meanings challenge my thought processes. Are these utterances actually reflective of the true state of being in this country? I had difficulty responding in the affirmative.

It was time to share my thoughts in this regard in a subtle way. It was time to allow others to reflect on the words and take the steps toward giving cognition to their meaning and value. Just precisely what promise is being made? Why is this oath of loyalty being made? Does this country truly represent the things it purports to promise to all of its population? Perhaps Colin Kaepernick was correct in drawing attention to the inconsistencies of citizenship rights and justices. However, Kaepernick’s symbolic speech had to do with the National Anthem, not the pledge to the flag.

Still, there are some troubling parallels between the symbolic protest related to the song, the difficulties with believing the words that promise fealty to a country and its flag, and the realities brought to the fore of the Black Lives Matter (“BLM”) movement. It makes one ponder whether people are actually cognizant of the import of the words, the force they carry, or whether they are merely and mindlessly parroting a set of words as part of a ritual; there’s no appreciation of what’s being said or done.

As I contemplated the date of the meeting and how the pledge would be recited by the group, my life was impacted by various elements around me. It was publicized that hate crimes were being perpetrated against those who support the BLM movement. Rusted nails are being left in various parts of their property. Some of those instances impacted my residence. A very legitimate concern about the efficacy of reporting these and other violations of my personal safety became matters that needed a decision. They begged the question of whether any report or follow-up action would be taken.

Police chiefs in several U.S. cities were asked to retire because of their lack of action and demonstrated slack enforcement of peace during rallies. The one occupying the White House praised demonstrators (identified and admitted White Supremists) who inflicted harm and death upon peaceful demonstrators. And then there were speeches fomenting hate and instigating uprisings and violence. These begged the question of whether the vow of allegiance was deserved if the country could not serve all of its people in an equitable manner.

It was time to draw on my musical background. It was time to carve out the words in phrases that would allow the speaker to consider the many aspects of what the words actually mean contrasted to whether or not those words actually have meaning and substance based on reality.

So the meeting’s Pledge of Allegiance was composed as though it was a sheet of music to be sung. It hailed back to pre-1954 when President Eisenhower inserted the phrase “under God” so that the original text could be appreciated. It was spaced as though poetry. And before it was recited by the group, the members were asked to assume the discipline of an orchestra being led by a conductor. They were asked to repeat the words I had spoken and wait for the next phrase. The recitation that came about was:

I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands
one nation,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice
for all.

Polling the group for their impressions of the words was not appropriate. That was not the purpose of reciting the pledge. No doubt that exercise did leave the members considering the words that were just recited. Is it possible there were some who wanted to question the reasoning for the style and the rudiments of the content?

References:

Technicalities of “Right to Vote”

Posted by

2

In this season of making decisions about who will lead our country for the next four years, several things arose while I worked on some projects. Pulling some of the pieces together brought me to scouring my old Facebook Notes. Each reminded me of something significant that was happening. And it reminded me of why some of the priorities and goals that I’ve had for more than 13 years are still not realized.

One of the obstacles to progress is the necessity of keeping myself safe. I have a person who is stalking me and has been doing so for the past 15 years or more. By virtue of the fact that the person is a relative, they have quite literally all of my identifying information. It isn’t possible to use police protection because the restraining order I attempted to have become permanent was quashed by a Judge Pro Tem who admitted on the bench in full court that she did not understand the concepts of domestic violence as it related to family members. That action by Pro Tem Glenda Veasey spelled living my life by my wits and using my resources to develop different strategies to keep my whereabouts confidential so that I may live productively and in relative safety.

Unfortunately, my right to vote became compromised in the 2000 and then again in the 2004 presidential elections. By 2008, I thought an alternative was finally discovered. I was wrong. In frustration, I memorialized my thrashing about in a Facebook Note on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 7:32pm.

###

Here I was feeling so smug with myself. I’d not only gotten determined and motivated, I did! I found how to register myself to vote online.

It was simple. Merely go to the Secretary of State online. Click “register to vote.” Well, if you click at this time, you may have to start all over again because all of the instructions need to be followed and done completely. But I did complete the form according to the instructions and then clicked “Submit.”

Then it was a waiting game. Wait for the paper confirmation of what I’d submitted to reach me by mail. If all of the information was correct, merely sign off and date the form. Drop it into the mail and voila! Registration completed.

That is, registration completed until the phone call yesterday morning. The County Registrar of Voters representative called. My registration could not be processed. I need to include my residence address.

“But the residence address is confidential,” I protested, “I’m a survivor of domestic abuse.” Actually, the same premise would apply to one who is the victim of a stalker. Although the worker understood (or at least said she did), she could not contact her superior to find out what to do.

Until she calls back, I am still not a registered voter. Those of you who are survivors of domestic abuse of any type, those of you who are victims of stalkers, be forwarned. Your citizen right to vote is at jeapordy because at this writing you must disclose your residence address.

THIIS MAKES NO SENSE! There must be a way to allow a person to live safely yet also allow them to say how they want their government run by being allowed to register to vote with a confidential residence address or else use a business address as a substitute for the residence.

Comments:

  • Solange Bitol Hansen – It’s called a P.O. Box – you list it along with an address that stays confidential. February 8, 2008 at 9:05am ·
  • Anne Gervais – Congratulations for at least VOTING. That is positive.
    February 8, 2008 at 4:07pm ·
###

My right to vote in the 2008 was still compromised. In order to do so, I was forced to divulge my residence address. By the time the registration deadline arrived, it no longer mattered whether I made the disclosure. I was being subjected to physical violence from the people with whom I shared residence. The determination to leave and stop paying to be physically assaulted was firm. And according to my plans, I would be out of the house within a month or two after Election Day. So I gave my residence address. By March 2008, I had voted and left the premises.

March of this year arrived along with a surprise. A sample ballot for local elections was sent to my business address. Apparently something happened in the course of the four years of my advocacy, pleas, and research for alternatives to registration without disclosing one’s confidential address.

But in August, yet another tool that was created to suppress suffrage. Voters will have to provide proof of citizenship or some type of government issued identification. It isn’t clear to me if this move is an effort to prevent non-citizens from voting, perhaps illegal aliens, or if it’s a throwback to the Jim Crow days of voter literacy tests. I tend to see it as the latter.

Unfortunately, one court has upheld the requirement; no doubt others will follow suit. So it isn’t just the population that has a need to protect the information about their residence that’s in jeopardy of not being able to vote this year. Should this new rule take effect and be upheld throughout all the states, there will be certain classes of people who will have their right to vote stripped away because they do not have the required government-issued identification.

If the person has received their sample ballot, that also contains the information about their polling place, it seems that should suffice for identification. It was sufficient in the past.

I don’t think voter fraud is at issue here. The People want to have their say and want their voices heard. The problem is becoming historic. Our partisan politics are bending the outcome of elections. In 2000, we had the advent of hanging chads. In 2004, the phenomenon of provisional ballots caused the vote of some people to not be counted while votes of others were. I might add here that it seemed certain ethnicities were singled out as provisional voters.

Yes, this will be a watershed election in November. It will show us in which direction this country is headed. It will show us whether our guaranteed rights will continue to be preserved and allowed or whether the whittling away will resume until there are no more guaranteed rights.

Sponsored link: The Politics of Voter Suppression: Defending and Expanding Americans’ Right to Vote (A Century Foundation Book)

Sponsored link: The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States

Sponsored link: Voting Rights–and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections