Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pledge of Allegiance: Virginia School Superintendent Needs to Get Schooled
Hampton Schools Superintendent Patrick Russo (prusso@sbo.hampton.k12.va.us) walked into spokeswoman Ann Stephens-Cherry's office recently and told her that she needed to "address" something.
Daily Press reporter Samieh Shalash didn't always stand for the Pledge of Allegiance at School Board meetings, he said, and while two attorneys told him that it wasn't illegal for her to remain seated, they all agreed it was disrespectful.
Stephens-Cherry duly passed on his concerns, so Shalash asked to meet her and Russo to discuss it.
Russo told Shalash that when she didn't stand for the pledge, he was personally insulted. In fact, he's insulted for every parent and child in the room.
Oddly, he told Shalash that he would respect her country's flag and merely expected her to respect his. Apparently, he was thrown by the head scarf that Shalash, a Muslim, wears.
Shalash explained that she was born and raised in Lexington, Ky. America is her country.
This account comes from Shalash, confirmed by Stephens-Cherry. I called Russo on Thursday to discuss it but, seconds after telling me that he'd be "glad to talk about it" once his spokeswoman briefed him, he called his spokeswoman and told her to relay the message he's on vacation and wouldn't talk to me at all.
OK, then.
First, Shalash says this isn't about her religion. Second, Shalash's reasons for not standing for the Pledge are immaterial.
Let me concede that Russo has every right to feel bad if someone doesn't salute a flag he cares deeply about. I care deeply about it, too.
But neither of us has the right to pressure or compel another to salute it.
That's not me talking - that's his own district policy.
Hampton's student handbook affirms the right "to refrain from participation in the Pledge of Allegiance."
If Russo can't compel a student to stand or pledge - and a district superintendent should know this - why on Earth would he assume that he could compel a working journalist?
If you think that we should force people to salute the flag, you're not alone.
But you're in bad company.
In the 1930s, Adolf Hitler condemned Jehovah's Witnesses for not saluting the Nazi flag. Then he rounded up 10,000 of them and shipped them to concentration camps.
Witnesses here in the States began refusing, too, on religious grounds.
After two schoolchildren from a Witness family in Minersville, Pa., refused, their superintendent helped pass a resolution making refusal an act of "insubordination."
In 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.
"National unity is the basis of national security," Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote. And "the flag is the symbol of the Nation's power, the emblem of freedom in its truest, best sense."
Allowing some "dissident" children to refuse, he wrote, "might cast doubts in the minds of the other children."
Within days, Americans rose up to enforce respect for the emblem of freedom. Nearly 1,500 Witnesses were beaten in hundreds of communities across the country.
Beaten by vigilantes in Texas. A Witness in Nebraska castrated. Another in Wyoming tarred and feathered. A Kingdom Hall in Maine stormed and torched. Property defaced with swastikas.
Richard Ellis, professor of politics at Willamette University in Salem, Ore., wrote "To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance."
In one case in West Virginia, Ellis said in a phone interview Wednesday, Witnesses "were rounded up, roped like cattle by the sheriff's deputies. Those who had resisted, they poured castor oil down their throats. One apparently was forced to consume so much castor oil he later urinated blood. It all took place in the mayor's office."
One Southern sheriff said Witnesses were being run out of town because "they're traitors; the Supreme Court says so. Ain't you heard?"
The backlash was so widespread, so brutal, that in three short years, the Supreme Court reversed itself utterly.
Justice Robert Jackson noted in his 1943 opinion that "those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."
"Freedom to differ," he wrote, "is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
Lesson over.
85 Comments so far
Show AllA fascinating story that I was unaware of.
Americans are always SO READY to join a lynch mob. I suppose that could be said of all humans.
It worth noting that in a 80 year period where such was recorded, there were some 5000 lynchings in the USA (1882 to 1968).
There is not a single recorded incident of a lynching In Canada during that period. The only incident that comes close was when a group of Americans from south of the border crossed into British Columbia, seized an aboriginal, (Louis Sam) dragged him over the border and hung him for a crime he could not possibly of committed.
This created a major international incident, even at a time when Aboriginals in Canada were perceived as the lowest of the low.
Now both Canada and The USA SUPPOSEDLY evolved as nation States from European countries, and both Canada and the United States adopted the British version of courts and justice.
How is it that the mere prescence of a border can lead to such telling differences?
Lest people think it just a legacy of blacks and slavery wherein Canada really never had much in the way of slaves , some 1200+ persons that were lynched in the USA during that period were white.
So when it stated that Americans are so ready to join a lynch mob as are Humans in general WHY that mind boggling difference (Numbers suggest Canada should have had 500 lynchings if it a human trait) in the number of lynchings that occurred with the only "apparent" difference the 49th parallel?
I have my own opinions as to why but I would love to hear those of others.
And in case Siouxrose reads this and wants to use astrology to explain it our countries were birthed under the same "signs" .
"And in case Siouxrose reads this and ..."
LOFL LOFL LOFL!
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
Not meant as a slight at Siouxrose. I love the gal. :)
Just that I can not understand how astrology and the moons and stars can divide people up so neatly just because of when they were born.
I read mine the other day. It said will be in trouble with the authroties even the Police. I tell meself, ok does this mean 200000 capricorns in Vancouver are going to all be in toruble with the law?
It makes no sense.:)
You might want to be careful with an astrology report like that and making comments like you did. Maybe the trouble with the law will come when Americans come across the border to lynch you. You never know.
Lynching has gotten to be very passe in the US. Not that it doesn't happen, particularly for minorities, but the real danger of repercussions for political dissension are economic through firing and boycotting.
"Not meant as a slight at Siouxrose. I love the gal. :)
Just that I can not understand how astrology and the moons and stars can divide people up so neatly just because of when they were born."
I've read Sioux Rose's many inspring and thoughtful posts. Nowhere she said anything that astrology, moon and stars can divide people up so neatly.
Quite frankly I often skip the article at first and jump ahead to see what Siouxrose might have posted in response. I value her insight. I value many of her posts more then the articles themselves.
It does not mean I agree with the notion that nation states are directed by Astrological signs and that various "traits" can be attributed to such.
My attitude on astrology is that we as people set our own boundaries defining who we are going to be and that those drawn to astrology and who tend to "believe" in it will allow themselves to be defined by it.
This does not mean that it not real for them just as I would not state that those who show up at those religous gatherings are not experiencing something when they are praying.
In short what makes astrology work is the Human mind , not vice versa.
How many of those lynchings happened north of the Mason-Dixon line?
An interesting question so I did a search.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html
This breaks them down state by State. Montana is the highest of the States North of that line but it numbers dwarfed by those south of it.
So there a definite difference in attitudes that have to come from somewhere.
An important story, well written. I'd never heard about the Jehovah's Witnesses, either -- definitely a chilling lesson there. Thanks, Tamara.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America and not the Fascist, oligarchy that now stands,one nation under God and the Bill of Rights, with liberty and justice for all.
"I will NOT pledge allegiance to this blood drenched flag, nor to the genocidal history for which it stands. A nation clearly divided - into rich and poor - with injustice and slavery for most".
If Mr. Shalash should choose to insult our flag and choose not to pledge allegience to our country (if he is a citizen)that is his right. It is every persons right in our country to decide what we think and act on it.
What shouldn't surprise anyone is that just because it is his right that he wouldn't be held in contempt by Americans. I have nothing but contempt for him.
If he can't honor the country that gives him this right and for anyone else that feels the same, the hell with them.
Hey Doubting non-Thomas,
FU.
When I was in second grade, my teacher wrote negatively on my report card that I refused to recite the pledge and didn't show my patriotism and that all my peers noticed it. That is the mark of which I am most proud among all my educational accomplishments. At eight years, I could actually think for myself.
What the hell is a flag? Fabric. What obligation do I or anyone have to pledge or salute a piece of cloth or a symbol of a political geographical organization, the act of pledging to such actually representing separatism more than it does any peon to freedom? Why are we not honoring, saluting and pledging to this Earth, to our lives, to our existence, without which there can be no country, no family, no home?
And do you make a pledge to the flag of your state, which is probably bigger than many countries in the rest of the world? To your city, your neighborhood, your family? Are you to be despised because you probably don't? Why should these geopolitical organizations deserve less "honor?"
God, people are so ignorant.
"Hey Doubting non-Thomas,FU. "
Now here's a person who can argue intelligently...
You just made yourself an example of your own final comment.
It is ignorant to realize that there is no country or flag more real and more important than life? That liberty, beauty, loyalty, peace, brotherhood, prosperity, sustainability do not come from a flag but come from within each person? That a child can understand this?
FYI, Samieh Shalash is female.
It amazes me how many Americans see the nation-state as an end in itself. There are a lot of problems with the nation-state concept. As far as I'm concerned, the state has value ONLY when it serves human needs. It has no other purpose. States serve people, not the other way around. Anyone who asks you to "serve your country" has got the formula exactly backwards.
Given the above, I have zero respect for flags, national anthems, and pledges of allegiance. They're nonsense. When the state serves human needs, it is useful. When it fails to serve human needs, it is not useful. And when it stands in the way of meeting human needs, it represents a huge problem that must be tackled with the utmost urgency.
He is a she: she's wearing a headscarf. She was born and reared in Lexington, KY (that's in the USA). She is a reporter, reporting on the proceedings, not a participant in them. And if something is a RIGHT, it cannot be given OR taken away because some narrow-minded bigot like you says so.
You might reflect on the fact that your namesake spoke the unwelcome truth to the king who had raised him to power and privilege. I assume you'd have had only contempt for Sir Thomas More had you been there at the time.
Rainborowe
Rainborowe
Bingo! You nailed it. Intelligently and persuasively well stated.
Good point!
I always assumed "Thomas More" was a nicknname he gave himself because he was a fan of the Sir More of jolly old, head slicing, draw-and-quartering, England. I think it is his actual name.
What are you afraid of, Thomas?
If you read the historic documents the USA was founded on you will find out that it is not this country which gives him this, or any right, but they are 'endowed by their creator' (DoI). That's pretty basic -- are you sure you are an American?
I do not know Thomas Moore, I have found you to be a good man but I have a hard time buying into your patriotism. I believe in the motto, "God protect us from fools and patriots".
It bothers me as well, when parshioners offer each other a handshake for peace, while most parishioners supported the ujust invasion of Iraq, which I believe comes from an authoratative mindset. Religious people like to be authoratative, it is a form of imaturity, that everything is black or white.
I am a member of the K of C because in my widowed and retirement years, I relish the male cammeraderie. But I have refused to move up from a first degree, as I refuse to take more oaths to the Pope and American exceptionalism.
Wow TM, you created quite a stir. We still need you though on CD.
I declined to salute the U.S. flag as a school kid beginning back in 1967 in protest of the Viet Nam war.
It is our RIGHT to express ourselves in this country AND to expect that our fellow citizens also respect- not condemn- that right!!
wait a second thomas- this story is not about "honoring his country" it's about standing up and reciting a pledge- not to the country, but to a piece of cloth. i think it is relly unamerican to force people to say words they don't mean.
wait a second thomas- this story is not about "honoring his country" it's about standing up and reciting a pledge- not to the country, but to a piece of cloth. i think it is relly unamerican to force people to say words they don't mean.
I'm not surprised by the contempt thomas more has, he really doesn't have any working concept of freedom, just a slave mentality to symbols.
Freedom is not based on symbols, justice does not require courts, liberty isn't assured by war.
Perhaps if anger were to give way to actualizing freedom, justice and liberty instead of screaming about it, perhaps if america were to practice the values in reality instead of some "future time", perhaps then America would rise from the insanity of the military-industrial/right-wing/fanatical pseudo-religious actions of the last fifty years and become the nation that people would stand up for.
Thomas More tries to progress and keep an open mind, but if you read his frequent comments it's obvious that his feet are still anchored up to the hips in the cement block of Amerikan exceptionalism.
So he's hopeless on issues that push his Old-Time Jingo Religion buttons-- in this respect, he's regrettably in sync with the pompous, self-important superintendent cited in the article.
(He also thinks that calling out racism is passé at best, because sensible Americans know that we've worked through all of the real structural and embedded racism in our government and society, and the occasional lapses are more the exception than the rule. But that's another story.)
Characterizing the contretemps as a matter of "courtesy" is a red herring. Courtesy does not oblige persons to participate in religious ceremonies and mimic the behavior of true believers, and this applies even more to the secular religion of Patriotism-- which, incidentally, is also the last refuge of scoundrels.
I don't doubt that the Superintendent was "offended"-- the way any petty person with a little authority becomes "offended" when someone challenges their rigid and primitive concepts of Order. Clearly, it just stuck in that pissant's craw that this SCARF-WEARING Musselwoman stayed on her obnoxious foreign ass instead of rising up to Honor the Flag (and, by so doing, Honor the Superintendent and his calcified notions of rectitude).
I wouldn't be surprised if the Superintendent goes into a cobwebby storage closet and retrieves the dusty and termite-raddled Superintendent's Paddle, with the intention of administering a few good whacks on the posteriors of future offenders.
Such folk are not in the least mollified or daunted by the judiciary's settled rulings that perceived disrespect to the Flag is not a criminal or civil wrong. In fact, I daresay such rulings are gasoline upon the patriotic bonfire smoldering inside them like an Eternal Flame-- and consuming such of a mind as they possess.
Hiding behind the Constitution and Bill of Rights, eh? I'll show you who's boss! Thus, they are even more determined to demonstrate that just because something may be LEGAL, it still ain't RIGHT!
Forget it, Samieh... it's Virginia.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Apparently some people think it's not OK to "insult" the flag by not saying the pledge. Funny how the same people are not offended by their country's waging needless and unjust wars and killing innocent people, to give one example.
My daughter's teacher was upset and offended when my daughter didn't want to say the pledge in kindergarten. We, her parents, were summoned for the talking to. Never mind that her father is a Vietnam vet, and got a Purple Heart. God only knows why a 5 year old wouldn't do this or that, and God only knows why anybody would be offended by an action of a 5 year old. It is not like she was trying to make a political statement.
To me, this story is on the same level. Go figure.
By the way, prior to the incident at school, the children spent 2 weeks talking about how "it is OK to be different."
Bea April: "Apparently some people think it's not OK to "insult" the flag by not saying the pledge. Funny how the same people are not offended by their country's waging needless and unjust wars and killing innocent people, to give one example."
Isn't nationalism funny that way? That's what keeps me from drinking the kool-aid of "My country right or wrong."
Thanks for your comments, and for your family clear vision.
If you care to let Hampton Schools Superintendent Patrick Russo know your thoughts on his actions, he can be reached directly at (prusso@sbo.hampton.k12.va.us)
Here's what I think. First, Superintendant Russo is quite obviously a moral coward for dodging the face-to face meeting with the reporter he tried to chastise third-hand.
Second, Like the Nazi swastika, the American flag is an abstract symbol that stirs up different emotions for different people. The actual design itself is a cheap, unimaginative knock-off of the flag of the East India Company, the world's first transnational corporation, and the first to wage aggressive resource wars against native populations. The East India corporate flag had thirteen alternating horizontal red and white stripes with a field of blue in the upper left-hand corner decorated with white crosses. For me the clumsy, imitative design of the American flag is a sordid, revolting reminder of what imperialism has always been and continues to be. My sentiments are shared by a significant majority of the world's population. The American flag is by far the most reviled symbol on active display on the planet.
Before the Nazis used the swastika, it was used by many cultures throughout the past 3,000 years to represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck. The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit svastika - meaning "to be good." Nevertheless, after the terrible abuses perpetrated by the Third Reich, the German people had the good sense to drop their patriotic usage of that offensive symbol, regardless of its benevolent origins. Stubborn, insulated, culturally ignorant Americans have even less reason to honor their uniquely repugnant symbol of oppression. They, in fact, deserve the disrespect that is generally reserved for their flag.
Fascinating! Although wasn't the "hakenkreutz" the original svastika reversed?
Rainborowe
Yes, because the the Fuehrer saw everything backwards anyway.
"the East India Company, the world's first transnational corporation, and the first to wage aggressive resource wars against native populations."
NOPE.
The Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie or VOC in Dutch, literally "United East Indian Company") was a trading company, which was established in 1602, when the States-General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out colonial activities in Asia. It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock. It was also arguably the world's first megacorporation, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, negotiate treaties, coin money, and establish colonies.
The English, as usual, copied the Dutch.
However - I was unaware of the flag design rip-off.
Thanks for that info.
The East India Company was granted its charter as a joint stock company by Queen Elizabeth I in December, 1600.
Rainborowe
Welcome to Virginia!!!!!!!!!!!
From a life long resident.
I grew up in Fairfax County, went to Virginia Tech, lived various places before moving to Pittsburgh. Aside from the locals saying yuinz in stead of y'all, the same attitudes can be found on this side of the M.D. line too.
But, their heavy dependence on the war machine industry does give Tidewater Virginians a particularly arrogant and nasty form of the patriotism disease. I even heard that historically black Hampton University kicked some of it's students out for opposing the Iraq invasion.
I live in Loudoun County myself as Fairfax County is way too sprawled and the costs are higher. However, my husband has visited the Hampton Roads area from time to time and has noticed some cultural shift. The military vote would always dominate but there has been some shift since 2005. Hampton Roads has had some growth since 2005 but will never achieve the same as Northern VA. As for relying on the war machine, Northern VA relies more on it than Hampton Roads. Do a compare between Arlington and Norfolk and you'll see.
Well, by moving to Loudon County you are only contributing to the sprawl.
If I lived in that area again (god forbid), I would only live either in DC or no further out than Arlington or Alexandria, with access to public transit and culture. Their congressman, Jim Moran is a good guy - one of the very few who isn't afraid to criticize Israel. Fairfax/Loudon/Prince William are suburban/exurban wastelands epresented by the Frank Wolf and other reactionaries.
Hi there. Nice to meet another VA resident. Which part of the state are you from? I live in Loudoun County myself.
P.S.: I'm well aware that Northern VA differs greatly from the rest of the state. Yet, 4 years ago Loudoun used to be identical to the rest of the state.
To get a real feel for how far it goes, read the original posting's comments on the Daily Press's website. The amount of bigotry present is enough to blow your mind (or not if you've come to expect it). http://preview.tinyurl.com/c75vex
I'm a lifelong Hampton Roads resident and not always very proud of it.
And what far too many don't know or intentionally neglect is the genocide the flag represents from the murder of the indigenous people and the theft of their land all the way up today, where no telling how many people have been slaughtered in the name of the american flag. Eventually it will come back on the U.S.A. but that's OK as we have enough nuclear weaponry to make everybody pledge their allegiance to the oligarchy that runs this country.
i sing of Olaf glad and big
by E. E. Cummings
XXX
i sing of Olaf glad and big
whose warmest heart recoiled at war:
a conscientious object-or
his wellbelovéd colonel(trig
westpointer most succinctly bred)
took erring Olaf soon in hand;
but--though an host of overjoyed
noncoms(first knocking on the head
him)do through icy waters roll
that helplessness which others stroke
with brushes recently employed
anent this muddy toiletbowl,
while kindred intellects evoke
allegiance per blunt instruments--
Olaf(being to all intents
a corpse and wanting any rag
upon what God unto him gave)
responds,without getting annoyed
"I will not kiss your fucking flag"
straightway the silver bird looked grave
(departing hurriedly to shave)
but--though all kinds of officers
(a yearning nation's blueeyed pride)
their passive prey did kick and curse
until for wear their clarion
voices and boots were much the worse,
and egged the firstclassprivates on
his rectum wickedly to tease
by means of skilfully applied
bayonets roasted hot with heat--
Olaf(upon what were once knees)
does almost ceaselessly repeat
"there is some shit I will not eat"
our president,being of which
assertions duly notified
threw the yellowsonofabitch
into a dungeon,where he died
Christ(of His mercy infinite)
i pray to see;and Olaf,too
preponderatingly because
unless statistics lie he was
more brave than me:more blond than you.
Thanks, I have only seen the first stanza quoited in Zinn's writings but never read the whole poem.
I didn't know ee cummings (always lower case) was such a good radical! Great poetry! Great deconstruction of the vile institution of patriotism!
It's ridiculous and highly laughable. Why would one EVER feel compelled to "revere", "respect", or in particular "pledge ALLEGIANCE" to a piece of fabric? To claim that one is showing love of their country by pledging and standing before ANYTHING is idolatry! What do the Xians think about THAT?!
What do they think about what that flag really represents? Of course, they are NOT thinking at all. Let them continue to place their hands over their hearts and pledge "Baaa Baaa Black Sheep have you any wool?" I always just laugh and leave the area so I don't get too disgusted.
Curious, do any other (more civilized) countries (Canada for starters) even have a "pledge of allegiance" to a flag?
Note that I'm not referring to a national anthem - like "Oh Canada" or "Gloria Al Bravo Pueblo"; all countries have those, but a solemn pledge to their flag.
Any non-USAn's please chime in...
In 2001 the Liberals tried to pass such a law Bill C451. The person sponsoring claimed Canadians would be encouraged to "express their Loyalty to their country much like they do in the United States".
I am not certain but I do not think the bill was passed.
My own opinion is it does not promote UNITY or allegiance. Such a thing would promote diviseness where we try and divide our citizens into "the Loyal" and "the Not loyal" via silly child like oaths.
The bill was passed as a way to "demonize" Quebecs seperatists, to try and convince Canadians that they a group of traitors and un-patriotic.
What the member and the supporters of such can not seem to understand is these sort of laws PROMOTE seperatism. They are intended to set people apart.
They not only promote separatism by setting people apart, but build resentment as more and more draconian measures are needed to silence each remaining layer of people who won't be silenced. The extreme result is not an unified country, but a dictatorial government afraid of an inevitable revolution. This is the reason that so many democratically minded third world revolutions devolve into tyrannical states.
From what I can tell, the entire concept of a Pledge of Allegiance seems to stem from the dangerous confluence of socialism and nationalism - where extreme left goes off its rocker and becomes extreme right, the diametric opposite of centrism. The 1892 pledge was in fact written by an American national socialist, and followers of National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany had something quite similar later on. The American pledge was originally said with the hand stretched out, palm up - the national socialist salute (there are pictures of whole classes doing this, google them).
So yeah, really strange that we still follow that practice! Internationally, I don't think national socialism is all that popular anymore (last time I checked, I think most Americans were against the concept?), so something like this pledge would not have survived the post-WWII upheaval that rewrote most world governments. Perhaps in China? I don't know.
Other countries (like Canada) have similar oaths in terms of wording, but not for the indoctrination of school children. They're more for the swearing in of government officials.
A flag is a flag is a flag. I'm really going to swear an oath to a piece of fabric that was probably made in a sweatshop? Why don't I swear an oath to my dish cloth, it's far more practical... I really wish people in this country could get past BS like this and focus on what's actually important, like, food, clothing, shelter, health care? What are we, 10 year olds?
Actually, a little redearch revealed that no other country, except the Phillipines, has a "pledge of allegiance.
The original pledge of allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist - not a national socialist - completely different things. The original wording was simply this:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it
stands -- one nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all."
It was to be part of a 400th observance of Columbus day, and not to be institutionalized the way it has been. The pledge was intended to used in a limited manner to address an issue of his time. He never inagined that it would be adopted by reactionary forces (The American Legion and the Ku Klux klan) and mainstreamed by the US Government in WW2.
In those days, socialists and labor activists were generally immigrants, and xenophobia was the main device used by anti-socialists. So, I suspect Bellamy's intent was to try to remove the association of socialism and labor activism with being a "foreigner" of suspect national allegiances. This is just like more recently when activists suggested that we carry US flags at antiwar demonstrations and adopt the slogan "peace is patriotic". This is an understandable thing to do even if I don't particularly agree with it,
Considering that Hitler was just 2 years old at the time, I can't see how the stiff arm salute that Bellamy suggested could have anything to do with fascism unless Bellamy had access to a time machine. You are attributing a modern association to a past event.
he additional wording was added later, in WW2, then the "under God" added in 1955 during the McCarthy days, as a way to attack "atheistic Communists".