One’s patriotism is measured by how many flags he/she displays. If there is no flag, the person is looked upon with suspicion.

Sadly, it appears that a constitutional amendment that would ban the desecration of the U.S. flag may have a chance of passing. This issue has been brought up six times in the past, each time having about the chance of a urine-induced concavity in a snowbank of becoming the law of the land.

Times have changed. Today, the U.S. is inundated with "God and country," and the number of flags and flag-oriented memorabilia now in vogue reflects the affinity for the red/white/blue piece of cloth.

Next week, the U.S. Senate will vote on passing the amendment that would make a criminal out of someone who would protest U.S. government policies by using the flag to depict the message. Five conservative freshmen senators may swing the vote in favor of criminalization of yet another of the vastly diminishing number of rights to which U.S. citizens are legally entitled.

The U.S. flag is a sacred item to many Americans, even though a substantial number are made in China. However, the same flag-waving and flag-loving individuals have no sympathy for foreign countries. To them, their flags mean nothing.

A case in point is the Iraqi flag. During Bremer’s regime as viceroy of Iraq, he changed the flag to one that resembled the Israeli flag. Just like that, he told the Iraqis they now had a new flag. Fortunately, even the quislings did not accept this edict and the Iraqis just ignored it.

In other words, only the U.S. flag is hallowed. Flags of other countries can be changed or urinated on by the U.S. at will. Ethnocentrism rules.

In the U.S., we have a Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States prior to each morning’s class sessions for students. Theoretically, one can opt out of the exercise. Realistically, however, this does not work. Many kids have been taken to task by teachers for not participating. So, the government’s words about not pledging are as hollow as the Pledge itself.

Today, the issue of whether the words "under God" are appropriate in the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag is still a hot topic. There probably has not been as emotional a debate on any other issue in recent times. The proponents of the two words say that God was instrumental in the governmental process of the infant U.S., while the opponents say that the words degrade millions of Americans to a second-class status.

There are many more aspects to the Pledge than just the "under God" controversy. The Pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister who eventually was kicked out of his church because he was a socialist and gave sermons extolling the virtues of that political philosophy.

The original Pledge was: "I pledge allegiance to my flag, the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Over the years, other words have been added, the most famous are "under God," placed in the Pledge in 1954.

During the Eisenhower administration, the Knights of Columbus ran a campaign to add the words "under God." Not because of the origins of our country, but as a statement against the dreaded atheistic Communists of the Soviet Union. However, many Americans today believe the words were always in the Pledge and they were meant to define the American identity, not as an opposition to the U.S. cold war enemy.

If you take yourself back to the time of the original Pledge, it is not difficult to see that it was a statement of solidarity, not a nationalistic decree. The U.S. Civil War was not far in the background of 1890s America. After the Civil War, various attempts were made at integration. This experiment ended in the 1880s with the imposition of Jim Crow laws. By 1892, the country was again divided on race. Bellamy wrote the Pledge as an assurance that the United States should remain one country and not again have states that would split from the Union.

Let’s look at the current implications of the Pledge of Allegiance. In the past decade, similar to the displaying of an American flag, saying the Pledge has come to define one’s patriotism toward the U.S. This was not the intent of the original Pledge, but it has come down to that. In addition, one’s opinion on the Pledge has also defined his/her degree of religiosity.

Proponents of the words "under God" have come up with all sorts of rebuttals to those who prefer them taken out. "Just don’t have your kids say the Pledge at school," they say. A child can opt out of reciting the Pledge, however, reality does not take this as a valid claim. It is difficult for a youngster to ask to be excused during the Pledge when the rest of his/her class recites it. In many cases where this has happened, the youngster is chastised by his/her peers as well as the teachers.

A classic case occurred in San Diego County a few years ago. A 15-year-old atheist student in Fallbrook refused to say the Pledge. She was suspended from school. Eventually, she took the case to court. Naturally, she won and the school district had to fork out money.

The San Diego Union-Tribune, in an almost unheard of action, put her picture on the editorial page and lambasted her for taking the case to court. The publication maintained that she cost the school district money and that was unacceptable.

Another statement by the pro "under Goders" is, "Just recite the Pledge but don’t say the words that offend you." This is illogic at its worst. I ask them, "Would you recite, even leaving words out, the Pledge of Allegiance if it said, "one nation, without God?" They respond, "Of course not." For some reason, they have a hard time putting the shoe on the other foot.

Let’s take a look at the Pledge with or without the words "under God." It has come down through the years to represent the degree of one’s patriotism, not the unification of the goodness of humankind. For instance, when one pledges to the flag, he/she is pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth. This is quite absurd.

Another aspect concerns the words, "with liberty and justice for all." We do not have liberty and justice for all in the United States. Atheists are not allowed to hold public office in several states. In some states, atheists are not allowed to hold federal jobs. In two states, atheists are not allowed to testify in court.

When one group of Americans is denied the rights that his/her fellow countrypeople enjoy, that is state-sponsored discrimination. In other words, there is not liberty and justice for all.

What kind of nation is so insecure that it requires a daily loyalty oath from its six, seven and eight-year-olds? Kids who don’t even understand the concept of the words they are speaking.

All this controversy concerning two words should be put to rest. In my opinion, the Pledge of Allegiance has evolved from a statement of human rights to a xenophobic and ethnocentric pledge, with or without the words "under God." Let’s take it out of the school system and public life entirely and leave it where it began — a statement by a socialist Baptist minister.