From the Associated Press:
Secondly, there is much debate among philologists specializing in the study of the mid-20th century (A.D. 1940-1960) American religious culture as to whether or not there is a significant difference in religious and cultural origins between the two phrases: "One nation under God, indivisible" and "United We Stand." The former was ratified by Pres. Dwight Eisenhower, who had served with distinction as a general during World War II. His service in that war is noteworthy as the phrase, "United We Stand," was introduced into popular parlance and usage in the summer of 1942, a few months after the U.S. had entered the war. This was supported by both the National Publishers Association (now the Magazine Publishers of America) and the U.S. Treasury Department, in what some now called the "Patriotism Conspiracy." So, oddly enough, Home Depot is unhappy with one government-approved phrase and wishes the employee to substitute another government-endorse phrase. The difference, of course, lies in one loaded and potentially-offensive word: "God." Which brings us to the final point.
Home Depot faces the challenge of explaining why one employee, Mr. Keezer, cannot bear a pin stating, "One nation under God, indivisible," while many employees, on any given work day, can be seen holding, handling, and even proffering to customers (!), pieces of paper which state, "In God We Trust"—pieces of paper created and issued by the same faith community (aka, the U.S. Government) that ratified the phrase, "One nation under God, indivisible" and actively supported and propagated the phrase, "United We Stand"!
But seriously, folks (and, yes, some of the above was written tongue-in-cheek), how ridiculous is this? Yet, as ridiculous as it is—and as many of these silly cases as we now see—it's a reminder of how substantially things have changed since the middle of last century. (Put this way: can anyone imagine this happening in the 1950s? 1960s? 1970s even?) We are constantly assured by the neo-autocrats, technocrats, bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, thought police, sensitivity experts, multicultural gurus, diversity specialists, university profs, Oprahs, talking "news" heads, and numerous others of how we need more equality, more sensitivity, more tolerance, more openness, more freedom, more understanding, and more awareness, but we increasingly are subjected to more inequality, more insensitivity, more intolerance, more closemindedness, more restrictions, more administered freedom (ht: James Kalb), more stupidity, more confusion, more muddlemindedness, more bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, and more inane, illogical expertise.
At the heart, this is not a political issue (however much politics are involved), but a matter of first things, the permanent things: Upon what basis is our society and culture built? What are the metaphysical roots and foundation of our community and country? I would suggest (quite unoriginally) that while many people try to wrestle with these important questions, they aren't questions that see the light of day in the public square. We live increasingly in a culture that assumes, in nearly every scenario and situation, that equality and freedom are the greatest goods while refusing to ask, "What is equality? What is freedom? What are they based upon? What are they oriented toward? Who decides what is equal? What is free?" And so forth.
"For believers, the world derives neither from blind chance nor from strict necessity, but from God's plan. This is what gives rise to the duty of believers to unite their efforts with those of all men and women of good will, with the followers of other religions and with non-believers, so that this world of ours may effectively correspond to the divine plan: living as a family under the Creator's watchful eye. A particular manifestation of charity and a guiding criterion for fraternal cooperation between believers and non-believers is undoubtedly the principle of subsidiarity, an expression of inalienable human freedom. Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state. It is able to take account both of the manifold articulation of plans — and therefore of the plurality of subjects — as well as the coordination of those plans. Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice." — Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (par. 57)
A former cashier for The Home Depot who has been wearing a "One nation under God" button on his work apron for more than a year has been fired, he says because of the religious reference. The company claims that expressing such personal beliefs is simply not allowed.That phrase, of course, is directly from the Bible, from the Epistle to the Children in the Care of the Public School System (ch. 6, v. 66), in an ancient hymn referred to by many Scripture scholars as "The Pledge of Allegiance." Considering the overtly sectarian and stridently fundamentalist origins of the phrase, it is understandable that Home Depot, which is owned and operated by the U.S. government (oh, wait, it isn't, nevermind), would take swift and rational action:
"I've worn it for well over a year and I support my country and God," Trevor Keezor said Tuesday. "I was just doing what I think every American should do, just love my country."
The American flag button Keezer wore in the Florida store since March 2008 says "One nation under God, indivisible."
Keezer is obviously unaware that the phrase, "One nation under God, indivisible," is not in the original pledge, which was created by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist pastor and Christian Socialist (the man covered his bases!), but was artificially inserted into the original text by the community of disciples known as the Congress of the United States and ratified by their then-leader, President Dwight Eisenhower. There is no doubt, surely, that the scholars, scribes, lawyers, and managers of Home Depot—whose academic track record and lengthy resume of articles in peer-reviewed journals is the toast of the home improvement store industry—are aware of this historical problem. They wish, it can be fairly adduced, to act swiftly to head off any impression of either endorsing a young phrase theory or tacitly approving of the founding of the First Church of Home Depot God Zealots, which surely was the intention of the Bible-thumbing Keezer. So:Earlier this month, he began bringing a Bible to read during his lunch break at the store in the rural town of Okeechobee, about 140 miles north of Miami. That's when he says The Home Depot management told him he would have to remove the button.
Keezer refused, and he was fired on Oct. 23, he said.
"It feels kind of like a punishment, like I was punished for just loving my country," Keezer said.
A Home Depot spokesman said Keezer was fired because he violated the company's dress code.The issue, you see, is that it is not Home Depot's place to say what they agree or disagree with, except when telling Keezer he should agree to wear this ("United We Stand") and not wear that ("Under God..."). Problems emerge, however. First, Keezer is most likely a product of the U.S. educational system, and was thus trained by government-employed agents (aka, teachers) to utter the modern (and textually suspect) Pledge with the phrase, "One nation under God, indivisible."
"This associate chose to wear a button that expressed his religious beliefs. The issue is not whether or not we agree with the message on the button," Craig Fishel said. "That's not our place to say, which is exactly why we have a blanket policy, which is long-standing and well-communicated to our associates, that only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons."
Fishel said Keezer was offered a company-approved pin that said, "United We Stand," but he declined.
Secondly, there is much debate among philologists specializing in the study of the mid-20th century (A.D. 1940-1960) American religious culture as to whether or not there is a significant difference in religious and cultural origins between the two phrases: "One nation under God, indivisible" and "United We Stand." The former was ratified by Pres. Dwight Eisenhower, who had served with distinction as a general during World War II. His service in that war is noteworthy as the phrase, "United We Stand," was introduced into popular parlance and usage in the summer of 1942, a few months after the U.S. had entered the war. This was supported by both the National Publishers Association (now the Magazine Publishers of America) and the U.S. Treasury Department, in what some now called the "Patriotism Conspiracy." So, oddly enough, Home Depot is unhappy with one government-approved phrase and wishes the employee to substitute another government-endorse phrase. The difference, of course, lies in one loaded and potentially-offensive word: "God." Which brings us to the final point.
Home Depot faces the challenge of explaining why one employee, Mr. Keezer, cannot bear a pin stating, "One nation under God, indivisible," while many employees, on any given work day, can be seen holding, handling, and even proffering to customers (!), pieces of paper which state, "In God We Trust"—pieces of paper created and issued by the same faith community (aka, the U.S. Government) that ratified the phrase, "One nation under God, indivisible" and actively supported and propagated the phrase, "United We Stand"!
But seriously, folks (and, yes, some of the above was written tongue-in-cheek), how ridiculous is this? Yet, as ridiculous as it is—and as many of these silly cases as we now see—it's a reminder of how substantially things have changed since the middle of last century. (Put this way: can anyone imagine this happening in the 1950s? 1960s? 1970s even?) We are constantly assured by the neo-autocrats, technocrats, bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, thought police, sensitivity experts, multicultural gurus, diversity specialists, university profs, Oprahs, talking "news" heads, and numerous others of how we need more equality, more sensitivity, more tolerance, more openness, more freedom, more understanding, and more awareness, but we increasingly are subjected to more inequality, more insensitivity, more intolerance, more closemindedness, more restrictions, more administered freedom (ht: James Kalb), more stupidity, more confusion, more muddlemindedness, more bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, and more inane, illogical expertise.
At the heart, this is not a political issue (however much politics are involved), but a matter of first things, the permanent things: Upon what basis is our society and culture built? What are the metaphysical roots and foundation of our community and country? I would suggest (quite unoriginally) that while many people try to wrestle with these important questions, they aren't questions that see the light of day in the public square. We live increasingly in a culture that assumes, in nearly every scenario and situation, that equality and freedom are the greatest goods while refusing to ask, "What is equality? What is freedom? What are they based upon? What are they oriented toward? Who decides what is equal? What is free?" And so forth.
"For believers, the world derives neither from blind chance nor from strict necessity, but from God's plan. This is what gives rise to the duty of believers to unite their efforts with those of all men and women of good will, with the followers of other religions and with non-believers, so that this world of ours may effectively correspond to the divine plan: living as a family under the Creator's watchful eye. A particular manifestation of charity and a guiding criterion for fraternal cooperation between believers and non-believers is undoubtedly the principle of subsidiarity, an expression of inalienable human freedom. Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state. It is able to take account both of the manifold articulation of plans — and therefore of the plurality of subjects — as well as the coordination of those plans. Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice." — Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (par. 57)
Carl, I agree with your general assessment of the state of society, although I find the satirical historical analysis principally confusing. While Home Depot's policy in general is undoubtedly related to these social trends, its application in this instance isn't necessarily a rank injustice. A business has a legitimate interest in the uniform appearance of its employees. It is not improper for it to maintain and enforce policies towards this end. Even a business owner who is sympathetic to the nature of an employee's uniform divergence has an incentive to suppress it. If I own a nice Italian restaurant, I probably want waiters to wear their scapulars inside their shirts, even though I obviously have nothing against scapulars.
Mr. Keezer did not wear his pin as any sort of religious observance (e.g. wearing a yarmulke or scapular, which would be arguably entitled to distinct legal protection), merely as a personal predilection. It's not particularly clear that the action here is viewpoint discrimination---maybe evidence of that could be produced (i.e. non-Christian pins are always tolerated regardless of whether they are company-issued), but it's not apparent on the face. So it doesn't seem removed from a situation in which an employee was discharged for refusing to comply with any other uniform requirement (wrong color apron, not enough pieces of flair, etc). A legal regimen that leaves a business without the freedom to make judgments about the desirability of certain viewpoints may not be preferable, but within that context Home Depot's actions are not independently unreasonable.
Posted by: Titus | Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Titus: On one hand, my post could have been more clear and more direct. On the other hand, I decided (on a whim and a cup of coffee) to highlight the absurdity of the story by, well, being a bit absurd.
I hope we can agree that the key issue here, as I argued, is the word "God." It clearly wasn't the wearing of a slogan or pin, because Home Depot offered him another pin with a slogan. Which means Home Depot is apparently concerned that a reference to God will possibly upset someone (either a customer or another employee) or even result some sort of legal action. This despite polls showing that some 90% or more of Americans believe in "God", however defined. One of my basic points is that such fear didn't exist prior to this wonderful age of tolerance, inclusiveness, and diversity we currently, um, enjoy. My other point was to highlight the ironies involved re: a phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance (a basic part of American culture for many decades), especially since the federal government (which once supported and promoted such phrases) is now the primary player behind making everyone fearful of referring to God or religion (well, Christianity) in public places, work areas, schools, etc.
Does that help?
Posted by: Carl E. Olson | Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 01:14 PM
Home Depot is a private enterprise, and as such it can decide how to regulate itself and the appearance of its employees. The very same freedoms and protections that give Home Depot the right to prohibit an employee from wearing a button that states "One Nation Under God" will (or should) also give Catholic institutions and other private enterprises the right to decline to host, participate in, or do business for a same-sex union or "marriage" ceremony. Home Depot did nothing wrong, nothing at all. If the employee wants to wear the button, he can do so on his own time; but on company time, he has to follow the company line. I hope that the private property rights that Home Depot exercised will, in the case of the Church, individuals and companies, be similarly respected and protected when they decide not to support the homosexualist agenda.
Posted by: Sawyer | Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 02:00 PM
Carl, that secret societ, the Knights of Columbus, petitioned to get "under God" inserted! It's obviously another evil papist plot!
Those Catholics ... they are SO sinister!
Posted by: Christine the Soccer Mom | Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 02:21 PM
I agree that a private business has the right to require a certain type of dress code.
Still, what I find interesting is that the button's phrase, taken from the Pledge of Allegiance, is described by the reporter as a "personal belief", and the store spokesman is quoted, in the first place, as declaring it a "religious belief".
Thirdly, he was ONLY asked to remove the button AFTER he began reading the Bible on his lunch break.
I think these items are more telling than the dress code rules.
Posted by: fr richard | Friday, October 30, 2009 at 11:51 AM