The mayor of San Francisco started it. He decided that, since California’s constitution said no one could be denied “equal protection of the laws,” he could not deny marriage licenses to men who want to marry men. What a notion!
After that, fundamentalist Mormons from Utah and Arizona headed west. They set their sites on Temecula, California, and they made it their new home. Several years after the mayor of San Francisco made his decision, the city council of Temecula made theirs. They began issuing marriage licenses to men with several brides. If a man can marry a man – something sanctioned by no religion – then surely a man can marry several women. Freedom of religion!
A few years later, a group of immigrants took action. The school board in Union City, California – a town that had become a haven for Hindus – altered the Pledge of Allegiance. They voted to require public school teachers to lead willing students in a pledge to “one nation under the gods.” And they had reason on their side. If monogamists and monotheists can do their thing, then – by golly – polygamists and polytheists can do theirs. After all, this is America!
A century ago, immigrants from Europe transformed New York City into a confederation of ethnic neighborhoods: Italian, German, Irish, etc. Today, immigrants from Asia are transforming the San Francisco Bay area into a confederation of ethnic communities: Japanese, Chinese, Fillipino, etc.
According to Census 2000, less than half the people living in California are what you might call European-Americans. One-third of those living in San Francisco are Asian, and one-third of those living in Daly City, right next door to San Francisco, are Fillipino.
The fastest growing group of immigrants in California between 1990 and 2000 were Asian Indians – Hindus – adherents to this world’s third-largest religion. Hindus now make up 10% of the population of a number of cities in the Bay area. Like other immigrant groups, they tend to hang together, to form their own communities, to preserve their culture and pass it on to their children.
Imagine a few years from now. Silicon Valley is booming, just as it was during the 1990s, when so many well-educated Hindus flew to the Bay area. Computer companies and bio-tech companies are hiring at a brisk pace, and another slew of immigrants are drawn from India to the Bay Area.
After a few years, most of those living in Union City are Hindu, and 80% of the students at Delaine Eastin Elementary School are the children of Hindu parents. One evening, there’s a school board meeting and there’s so much talk about the controversial Pledge of Allegiance. Back in 2004 (in the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Michael Newdow), the Supreme Court ruled that it was OK to lead students in a pledge to “one nation under God.” But that version of the pledge doesn’t sit well with most folks in Union City. They’re teaching their children about many gods; they don’t want them to recite a pledge that says there’s just one.
So . . . the school board alters the pledge. After that, students at Delaine Eastin Elementary pledge their allegiance to “one nation under the gods” each and every morning. There’s nothing unlawful about this and there’s nothing unconstitutional about it either: if it’s OK to have public school students pledge allegiance to a nation under one god, how could it be wrong to have them pledge allegiance to a nation under many gods?
Of course, this doesn’t sit well with Mr. Jones, a long-time resident of Union City, a devout Catholic whose daughter attends Delaine Eastin Elementary. He doesn’t want his daughter reciting a pledge to many gods; he doesn’t even want her to hear such a pledge, but what can he do? The matter was settled back in 2004.
Back then, the U.S. Solicitor General argued that the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t endorse a religious belief. The Elk Grove school district argued that the pledge doesn’t take a stand on the existence of the gods. And they both argued that since the girl isn’t required to say the pledge, there’s nothing unconstitutional about it. The court agreed.
What’s fair is fair. Equal rights for all. If it’s no infringement of one man’s rights to ask his daughter to pledge allegiance to a nation under one god, then it’s no infringement of another’s rights to ask his daughter to pledge allegiance to a nation under many gods, right? If two men can marry one another, then a man can have six wives, right? After all, this is America, and diversity is honored (really, it is).
About the Author: Mister Thorne is a mathematics editor living in the San Francisco Bay Area. To contact him, send e-mail to mister.thorne@comcast.net.
Click here for other essays by Mister Thorne.
Click here for his series, Religion in the News.