How do Du'ers feel about the Pledge of Allegiance?

[Stargleamer]

Personally I think the Pledge of Allegiance hearkens back to the days of loyalty oaths, and that is why I object to it more for that reason than for the (also objectionable) "under God" clause.

With Scalia recusing himself I predict the 9th Circuit will be overturned as follows:

Pro-Pledge: Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Breyer and Kennedy
Anti-Pledge: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg

I hope I am proved wrong and the 9th Circuit's opinion is upheld.

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. It doesn't have a good beat and you can't dance to it

nt

[mainegreen]

8. Well

Kinda brings me back to kindagarden and those cute little wooden chairs, back when the playground had fun (read: dangerous) things like merry-go-rounds and those giant metal slides.

But other that that its totally McArthiest (sp?) drivel.

[brainshrub]

102. Pledge a social contract

I like it, except for the God part.

Why?

Because it's a reminder of the social contract between the citizens & the govt.

We agree to protect the govt, and in return we will get Liberty & Justice. Not a bad deal.

I'm amazed the conservatives like the pledge so much, since it reminds everyone that the Bush Administration is in breach of the social contract.

[bif]

2. Never liked it

Even when I was kid.

[GainesT1958]

3. Breyer will vote to uphold the 9th Circuit's decision...

And so it will be upheld on a 4-4 split.

Personally, I'll continue to say "...under God,", because I do think we're ALL "under God". However, I DON'T think we should be comanded to say it by ANY governmental authority--and chastised accordingly if we don't. (Just as school kids shouldn't be comanded to say a "state-authorized" prayer before starting class every morning.) Both of those things really ARE "Un-American"!x(

B-)

[trotsky]

4. Forced patriotism is not patriotism.

However, if there is to be a pledge, let's restore it to the ORIGINAL form and remove those two words.

[TKP]

26. Pledge

The original pledge, as it was written, said

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

[alfredo]

73. Get this

it was written by a socialist.

[trotsky]

75. That's right!

I had completely forgotten about that tidbit. Good catch!

[joshdawg]

42. My thoughts exactly.

Nice post.

[goddess40]

74. Heard it over the outside PA system at school the other day

It was very creepy. The plyground was empty and I had gotten done with my volunteer work early and was leaving the building. About 10 kids go to the office to say the pledge over the PA and their voices were very metallic sounding echoing off the playground.

As far as the kids 'just not saying it'that doesn't work because the other kids pick up on it quickly and attack - sometimes physically.

[Clete]

5. There was no reference to under God when I grew up.

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school every morning was an affirmation of good citizenship and that was its purpose. We weren't taught bibilical morals in public school, but how a good citizen contributes to his country and helps out those less fortunate. Good citizens obey the law and leave a place in better shape than when he arrived. These actually are principles I still try to live by today.

Since good citizenship apparently isn't taught anymore in public schools, I don't know the purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance anymore.

[patdem]

27. I went to Catholic School...and 'Under God' was introduced when I was

in school...I thought it was because I went to a Catholic School???

We lined up by grade every morning and put our hands over our hearts and pledged facing the flag displayed on the front yard. It no more formed my opinion than reciting the times tables 5x1=5, 5x2=10, 5x3=15...formed an opinion about math.

Recitiation does not create patriots it creates mindlessness. IMHO

[Clete]

Parroting the Allegiance like reciting the Hail Mary is

counterproductive unless you are also taught the lessons that gives them some sense.

[LeahMira]

63. So true...

Recitiation does not create patriots it creates mindlessness. IMHO

Speaking as a former second grade teacher I can assure you that the words of the pledge are generally mangled by the average elementary school child. "One nation, invisible..." anyone?

Few students ever think about what they are saying by rote. Few adults do either. And for this we have to bother the Supreme Court?

[elfwitch]

6. I refused to say it when I was in school.

I plegde no allegiance to anything really. Especially not a flag. My only pledge is to be as good a citizen of the planet as I can be.

[w4rma]

7. "Under God" was added in the 1950s, but the pledge is over 100 years old.

It seems pretty cut and dried, IMHO, that for state institutions to prod folks to recite something that promotes a type of religion (unitheism) is unconstitutional.

Disclaimer: I'm a Baptist Christian.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. I'm okay with it, as long as the "under god" silliness is removed

A statement of communal belonging isn't so bad. Sure, it's a graven image, and yes, it does smack of group control, but I can let that pass.

[soup]

10. My very conservative view on this-

Preserve our heritage.
Hold on to our history.

Return it to the original.
If it was good enough in 1892, it's good enough now.

There, I've said it. No progressive or liberal thoughts to add.

[DinahMoeHum]

11. Just cut out the words "under G*d" and it'll be just fine. . .

Seriously, the original pledge (from 1892, I believe) and later adaptations did not have those two words in, and hardly anybody raised a fuss.

Except for Jehovah's Witnesses - SCOTUS ruling in 1943 vindicated them - JWs claim that forcing them to recite the pledge was like forcing them to "worship a graven image", which was forbidden in their religion (as well as in the Abrahamic faiths, BTW -just look up the 2nd of the 10 Commandments)

Yeah, I know, in 1954 the Catholic Knights of Columbus successfully pushed the SCOTUS to include those two words in on the premise that we were fighting Communism, and this would spur us on to victory. Well, then, how does one explain the fact that we didn't have those two words in while we were fighting WW I and WW II, and we still came out victorious?

For that matter, ever since we included those two words, we really haven't completely won any war we've engaged in. Go figure.

:kick:

[KuroKensaki]

38. Specifically

It was specifically designed to fight communism, cause those 'damn commies' were 'godless'. It was a propaganda campaign to say WE are UNDER GOD and THEY are NOT.

[Snow]

53. Yes, I do remember that part

about the commies not having a god being the reason for introducing the phrase. That's what my, ummmm, what grade was I in? 4th, I think - Mrs Jackson - anyway, she specifically said it was because of the differences between the two systems. So we did get informed, at least in my class in that school (which was a private school incidentally).

[a_random_joel]

12. I wrote an essay on it

You can read it on "old" DU, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=10801&forum=DCForumID38&archive=

[Greyskye]

25. Great essay!

Nicely done! Who wants to take money on a bet that 95% of Faux viewers believe that "Under God" was in the original version written (by a Baptist minister!) in 1892?

[gottaB]

67. Super

You laid it out very nicely.

One idea that strikes me at the moment is how the phrase "under God" undermines the allegiance to the republic. Consider the point of view of the young atheist (or agnostic or religious skeptic). From that young person's vantage point, God is nonsensical, and no ammount of cumpulsory testifying will change that. In actuality, it may have the opposite effect, of strengthening one's atheistic resolve. But there's a secondary effect to consider, and that is the alienation of the young atheist's patriotism and sense of civic belonging. Like the Jehovah's Witness, or other fundamentalist, they come to regard the Flag as a religious symbol, and the swearing of allegiance as a religious act. Naturally the atheist will be prone to reject such symbolism. It is truly an assault on the dignity of those who hold minority viewpoints, and by diminishing their status as citizens, it tends to erode the value of governmnent.

But, wait. Is that the intention behind the inclusion of the phrase? Not merely to instill in the soft-headed respect for God, but to drive from public life the independent thinker and the contrarian? Consider for a moment the large number of people on the left for whom patriotism and its dominant symbol, the stars and stripes, are anethma. It's sometimes difficult to see such attitudes expressed on the left and not think "Mission Accomplished!" And that can't but diminish our government of, by and for the people, "indivisible. with liberty and justice for all."

This is truly insidious stuff.

[RapidCreek]

89. Very nice essay.

Did you write it for a high school class or a college course? In either case...it is a very powerful piece. Nicely done....definitely A grade work.

In my opinion, the most important part of your essay is the quote by Madison...."in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." and your distillation of it...."Separation between Church and State guarantees the health and security of both."

In a thread which has since been locked, another DU member suggested that belief in God is not political. Below is my response....

"Indeed it is, in these United States. My child must affirm there is a God when he is forced to pledge allegiance to my Governments flag. The currency, which my government has issued, infers I must trust in God. The court house, in which my government is housed, has placed outside it's doors, God's Ten Commandments. A government which seeks to impose an affirmation of the existence of God upon me...by that action, makes belief in that God a political issue. The gentlemen who penned the Constitution added the first amendment to prevent such a mixture of God with politics...It's a shame those seeking to market their faith have achieved its abrogation.

And in a response to this poster and another in that same thread, whom suggested those practicing their faith were due some sort of default courtesy, I responded with the following two posts....


(Response 1)Now to address your claim that I am being silly. You asserted that belief in God is not political. While in our United States, it should not be, it certainly has become so, for the reasons I stated. The very people who claim they are religiously persecuted in a political fashion, created the monster of which they so loudly complain. They have advocated and are currently advocating the mixing of religion with politics. In abrogating the first amendment of the Constitution they have destroyed the very protections it was designed to afford them. Do you disagree? Whether you had anything to do with this state of affairs, hardly lessens the fact that it exists. If a sparrow flies with the crows and squawks with the crows, he will be shot with the crows.

(Response 2)You keep your Church out of my politics and my life...and I shall afford it and you the same courtesy I do the Amish faith and its practitioners. The lack of courtesy some C******** on this board feel they are subjected to, is a direct consequence of their Church involving itself in politics (edited in for this post: In this case the Knights of Columbus with the pledge)....Because the C******* church has made itself a political entity, those of us not C*******, are compelled to afford it and the individuals of which it is composed, the same level of courtesy we do any other political entity. This is the rub of mixing religion with politics.

I apologize if I sound harsh. The words I have written, as hurtful as they may seem, describe an inescapable reality.

Point being...the practice of marketing ones religion or lack thereof via governmental edict, forges a double edged sword, which cuts both ways. Those who advocate Governmental imposition of their religious beliefs upon fellow citizens are marginalizing those with differing or no religious phylosophy...thereby inciting our wrath and in some cases, hatred. What would these same people say if an Atheistic inspired governmental edict declared that school children be required to recite the following?

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the nation, for which it stands, one nation, which denies the existence of God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Unfortunately, the majority of those who ascribe to the Judeo Christians faiths...seem unable or unwilling to put the shoe on the other foot. The citizens of this country do not hold identical belief structures regarding spirituality. Forced affirmation of the Judeo Christian God in the Pledge, epitomizes the very divisiveness, it seeks to deny, thereby rendering the allegiance to which we pledge, nonexistent. Our Pledge of Allegiance has devolved into a Pledge of Hypocrasy.....rather telling, when one considers the present state of affairs in our country....It is neither healthy or secure.

[elfwitch]

101. beautiful post

You did a wnderful job explaining this issue. Bravo!

[RapidCreek]

111. Thanks Elf!

I appreciate your kind words.

RC

[a_random_joel]

114. Thanks all!

@RapidCreek - This was for a College course. Your post was excellent. Thanks for the feedback.

We still have a long, long way to go...

[RapidCreek]

116. Thanks....Your Welcome and yes we certainly do!

:)

RC

[jiacinto]

13. This is one area where I disagree with prevailing opinion here

Some people are just hositle toward toward mainstream values. I don't see what's wrong with pledging allegiance to the US.

[w4rma]

16. Okay, but what is your opinion of the actual question asked

in the topic of this thread?

IMHO, is it unconstitutional for state institutions to prod people to recite that our nation is "under God", thus allowing the state to promote a type of religion (unitheism).

Personally, I don't really mind one way or the other on reciting of the pledge, otherwise:

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.

[Snow]

55. Did you read random-joel's essay?

You really should...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=10801&forum=DCForumID38&archive=


 then see if your opinion changes.

[Bandit]

69. You seem to always equate the US and God as being one and the same

Nothing wrong with pledging allegiance to the US especially the US that isn't single religion. When you insert under God you are going against the entire concept of religious freedom which is the basis of our founding. We were founded by people escaping the same attitude as what is being expressed by the line under God. They were escaping religious tyranny and that is apparently what is occuring now in the US. If you don't want to pledge allegiance to some God you are shunned by a large portion of society. I call that tyranny.

[RapidCreek]

91. Hi again Carlos!

Still ignoring me? See post #89.

[IrateCitizen]

105. Carlos, could you please define what "mainstream values" are?

Because your willingness to cite it as a reason for every right-leaning position you hold just seems to me to be eerily similar to the Republican Party's citing of "Family Values" for all of their wacked-out positions.

Not that I'm implying that you're drifting toward Republicanism or anything....

[thebigidea]

121. your opinion is not in the mainstream of american thinking

your strange political views are alienating the swing voters, Carlos. Your views on the allegiance are insufficient in the patriotism department, you don't even swear obedience to America...

I think we have someone here who just might... HATE FREEDOM.

Go on, admit it. You're alienating the swing voters by hating our freedom from religion!

[Racenut20]

14. I believe it was added in 1954

During Eisenhowers only 2 years with a Republican Congress in both houses. Ummmm, they also did away with the GI Bill then didn't they.

[Atman]

15. God doesn't belong in the pledge

Pleding alegiance to one's country is certainly understandable if you want to live here and enjoy the vast opportunties the country has to to offer. But I am not religious. Why do I need to pledge alegiance to someone else's god?

Since the line was not even inserted until the McCarthy era, I cannot even fathom how there can be much discussion on this one. A pledge to a Christian god is antithetical to everything you pledge alegiance to the flag for in the first place.

[Racenut20]

18. I believe all Christians, Jews, and Muslims refer to God

in the 60's they wanted to do away with the Star Spangled Banner.

[wyldwolf]

22. no they don't... they refer to A god...

Most religions use a name for their god... only the judeo-christian god is called "God."

[ComerPerro]

61. God refers to the Christain God

Don't even bother with the bullshit about "god can mean many things".


Tell the next rightwing fanatic who says that load of crap that you think they are full of shit.
If these people really believed that the word "God" could be universally applied to the god of any faith, then they wouldn't be so gung ho about why their religion is correct and all others are wrong.

[Chovexani]

72. I'm a polytheist

And the pledge refers to the Christian god--a god I have nothing to do with, much less swear allegiance to.

"Under God" does as much harm to people who practice minority faiths as it does to atheists, agnostics and skeptics, a point that sometimes gets lost around here.

[RapidCreek]

92. It does a lot of harm to those who practice the majority faith as well

Many of the RC faith seem to feel harmed when they are treated with disrespect....to which they generally equate any critisism of their faith or it's political functionaries. Check out post #89 for my take on it.

RC

[Journeyman]

17. I pledged allegiance to the Constitution. . .

when I was sworn in to the U.S. military. God wasn't mentioned in that pledge, the only pledge I've ever made, the only pledge with which I ever want to align myself. As I've told those who insist on the doctrine of continual reaffirmation for schoolchildren, if you make a pledge and truly mean it, you need never make it again -- indeed, the need to make it again implies some lack of commitment in the original pledge.

[On the Road]

32. Why Would My Allegience be to the FLAG?

That's kind of bizarre. I like your suggestion, journeyman, or pledging to the constitution.

[Caution]

19. Why should this thing be said at all?

I was born here. Forcing me to take an oath of fealty is absurd, particularly since the thing is so full of lies anyways.

I pledge allegiance to the United State of America
and to the Republic for which is stands (does bush represent me? hell no!), one nation (tell that to those who think texas is better or that New York is better or that Wisconsin is better etc), under god (what god? whose god? which god?), indivisible (um, this country is right now more divided than it has been in 25 years), with liberty and justice for all (so patently absurd and such a total lie that I don't even know where to start).

I love this country but I think it is truly screwed up right now and I will not swear an oath on it until the Constitution once again is the law of the land and that is going to take a long time.

[sybylla]

28. You Go...dude?

I totally agree with you on this. The pledge has evolved into a meaningless ceremonial speil that continues to be propogated to make a select few feel more comfortable about their fatherland. A pledge does not make me any more or less committed to the success of our country in internal and foreign affairs. It does, however, allow a select few to ignore the existence of problems in both areas, because reciting the pledge and hearing their neighbors, friends and family recite the pledge means all must be well. It's just so co-dependent.

[VermontDem2004]

20. I don't care

but if students don't want to say they shouldn't be forced too.

[noonwitch]

21. I don't take loyalty oaths. Jesus said that it is wrong.

Matthew 5:33-37
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
But I say unto you, Swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is God's throne,
Nor by earth, for it is His footstool: neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of a great King
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black.
But let your communication be Yea, yea: Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

That usually shuts the freeper types up.

[RapidCreek]

94. WOW!

Thanks for posting this! It says it all.

RC

[Birthmark]

23. Aside from being silly and pointless...

...um, it's just silly and pointless.

[KG]

24. totally un-needed.

i only feel compelled to be true to myself.

but mostly it just words. and words don't mean much. it's actions that count.

[elperromagico]

29. It's jingoism

It would be great if people actually meant it when they said it. It's a bit like everybody pulling their flags out of mothballs after 9-11; it doesn't mean anything to wave a flag if you don't understand what that flag represents. The flag's just a symbol. Waving it doesn't mean a damned thing, and saying a bunch of words you were forced to memorize doesn't mean a damned thing either.

Waving a flag and saying the Pledge do not fit into my definition of patriotism. Voting is patriotism. Participating in government is patriotism. Questioning authority when you feel they're failing the American people is patriotism. Sacrificing on behalf of your fellow citizens is patriotism. If you want to wave a flag or say a pledge to it, more power to you, but if you don't show your love of country in action, you ain't patriotic as far as I'm concerned.

[pmbryant]

30. I feel similar to you

Similar, in that I object to the pledge because it so closely resembles a "loyalty oath". I have utterly no concern about the meaningless "under God" phrase.

On the other hand, I hope that the 9th circuit is overturned and the pledge is found to be legal, because if the decision is upheld, I'm very afraid that the media is going to latch onto this for weeks next summer and distract everyone from the real issues of the 2004 campaign.

I don't want Bush II to be able to win an election by demagoguing on this issue the way his father won by demagoguing on the flag-burning issue.

That would be a horrible travesty.

:scared:

--Peter

[TKP]

31. Problem

Here's the big problem with removing it: We Democrats are going to get hammered as the anti-God party, just like with Partial Birth Abortion we are getting hammered as the pro-baby murderer party. We don't like it, but the labels are sticking, we haven't been even close to being successful at removing them, and IMHO they are turning traditional working class Democrats away.

Wanna give the Republicans another reason to wrap themselves around the flag and call us communists? Then remove "under God" from the pledge. This won't play well in heartland American and in many hearts of urbanites.

We've got to learn to pick our battles better or we're going to continue to get plundered.

[maxanne]

81. so we should give up

fighting for our core values, because they aren't going to win us points with Republicans?

[TKP]

86. maxanne

Didn't say that. I said "We've got to learn to pick our battles better or we're going to continue to get plundered."

There's a difference.

[RapidCreek]

96. What is a more important battle than the one

against inane equivocation...in all the forms Rethuglicans seek to implement it? There is no other battle.

RC

[TKP]

112. RC

What you're talking about is the war. There are battles within the war, and we're picking them poorly.

[Snow]

33. Here's my take from my religious viewpoint -

as some of you might know, I'm Quaker. We hold that all life is sacred, there is that of "the light" in all creation. How that plays out is that we don't separate the world out into holy and non-holy parts. I do not, for example, consider certain songs or certain books to be holy and others not to be; it's not a distinction most of us make. I do think I can gain more from reading, say, the Dalai Lama than Stephen King, but I do not label any of those books sacred or secular. This means that we do not divide the truth into ordinary truth and real truth - ie, we don't take oaths. This gets interesting when one goes into court, for example, particularly if it's an old-timey court that has people put a hand on a bible. But it actually is not a legal requirement to swear (or even 'affirm') an oath. Pledges of allegiance are the same deal....we don't divide the world up. I feel very uncomfortable when forced into a situation where I must recite the pledge or offend people seriously without having the opportunity to explain. Finally, my daughter has an added bit of a problem, in that she is part of a royal family, one that no longer rules (thank the light!) but that nevertheless is a part of conserving and preserving important aspects of the cultural heritage of a people. She's something like 7th or so in line for the head of this family; her mother is in fact the matriarch (I'm only 57 years old and my wife is a matriarch! *sob!*). Anyway, she's very conflicted about having to swear pledges. Fortunately, her high school was oddly tolerant of her remaining silent during pledge time....very odd for the location (Omaha) but something we were very grateful for.

People such as myself and my daughter are not all that uncommon; there's more royalty running around loose than you might expect. Granted, she (and my wife) are US citizens, but so is King Zog of Albania (happily living in Florida last I heard). That doesn't mean we give up or deny an important part of what we are. This gets into the whole business about immigrants and assimilation, and I don't really want to go there, but I'm trying to help show some more of what random-joel was saying in his very good essay: one should not be forced to fit into the majority; rather we oddballs should be appreciated.

[Clete]

35. I think you have a good point about not being forced to.

I can agree with that.

[rasputin1952]

34. I find this issue as absurd as the "Flag Burning" amendment...

It is smoke a Red Herring.

For one thing, nobody can require anyone to say anything their beliefs. I will concede, that people can be coerced to say things they do not wish to, but the requiremnet never existed for a mandated nationwide Pledge of Allegiance, just as there was never a National requirement for school prayer.

People pray in school all the time, (just think algebra), no one can stop them. The idea of Sponsored prayer is a whole different animal. What would happen if a school district was primarily Hindu, Muslim or any other faith, the citizens would be howling about mandated prayer. But no one would suggest that personal prayer for these individuals should be curtailed.

Same thing for the PoA, no one has to say the words if they dion't want to. No one has to stand for the Pledge if they do not want to, (coercion would come in here, for sure). If 'under God' offends people, they do not have to say those words. In fact, no one can force you to take an oath for anything, in this country. You have to make an oath voluntarily. Oaths, pledges and other such devices, must be made voulntarily and not made under duress. They have no value if coercion is used, and you cannot be held to such oaths.

All of the members of Congress, the administration and the Supreme Court take oaths to defend and preserve the Constitution, if they break those oaths the are liable for charges leading to Impeachment.

I will be the first to say that this administration has no respect for the Constitution, but until charges are laid, there is little we can do except expose them for the hypocrites they are.



:kick:

[gulliver]

36. I'm OK with it.

It is redundant to do it over and over. It is somewhat silly. The "under God" part is unnecessarily impolite about people's religious choices.

But there are worse things in the world than people who like to say the pledge and force others to do so through social pressure. Changing it just is not a priority right now. It is a distraction in a dangerous world.

BTW, I love the way kids say "I pledge of allegiance. To the flag..."

[Loyal]

37. You're all forgetting something

No one is suggesting that children be forced to say the pledge. That was already ruled unconstitutional, I believe. But when you say that no kid can say the pledge, you are infringing on the rights of the children who may wish to say the pledge. Your right to free speech means that other people have that right, too, and you may not like what they have to say, but you have to deal with it. It's called life. Get over it. I thought liberals were supposed to be against censorship? :shrug:

[VermontDem2004]

39. I was in high school last year

and I choose not to say the pledge not because my parents were johaviah witness or for some other reason, it was just my own personal reason and my teacher told me to stand up and say it and I said "Isn't it my right not to say the pledge" then he tells me that I needed a written excuse from my parents saying that I couldn't say the pledge. I got a warning and if I got another one I would've been to the principle's office.

[Loyal]

40. Yes,

so get a note from your parents, and stop complaining. Hate to tell you this, bud, but your parents do have control over you till you're 18.

[VermontDem2004]

44. That is my problem with the pledge

In some states minors can get abortions without a parent's consent. I should be able to not say the pledge without a stupid parent's note. I can drive, get a job, join the army but I can say a stupid pledge without a parents note?

[RapidCreek]

97. As it regards saying pledges and taking oaths

parents have NO legal control over a minor. NONE what so ever. Nor do schools or those employeed by schools.

RC

[elfwitch]

46. I lived in a very similar environment...

I refused to say it for personal reasons and was generally harrassed for it. I also refused to stay still when they prayer was being done before football games. Big time dirty looks and such were always given to me while I was moving around.

This needs to be settled to protect kids from the zealots. If they don't have rules they do what they want. Hell, some of them do what they want in spite of the rules. It is very hard for kids to stand up to peer and teacher pressure.

I don't think it is a censorship thing. I think it is just giving kids more protection in areas where their parents aren't there to back them up.

edit: typo

[Loyal]

71. You're disrespectful

for not staying still.

[elfwitch]

79. No.

I wasn't being disrespectful, I was protesting by not going along with the crowd. At the time schools were still allowed to have prayers before school sponsored events that invoked the name of Jesus. I wasn't the only one in school that wasn't Christian, but I was one of the very few that refused to be intimidated and harassed by them. You try being a liberal, 16 year old, non-Christian in the middle of one of the biggest Redneck Rah-Rah football schools in the entire state of Texas and not be cowed by the right. I was excersizing the only means of protest I had available to me at the time: civil diobedience.

The pledge and school prayer are just the kind of things that test a young persons ability to be true to their values. Being respectfully quiet while others trample your rights is the way that rights get taken away.

[RapidCreek]

98. How so?

Maybe my God says I should stand on my ears and sing the hosenfepher song when I pray. More to the point...you and yours have no business leading a prayer over a loud speaker my tax dollar paid for. Further you have no business interfering with the staging of a football game my tax dollar is paying for. Let's say I had control of the microphone at the football game and I practices Santoria....should those who hold the same spiritual beliefs I do be allowed the time to cut the head off a chicken drain it's blood and drink it down before the football game procedes?

No fella, the people who are expecting me to stop my day so they can pray are being disrespectful. Do your praying on your time and money...NOT MINE.

By the way....see post 89.

RC

[sybylla]

43. I think you're mischaracterizing the ruling

Just as a school can't institutionalize a prayer, the 9th circuit court ruled that, because of "under god" that a school cannot institutionalize the pledge. If kids want to say it, they can say it at any time. No employee of the school can lead it. No censorship here. Pledge all you want.

[Paulie]

45. No

It's not about not allowing kids to say it, it's about a kid being FORCED to say it (the reverse of your argument) And in a learning environment being the one odd person out, is force, plain and simple.

Return it to it's original, or just remove it. Period.

[July]

60. Have to disagree with you

Saying the pledge is not a "right" that people are infringing upon. It's a ritual imposed by schools that most kids feel they must participate in. Those who are uncomfortable with it -- for any reason -- are the ones whose rights are infringed upon.

Your comment to the student posting below that he should get a note from a parent reveals that you don't know the law in this matter. Students do NOT need parental permission if they don't want to say the pledge. Teachers are not supposed to give them warnings, punishments, or any other sanctions. Students are NOT required to stand, bow their heads, put their hands over their hearts, or change their position in any way. Usually, schools have their own rules saying that students must respect the practice of the saying of the pledge, meaning that they must be silent and not disrupt it while it is being said by those who wish to say it. That is a very far cry from "censorship" and "infringing" on the pledge-sayers' rights. In practice, the right NOT to say the pledge is severely compromised, though it was established over 60 years ago; most students are treated the way the student who got the warning is, or worse (sometimes much worse), despite their having a clear right under the law not to say the pledge.

As you may guess, my personal views are against the pledge's being said at all. If we could ensure that those who don't wish to say it were truly free to follow their consciences without fear of harassment or punishment, I would be okay with its being offered as an option, but the pledge is not something I consider a positive practice. I don't like the oath aspect, the rote group ritual aspect, the claim that our nation is "under God" (not all of us believe that), and, especially, the belief that it proves patriotism or love of and respect for the nation. I don't even like to talk about the nation using the terms "love" and "respect," since I view it as an entity created by men to represent our common interests, and not as an object of reverence or worship. I would like to see more emphasis on the idea of being a "good citizen" (someone who upholds the rule of law, votes, understands the Constitution) and much, much less emphasis on the idea of being a "patriot," which seems to require a flag on your house, car, and jacket, saying of the pledge, singing of the national anthem, and a jingoistic attitude these days.

And, before I get flamed, let me just say that I understand the symbolic meaning of flags and anthems. I got pretty choked up right after 9/11 when I saw the Palace Guards in London breaking their own tradition to play "The Star-Spangled Banner" as a sign of solidarity with us. That doesn't mean I'm in love with the song (I'm not -- too hard to sing) or feel reverence for it. But I understood the action as a symbolic reaching out. The fact that it was singular -- something never done -- gave it more power. To me, the daily recitation of the pledge has done the exact opposite.

[spooky3]

103. Well said.

[prolesunited]

41. Here's some facts I like to bring up

The pledge was written by a SOCIALIST!

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

[Lars39]

84. The Pledge of Allegience was first conceived as a promo campaign

by The Youth's Companion, a weekly children's magazine. The magazine bragged that 12 million children recited the pledge, with varying degrees of arm/hand placement. Some gave a military salute, some gave what we would call the Nazi salute. Bellamy was the editor of the magazine and a man named James B. Upham actually wrote the rough draft. Upham never claimed authorship, but the magazine itself claimed that he wrote the pledge.

Bellamy insisted....years later in 1957, a special research team of the Library of Congress urged by Rep. Kenneth B. Keating(whose district covered Bellamy's hometown) established Bellamy as the author.

[alcuno]

47. All of my life I've said, "under God." Until last year.

I am a teacher and a former student so I've been saying the pledge for some time now. However, when those religious freaks in the Congress and on the talk shows began blasting the guy who brought the court case in California, I stopped saying "under God."

My 8th grade students can clearly hear that I eliminate those words and have asked me about it. I tell them the truth.

[elfwitch]

48. lead by example

Good for you. Tolerance is always a good lesson.

[ShaneGR]

49. I could care less

Jobs I care about, the pledge I do not. I don't really care one way or the other.

[CoffeePlease1947]

50. Who cares? Really, does it matter?

I think we should be concentrating on other things that matter like, health care, equal treatment of women, gays, and minorities, and other things like knocking down the Patriot Act.

Mike

[VermontDem2004]

52. I don't care

as long as they don't force me to say the pledge.

[Snow]

57. True, it seems a silly matter,

but symbols really do matter. I find myself in agreement with the poster who hoped that the SCOTUS does overturn the 9th, because if they don't we'll get smeared with being godless by the RW. SYmbols really are very important - they often don't have substance, they can be twisted and misused, but they are very important.

[sybylla]

62. If you think the pledge issue isn't about minority rights

you haven't been paying attention.

Additionally, this isn't a Dem issue. This is a SCOTUS ruling. The Dems have already whored themselves out and pandered to the majority when they all gathered on the capitol building steps and recited the pledge on the day of the 9th circuit ruling.

Just who's time do you think this is wasting? Since when is supporting the rights of minorities a waste of time for Democrats?

[RapidCreek]

110. What the hell do you think this discussion is about...

if not equal treatment of minorities? Is it your concerned about the pursuit of equal treatment for minorities only insofar as it doesn't impede or call into question your faiths efforts to marginalize those same minorities via unconstitutional political initiatives and hypocritical internal policies? Evidently, such is the case.

Rapid Creek

[David Zephyr]

51. Agreeing With 9th Circuit: O'Connor, Breyer , Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg

O'Connor has been very outspoken in her support of the concept of separation of church and state and has voted this way pretty consistently.

She will lead the court eventually to emasculate the entire faith based intiative crap.

Kennedy is the toss up in my opinion.

[ComerPerro]

54. I think the Pledge is pretty stupid after you get to about fifth grade

n/t

[VermontDem2004]

56. after kindegarton

I don't think students take it seriously after awhile after saying it every school day till they are out of high school.

[ComerPerro]

59. Yeah that's exactly it

In kindergarten, I said it but I had no idea what I was saying. By first and second grade, I was just saying it, with very limited understanding of about half the words in the pledge. Shit, the only reason I knew the word "indivisible" was because it was in the pledge. I didn't know what it meant, though. It was just sounds.

But when I got to be about ten or so, the pledge became more and more bothersome and annoying, because I was tired of standing up and spouting out this drivel every damn morning.

[DealsGapRider]

58. I think it's a fine tradition.

If kids don't want to recite it, they can choose not to do so. Of course, no one should require that the pledge be recited, but I'm not aware of any school districts that do that.

I went to junior high in Alabama, a very conservative state, and even there there were a few kids who didn't stand when the pledge was said. Contrary to what PFAW, those kids were not ridiculed or pressured by their peers to stand up.

[LeahMira]

66. Not the point...

If kids don't want to recite it, they can choose not to do so.

Contrary to your experience, many students do get ridiculed if they don't stand up and say the pledge.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't see much point in pledging at the start of each school day except that it does get the whole group doing the same thing at the same time. When they finish, they are quiet and ready to listen... generally. But I can't remember the last time I pledged the flag outside of school (and I stoped teaching over 15 years ago. I guess people should learn the words in case they are in a situation where it's appropriate and "polite" to say it, but to make school children recite it each day when adults rarely say it is silly.

[mot78]

64. I really don't care if "under God" stays in

I can get used to saying it without God. My parents said it without God in elementry school.

[pinkpops]

65. It is idol worship

with or without the "under god". It is also a tool of indoctrination which I would not subject my child to.

[kittykitty]

68. Hated when they put 'Under God' in

I was in Jr. high when we had to add "Under God". What for? It was OK the way it was, and who where "they" to make me say "God"? I always resented it although I really didn't know why (unformed ideas at that point). I have always made a point not to say it since then, or leave out the "under god" words. "They" can't make me say it!!!

[info being]

70. It's great, if the goal is nationalism and indoctrination

.

[karlschneider]

76. I was in HS when they added the imaginary deity reference and I refused

to stand and/or recite it. And I caught a lot of shit for that. But I have never since accepted it. Pretty simple.

[Imalittleteapot]

77. Saying the Pledge is like singing the school song.

A daily pep rally is probably excessive and the repetitiveness diminishes the Pledge's meaning for school kids. Leave out God? Yes. I do not derive my patriotism or love of county from God, the flag or a daily recitation of the Pledge.

[Darranar]

78. Remove under God!

It is clearly against the seperation of Church and State!

[Loyal]

117. Seperation is not a word

lol

[Silverhair]

80. Ask Dukakis

Dukakis vetoed state legislation that would have required teachers to lead their classes in reciting the Pledge. Bush v.1 hammered him with that in the election. It was one of several "hot button" issues that emotionally resonated with the general public. I don't think people have changed much in 16 years.

[youngred]

82. Drop the Under God

I have no real problem with it. I always stood up and said it because I do like it. But I don't think it should be cumpulsory

[Capn Sunshine]

83. I thought it was ok until they ruined it in 1956

by adding "under God"
When I was a kid there was always a bunch of confused mumblety mumble mumble at that point when crowds said it.

It was written by a socialist btw.

[killbotfactory]

85. It's silly

Just take out the "under God" part. It was put it to stick it to those "godless commies!", but times change. And you can be a godless American now.

[bhunt70]

87. ceremonial deism

As an atheist Im not to worried about the "under god" reference. When I was in elementary school I guess I had to say it and I never recall actually caring about saying it. I was more ticked off I was made to say "according to gods holy ordinance" at my own damn wedding.

[LWolf]

88. I don't care for it.

For a few reasons:

1. I don't pledge alliegance to a piece of silk. I'm actually pretty picky about what I pledge alliegance to. It has to be something that doesn't conflict with my own values/choices.

2. The "under god" battle makes me uneasy. Another divisive, rather than unifying, battle.

3. All of the rules/rituals that go along with raising, lowering, and handling it give me the creeps. It's not a diety or an altar.

4. Knowing the history of the pledge, I dislike the revisions, both to words and the use it's put to.

5. I object to any mandated recitation. Of anything, let alone a solemn promise. That needs to come from the heart, not from rote compliance.

I still say the pledge. I am required to say it every day in my classroom with my students. I've used it as a vocabulary lesson, broken it down and discussed what each phrase means and what it means to make a pledge to something, and I've taught them to say it in Spanish. When I say it, I allow the flag to represent our constitution, and then I can feel comfortable pledging alliegance to it. I still don't like being told I have to, though.

[Liberator_Rev]

90. "Liberals Like Christ" deplore "Under God"

Ever since the wise 9th Circuit Decision, we've had a page supporting their position http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/underGod.html .

[RetroLounge]

93. Drop the under god and don't require it at all.

It's about loyalty oaths, and hammering any one who does not say it as being un-american.

I remember back in grammar school, in like 4th or 5th grade, say, about 1968 or 69. Gordon, the kid who sat next to me refused to stand and say the pledge. He got harrassed, pushed around, yelled at by some other kids. Some one said, "what, are you unamerican?" He answered "Yes, actually, I'm a Canadian Citizen" which he was.

So from then on, he was left alone about the pledge, but harrassed for being Canadian.

I get a bit pissed whn my kids have to say it at school, but I let it go, as they are young, and it didn't harm me, even if it is wrong.

[Zorra]

95. Allegiance to a piece of cloth?

I always thought that was kind of silly. Why isn't it just "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America"?

And the whole repetitive recitation thing just seems senseless to me.

[Hippo_Tron]

99. It's another one of those "don't we have other thigns to worry about"

I think simply you should say "under god" if you want, and don't say it if you don't. Teachers in school can't make kids say the pledge anyway. Of course, I was pro voluntary prayer as long as it wasn't initiated by teachers until I saw a certain episode of the West Wing.

[jsw_81]

100. Government should not be endorsing religion

By adding "under God" to the Pledge (as well as "In God We Trust" to the currency), the government basically told millions of American atheists, agnostics, and polytheists that they're second-class citizens simply because they aren't members of the majority religion. And that is absolutely outrageous, especially when you consider that our Constitution prohibits any government endorsement of religion.

For those of you who are religious and say that this is all much ado about nothing, try to imagine how you would feel if the pledge were modified to say "under NO God." Would you be concerned if public school teachers were leading your kids in saying that each morning? I think you'd be very concerned. And how would you feel if "God Is Pretend" was added to our currency? Think about it.

[IrateCitizen]

104. Hey, I LOVE it in the form that Francis Bellamy originally wrote it!

I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty, justice and equality for all.

The "equality" part didn't make it into the first "official" version because of the racism and misogyny of the day (around 1892).

But in its current form, it's more jingoism than actually meaning something.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

106. remove the 1956 inserted "under God" clause....problem solved

[markus]

107. ...one nation, under Law, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I have no problem with that whatsoever.

It's what I saw (and *very* loudly) whenever compelled to recite the pledge.

[mbartko]

108. Forced oath at an early age

Really, do we need to make five-year-olds say this when they have very little, if any, concept about what they are actually saying?

[elfwitch]

109. exactly

It is indoctrination. Shouldn't this be an oath to swear once one is old enough to really know what it means?

[Selwynn]

113. I pledge alligeience* See footnote...

I don't believe in swearing allegience to a "country" or anything else. Perhaps if I could have a very conditional pledge that said as long as the rebuplic to which I was pledging allegience to was just, honorable, stood for the basic rights outlined in the universal declaration of human rights, was a social republic more interested in equality and closing the gap between the terribly rich and the desparately poor than it is in coporiate welfare - in short, as long as I believe the republic is just, I pledge to support it.

But since the pledge has no such conditions, and since I don't believe in loyalty oaths anyway, I will not take a pledge of alligence.

[slackmaster]

115. I always felt uncomfortable reciting it

Like I was selling my soul to the Fatherland or something. I've never thought of myself as a joiner.

[Woodstock]

118. drop the under God

I am religious and believe in God - but that is my choice

And my God - Jesus - said to "pray in a closet"

[Fescue4u]

119. Im for it.

The whole under God bruha is way overblown.

[RapidCreek]

120. Yea what is overblown about it?

RC

[Spider Jerusalem]

122. I'm against it.

For more than one reason: in its current incarnation, it clearly violates the establishment clause. Not to mention its creepy similarity to the "hypnopaedic platitudes" of Huxley's Brave New World..."ten thousand repetitions make one truth." All part of the programming...make these kids BELIEVE that America is a land of "liberty and justice for all", all that patriotic drivel...never mind that a quick look at reality makes that statement untenable, because it's hard-wired into the synapses after 12 years of daily rote recital...