General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGod should not be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Pledge of Allegiance should be taken out, period. No such thing should be required to recite in schools. Especially not a pledge to a piece of cloth, which anyone can wave and claim for themselves. That kind of shit belongs in totalitarian systems.
Schools should educate about democracy generally and in particular the form of government in the United States (democratic or not). Students should be learning the Constitution from Preamble to Bill of Rights, the history of the amendments and major court decisions, their rights and privileges and duties and requirements as citizens generally, the means for organizing to protect their rights, how to get involved in and influene the politics that affects their lives (not only inside the voting booth), why it's important...
EDITING TO ADD POST #39 HERE:
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=442
Writing for the SC majority in 1943, when Jehovah's Witnesses refused to say the pledge, Justice Robert Jackson:
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.
msongs
(67,406 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)If you are referring to "under God", is Christianity the only religion with the concept of a God?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Other faiths have other words. Allah, for example.
Then there's us terrible atheists.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)as an act of Congress during the Red Scare.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it did not originally.
By the way, those references also need to get done for in coins, same history.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)"under god". I just count 1, 2.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Oh, except for when performing it it for foreigners who don't know what it is.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)in any government setting, including all public schools.
ShrimpPoboy
(301 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)is conservatives who wish to make it and prayer mandatory.
Also, in my view, it is mandatory if it is voluntary, but one's refusal to participate will result in ostracization by their peers.
branford
(4,462 posts)Further, although certain conservatives might want to make prayer and similar conduct mandatory, the relevant and long-standing jurisprudence has repeatedly made clear that such attempts are be clearly unconstitutional and will be prohibited.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)trying to pass such laws.
Also, if the teacher in a school stands up and says, "We will all now recite the "Pledge of Allegiance". Those of you who do not wish to recite will stand in front of the class quietly", that is a state mandated loyalty oath since the teacher is compelling students by peer pressure and virtue of their authority.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)government bodies. Let's just say social pressure can be a wonderful thing
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Plenty of schools require it and you know what? It doesn't matter what's the law. Schoolchildren are herded, that's how it is. And at "Town Halls" of local representatives, they don't do history lessons, they start with that shit. That's when I run out of the room (since I'm there to lobby these dumbshits) because I ain't standing and I ain't reciting.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)OxQQme
(2,550 posts)and that was about the time that "TheChurch" attempted to silence that Satanic Elvis Presley.
I have not mouthed those PoA words since I bought my pair of Blue Suede shoes.
Damn Puritans.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Ain't life strange.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)roody
(10,849 posts)Last year we did not do it once.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)But I find I agree. Especially as it is a pledge to a piece of cloth. EXCUSE ME????
3catwoman3
(23,993 posts)...for many years. The husband has a one-of-a-kind expertise in some sort of metallurgy. When their then-8 yr old son was in the local elementary school, TPTB insisted that he recite the POA in class every morning, even though he was not an American citizen. They were not content for him to just stand quietly. His parents chose not to make a big deal of it, to minimize controversy.
While I understood their outlook, I would have raised holy hell. The school district was completely out of line.
VMA131Marine
(4,139 posts)I came to the US at age 14 and never once said the Pledge of Allegiance nor did anyone try to force me to do it. It couldn't have been that harmful because I felt enough loyalty to my new home to enlist in the Marines after high school.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)thing was put into the Pledge.
I was attending Catholic school at the time, and I clearly recall the nuns being very unhappy with it. They actually had a good grasp of what was meant by separation of church and state.
I no longer recite the Pledge. Haven't for about a decade now, although admittedly I don't often find myself in a place where that is happening. Sometimes I will stand up and just be silent. More recently, I sit quietly. I will say that I do feel uncomfortable, but that's better than feeling like a total hypocrite.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)so as not to have to deal with the reaction because I do not stand for it.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)that would be a proper pledge of allegiance
(also remove the god part)
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)This is not really in the supposed spirit of the document.
It makes sense in totalitarian countries.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)for the President, Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article II, Section One (my bold)
or for the various Congresscritters, "executives and judicial officers" to be "bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution...."? Article VI
Yeah, actually, if we are going to pledge to anything, that would be the one.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)One is an oath taken willingly by adult persons who worked to be elected as officials under the rules of the same constitution that they are swearing by. The other is an non-official "pledge" that millions of children and minors are forced to recite unwillingly and before they even understand what the words mean. This is the difference between constitutional procedure and mass brainwashing.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)I don't know how anyone who believes in real freedom and democracy can be against what the Constitution stands for. At least it actually stands for something real and concrete while a flag can be easily interpreted or misinterpreted by people like George Bush and Donald Trump to promote their false brand of patriotism. But its harder to misinterpret something that is well articulated in words, and there's no mistaking what the US Constitution stands for (people like Trump and Bush do not respect what it stands for)
DFW
(54,387 posts)My elder daughter was born and raised in Germany. This is the story of her first encounter with the Pledge of Allegiance. It had been so long ago for me, I had completely forgotten to tell her about it before she attended her first American school:
My daughters were born and grew up in Germany, where overt expressions of patriotism bring back memories they'd rather not dredge up, and are therefore discouraged.
In Germany, high school students are encouraged to take a semester or a year abroad to broaden their intellectual horizons. My daughter had visited the USA and spoke passable English, as I had spoken it with her from birth. She elected to take her semester "abroad" right back in Dallas at the local public high school near my residence there. I went with her for the first week to make sure she had no bureaucratic problems I could solve by being there.
After the first couple of days, I asked her if all was well. She said yes, but they did some odd things at the school. "Like what?" I asked.
She said that she found the ritual chanting every morning to be odd. Ritual chanting? Who did ritual chanting? This was not a Navajo school. She said that every morning, they all got up and did some kind of monotonic ritual chant. I couldn't imagine this. In a Dallas public school? Wasn't that forbidden by law? I asked what they chanted. She said they mostly mumbled as if they were tired. I asked WHAT was it they were chanting/mumbling? She said it started out with "I spread the peaches."
I couldn't believe that every morning, in a Dallas public school, that classes did ritual chanting that started with "I spread the peaches." I asked what else they did. She said they stood up and put theirs hands on their chests while chanting. Then I remembered. Her English was good, but in normal home conversation, I had never used the words "pledge" or "allegiance," and therefore, she didn't know them. The kids were already mumbling the words out of unenthusiastic boredom, so she just assumed she was hearing words she knew, but spoken indistinctly.
So, "I spread the peaches to the flag.............."
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Thanks, great story.
DFW
(54,387 posts)She felt a little stupid not knowing what the hell was going on, since all the other kids in her class did it so routinely, as if it were the most natural thing in the world. Since the defeat of the Nazis, to someone who grew up as a German, making a daily pledge of allegiance to a flag was the least natural thing in the world.
ShrimpPoboy
(301 posts)Thanks for sharing that.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)DFW
(54,387 posts)They just stand there, because they have to, and mumble it ritually to the point where anyone else can't figure out what they're saying. It can't be said that it instills them with patriotic fervor every morning, and if it doesn't do that, what's the point? We're making them do it for someone else's benefit, not theirs.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)That was added in 1954 during the red witch hunt years.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The original writer had good intentions.
In practice it's a ritual daily brainwashing for children - with or without "god."
ileus
(15,396 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)But we said it at my parochial elementary school in New York. Have times changed? Is this no longer a big thing? What percentage of schools engage in this nonsense?
frizzled
(509 posts)Your reasoning is sound, but why stop there? Why are we forced to be part of a nation? I never agreed to this government, or any government. Isn't it discrimination to not give foreigners equal rights?
Once you pull this thread it all starts to unravel.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Simply because we have evolved a system doesn't mean that eventually it won't evolve into a different system.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Also mirrors in its logical structure arguments against gay marriage, or not harshly punishing minor crimes (since if you start there, why not go all the way). If you dispense with flag worship and jingoism, it might lead to etc., etc. pick an ultimate extreme.
Why have nationalism, however (as distinct from nations/states) is a VERY good question in itself.
frizzled
(509 posts)There's no logical connection between gay marriage and, oh, let's say bestiality.
On the other hand, there is a glaring LACK of ethical justification for nations to exist. The lines for foreigners and citizens at airports look like Apartheid. Why treat foreigners differently? Why have countries?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)arose mostly in response to the dynastic system and its empires, which were constantly at war. There were many good as well as bad reasons for it. It was a hope of development and freedom and better days, for most who believed in it. I'd say these enlightenment projects managed some amazing things, but have failed and have reproduced new systems of empire, violence, and endarkenment, also the World Wars, nuclear war, neo-imperialism and all the rest, to put some names on it. And currently a new rise of fascism in various places. How to get out of this into a better world is no simple question. I'm sure you're aware that no borders at all is not a possible goal in the middle historical term, and would foster conditions that are opposite to the perpetual peace I'm assuming you're wishing for.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)let's just drop "under god" for now. He ( or she; I guess "he" belongs in church, etc.; not in public school classrooms or at civic events.
In our increasingly secular era, this is a reasonable and achievable political goal. Meaning: most people can be persuaded to go for it.
I don't know about the rest. Does every country have a "pledge"? Or something resembling it?
JustAnotherGen
(31,824 posts)But take the God out.
Francis Bellamy - not a perfect person - no historical figure is but :
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2012/7/11/230070/The-Surprising-Story-Of-The-Pledge-Of.aspx
Alkene
(752 posts)That would be, like, totally awesome.
ghostsinthemachine
(3,569 posts)The pledge, not so much for the religious aspect, but the fact that they would show newsreel footage of "The Hitler Youth" doing exactly the same thing. Then talk of propaganda and brainwashing of those kids.
This did not set well with anyone, especially my parents and school administrators who suspended, the expelled me over it then forced me to participate against my will. (Which probably led to my rebellious nature)...they never could give me reason, other than "you are required"....
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)writing for the majority in 1943, when Jehovah's Witnesses refused to say the pledge:
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. (Justice Robert Jackson)
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I'm adding it to the OP.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)really gets my goat.
I've been avoiding paying any attention to the pledge for fifteen years, with only a couple of queries as to why, with my paraphrasing the 43 decision only once, to a librarian, free speech lover, she was, ha.
the first of these two pics are of US kids doing the Bellamy salute in 1942. this salute, I believe, has been already mentioned here as having originated when the original pledge (''to my flag'') was written, and the salute described, in 1892.
the second is a room full of German kids doing something recognizably similar
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)from the comments:
"...yet another simple-minded sheep repeating an outdated, cliche rhetoric that has already been disproved thousands of times. americans are not under any active, imminent threat at any time today. it's like saying you should be grateful and show your allegiance to me for not murdering your dog because i totally have the ability to do so.
it's illogical. with an ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor, an overburdened welfare system, countless social issues, and tons of people being forced out of retirement, america is far from being a nation that can be described as "safe" and "guarded."
the middle class and the poor are under the constant threat of FINANCIAL harm, no matter how hard they work. "classless society" in america is a myth. yeah, thanks america. oppressing/suppressing those who choose to be critical thinkers rather than obedient sheep vulnerable to government exploitation is what's unamerican.''
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)that video!
hunter
(38,313 posts)Saying the pledge got you in trouble with God, so I didn't.
I was a weird skinny reactive autistic spectrum kid, so me refusing to acknowledge the pledge only added to my aura of weirdness and wasn't unexpected.
When I was teaching there were so many teachers neglecting the pledge that the administration decided to do it on the PA system every morning, read by students who were undoubtedly praised and encouraged by their patriotic parents, probably the same parents who'd complained about teachers not doing the pledge. Our school was very well worn, had no intercoms, and in many classes you could only hear the PA announcements on the speakers outside, so not much changed.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)AwakeAtLast
(14,126 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)it's indoctrination
Stargleamer
(1,989 posts)reminiscent of the Loyalty Oaths required in the 1950's
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)Seriously, we have bigger fish to fry. This is the sort of boutique liberal issue which sets the right wing off into the stratosphere and makes ordinary people, you know the folks we's like to have voting for Democrats shaking their heads and wondering whether their beloved pledge would disappear if they vote for Hillary or Bernie.
Let's let the silly belong to the right wing, shall we?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)This is the General Discussion section, where all discussions can be had, not a strategy session on Clinton's next rebrand.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)I just don't think giving the other side fuel over something as silly as a ban on God in the pledge of allegiance is worth it. Others may differ of course. From where I stand 60 something, white, female from a blue collar family it seems like the sort of thing that gives liberals a bad name. I'd personally prefer it said "I pledge allegiance to the Constitution" and leave out the "under God" part but no one asked me when they wrote it.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Sorry, I didn't think anything about whom you might support, I was just using a rhetorical example of what you seem to be saying, which, after your latest post... still seems to be what you are saying.
I have a view and I'm expressing it, and it certainly doesn't need to characterize "liberals" (of which I am not one, by the way). If someone wants to do that unfairly, then it's on them. They're wrong.
We can't all shut up now because some theoretical mainstream hates "liberals" or clings to symbolic bull or lumps unrelated people together. Things on the Internet get taken out of context and used for false characterizations of larger groups all the time, and unscrupulous operators will do that no matter how much "we" self-censor. Far better to normalize these uncomfortable ideas by stating them, if we believe them. That is exactly what Sanders has been really good at (and OWS before him). A faithfulness to their own convictions is central to the success of the right, by the way. They don't triangulate, they don't package, they push for what they believe in.
Otherwise you have a recipe for permanent incremental maintenance of everything status quo. Everything will have to be vetted against how it might play in a theoretical intolerant Peoria. I think more highly of Peoria's potentials, however, I have high hopes for Peoria to be better than that one day.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)Oh and by the way conservatives do package. What is all of that nattering on about "Freedom", "Family Values" and "Patriotism" if not packaging?
If they did not "package", if they did not hide their intentions behind patriotic phrases dear to the American people, no one who is not a member of the corporate elite would vote for them.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Well, in the case of (nonexistent) god, I despise what the idea of this evil a-hole deity and all the harm this belief has caused our planet.
I agree, the pledge is like a fascist wet dream. Turn off your brains and submit to the propaganda, kiddies!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)burrowowl
(17,641 posts)having to relearn it in second grade because they inserted "under God"
The pledge was written by a socialist Baptist preacher!
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Orrex
(63,213 posts)Instead, we gathered each week at the football field in robes of muslin and slaughtered a goat on the 50 yard line.
If you can think of a better way to keep the rain failing, I'd love to hear it.