Schools open again today and across the nation, millions of kids will be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
It sounds harmless enough. However, to some parents, the phrase “under God” is unacceptable in schools. The parents feel that the Pledge tears down the wall of separation between church and state because it contains the words, “under God.”. The Pledge heads back to court in the very near future. How does it hurt anyone to say two little bitty words?
That isn’t the point. Kids are a captive audience forced to recite something their parents find objectionable. Can kids be pulled out? Of course. However, pulling a student out of the pledge makes them stand out–opt out programs always call attention to those who dare to be different.
So why not just remove the words, “under God?” That has been suggested. Those two words were inserted in the Pledge in 1954 ostensibly because of the Cold War. (and probably a good deal of pandering by politicians.) Communist countries were Godless so the United States had to affirm that it was a nation under God. In God We Trust was also put on money during the Eisenhower era. Eisenhower himself was baptized and joined the Presbyterian Church within weeks of his inauguration, supposedly at the prodding of the Reverend Billy Graham. It was a time of making sure God was in plain sight!
16% of all Americans claim to be non-believers. Actually the figures are probably higher. Should those non-believers’ children have to claim God anyway? Is reciting the pledge really having to claim God? Are we a nation under God? Are all nations under God, for that matter? If God is omnipresent, then it seems to me all nations would be under the same God. (But what do I know?)
Who knows what the courts will decide. This question is no stranger to the court system. It seems to me that it might be just as well to take it out of the Pledge. It has served its Cold War purpose. It sounds like a good place to separate church and state.
http://youtu.be/eMR6d_9GsCQ
I’ll come back to discuss this later. SCHOOL STARTS TODAY!
I don’t really care about this. The “under God” phrase was a post WWII bolt-on intended to make a contrasting statement to godless Communism. So it’s a relative latecomer. Moreover, it falls within what one Supreme Court Justice aptly referred to as “ceremonial deism” – i.e., it really doesn’t have any true religious content. If they returned to the traditional pledge, that wouldn’t bother me. If they keep using the marked up version, that doesn’t bother me either as long as people realize it has no religious meaning unless an individual student wants to, in the privacy of his/her own mind, attribute meaning to it.
BTW, while we’re talking about the pros and cons of the “under God” phrase, we could also talk about why we think it a good idea for children to say the Pledge at all. It always seemed a bit odd to me to have all these little kids (including me) mouthing, in unison, words they barely understood. As an adult, there is nothing about the Pledge that I don’t buy into, but that’s because I’ve had plenty of time and experience to think about it and give it meaning.
We have discussed the notion of pledge recitation and some of us got in big trouble with others on this blog.
I think it becomes meaningless to kids when they say it every day without thought. I think its important for kids to learn it. I am not so sure parroting it daily accomplishes a desired result.
Any ideas on this subject?
In the Military, either the Oath of Enlisment or Oath for Commissioned Officers starts with “I do solemnly swear (or affirm)….” and ends with “so help me God”.
Now, if a person chooses to “affirm” the Oath vs. “swear”, Military Regulations allow for the person also to obmit the “so help me God”. Having taken the Oath several times (and I always swore it), and also as a Reenlisment NCO had soldiers who choose to “affirm”, it did not really matter since the core part of the Oath was the key – uphold & defend the Constitution, and obey orders of the President and Superiors.
Keep in mind the Oath taken is higher than the Pledge. So personally, if they dropped the “under God” in the Pledge, it would not matter to me. It is the core of the Pledge that is most important.
I didn’t realize swearing and affirming were different. Thanks, Ray.
A point worth considering is whether “allegiance” is something kiddies or adults should be “pledging”, as opposed to whether allegiance is something that is earned by a sound governmental system that respects liberties and delivers security. Like Ray, I have taken the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and that undertaking binds me forever. The Pledge is a lower form of undertaking in my mind.
There are those who would say that the Pledge was a form of indoctrination of a captive audience.
I think that is a rather strong statement….but point taken also.
Scout said:
Exactly. And I would add true justice as well – not merely the best money can buy or what the media trumpets
Oops. The last paragraph is mine, not Scout’s.
I fixed it for you.
@Moon-howler
I view the Pledge not so much as indoctrination, but a part of teaching (ok, maybe drilling into the heads of the young) the basics/concepts of Citizenship. I can remember in elementary school, each Monday as part of recess, each class got a section of the school grounds to do a trash pick-up. You lined up and walked the section – in military parlance, we call this an “ash & trash” detail among other names.
The idea was we should be taking care of our school, which is part of the town. This whole concept of caring for the community got expanded when we joined Boy or Girl Scouts and lots of community project.
Alas, lot a lot of things, the idea of forming the citizen from Kindergarten up got lost along the way.
I need to think on this. I have to go out for a while but I think you might have started another discussion.
@Ray Beverage
I agree.
Yesterday I came across an item about some folks in Massachusetts who are suing under the state constitution to prohibit mandatory pledges and oath takings in schools.
I heard today that that case should be decided in February. I wonder if the decision will be for that state or national?
@Moon-howler
Your welcome 🙂
Jesus, you’re doing this again? Must be a slow news day.
There is a law suit originating in Mass. Actually this post is different. We are discussing removing “under God” from the pledge.
@Ray Beverage
I absolutely think kids should learn the pledge. It is part of their training to be a citizen. I am not sure that daily recitation is the key to making good citizens though.
I don’t believe anyone should be forced to say it. First amendment and all that.
I agree. Children should recite the pledge. The “under God” does not make it a prayer and acknowledges that some people believe that God exists, placing government and nation in a subordinate position.
But, taking it out does not actually harm the Pledge. But the best thing is…atheists don’t have to actually say the Under God. Just skip it.
It isn’t that simple. You can’t just say people can skip things or hold their ears or whatever.
It really doesn’t need to be there. No one is saying that the pledge is a prayer. Some people are saying that their children are being forced to acknowledge God. I understand their point.