Reframing the Debate Over the Pledge of Allegiance: Make God Optional

[cbayer]

Last edited Wed Sep 3, 2014, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronald-a-lindsay/reframing-the-debate-over_b_5751566.html

Ronald A. Lindsay
President & CEO, Center for Inquiry

Posted: 09/02/2014 3:16 pm EDT Updated: 09/02/2014 3:59 pm EDT

Children are back in school and, as part of their daily routine, most of them will be expected to participate in the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Recitation of the Pledge is a requirement under the laws of over forty states.

Mandatory recitation of the Pledge in our schools is something that troubles, indeed outrages, many of this country's nonreligious. And it should also trouble anyone concerned about the separation of church and state and religious indoctrination of children. Recitation of the Pledge is a solemn ceremony in which students are to affirm, among other things, that this is one nation "under God." So, effectively, every school day we require children to state that they believe in God.

Oh, I'm aware that students who object to the Pledge cannot be compelled to take part. If they object to the Pledge, they have the option of standing or sitting at their desks quietly--and of being stigmatized as unpatriotic and un-American.

I'm also aware that, with one exception , every single federal and state court--and there have been many--that has considered challenges to the legality of the mandatory recitation of the Pledge under its current wording (the phrase "under God" was added only in 1954) has found that inclusion of the "under God" phrase does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Nor has any state court found that the Pledge practice violates any state constitutional guarantees relating to religious liberty. The rationale for all these decisions is that the Pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one, and therefore, it cannot be analogized to mandatory recitation of prayer in public schools, which has been found unconstitutional.

more at link

[Journeyman]

1. The religion doesn't bother me so much as the constant repetition . . .

I pledged allegiance to the Constitution when I was inducted into the military in the early '70s. I haven't repeated the pledge since, and I've no intention of ever repeating it.

The way I see it, once you pledge yourself to something -- if you truly mean it -- you need never do it again. In fact, to do so -- to engage in a "doctrine of continual reaffirmation" -- makes a mockery of the original vow, as only a meaningless pledge needs constant updating. I affirmed my commitment to this land and its Constitution as a young man. If I ever change my mind, I'll renounce my pledge. Until then, I consider it my word, freely given. Any attempt to make me renew it simply insults me and casts aspersions on my honor.

As for those who insist it should be recited on multiple occasions, who would prefer to see it rendered meaningless through reduction to nothing more than a rote recitation, I often wonder, if they can't trust me to keep a pledge quietly, how's my mumbling it going to change anything?

Let's teach our children the value of trust and the worth of their word, and not endeavor to inculcate through rote indoctrination an allegiance we seemingly do not accept their ability to simply pledge.

[cbayer]

2. The whole idea of a pledge of allegiance is

bothersome. We did it as kids and never thought a thing about it, but as an adult it makes me uncomfortable.

You explain this very well, but I don't think it's going away easily. So, I think the suggestion in the OP is a good place to start chipping away at it.

[Journeyman]

3. If there has to be a pledge, why not a "Reader's Digest" version. . .

"I pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all."

Short, to the point, and acceptable to anyone on Earth who values others.

[bvf]

4. That's great! n/t.

[cbayer]

5. That is the best part.

[Starboard Tack]

12. I could live with that.

Screw the rest of it.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. It's already optional.

I always refused. Even in Kindergarten when they first taught it to us.

I do have to wait though, while everyone else rattles out the creepy allegiance pledge. Every day.

"The rationale for all these decisions is that the Pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one, and therefore, it cannot be analogized to mandatory recitation of prayer in public schools, which has been found unconstitutional."

It was MADE religious, by the Congress at the exhortation of the Knights of Colombus in 1957. BEFORE that it was purely patriotic, going back to its inception in the late 1800's.

[cbayer]

7. As I forgot the link, it's understandable that you missed his actual argument about this.

Sorry - I have now added the link.

He makes a very interesting case.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. That's essentially what I did.

I said it when it was required, but I was silent for the two 'under god' beats. No one ever challenged me on it*, so, nothing to sue over.

Not exactly sure what else he's advocating, whether a voter initiative to make it explicitly optional (good luck), legislation (good luck), or something more grassroots at the School Board level.

Basically you need some kid refusing to say those two words, be officially censured by the school as a result, and then sue.


*Granted, no one ever challenges me when I walk down 2nd ave/Pike at 2am either, so maybe I'm not a good example.

[cbayer]

9. As I understand it, the current situation allows someone to opt out of saying it completely

but does not specifically allow for someone to participate and just stay silent for that one phrase.

If I am understanding this correctly, he want it be explicitally explained to students that those particular words are optional and than there will be no retribution for not saying them.

As the pledge is not going to go away, that seems to be a pretty strong position in support of kids who are atheists.

Maybe it's just a pipe dream, but I like the concept.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. It's not a terrible option, sure.

I think compulsory loyalty oaths are problematic for other reasons, however. But that's not a state/religion intersection issue.

[cbayer]

11. I agree with you about loyalty oaths in general, but I don't

think this one is going to go anywhere.

The current situation really singles a kid out and makes the false link between being loyal and being religious. This allows for a category of clearly loyal and not religious.

That's a good thing, imo.

[Igel]

13. I don't think that's a reasonable point.

Which is odd, because I think most of your points are reasonable.

If you can not say all of it, you can not say part of it. While the law isn't logical, it seems reasonable. It's not a 5th-amendment sort of thing, whereby testifying in your own defense = waiving your right to self-incrimination.

When I was a fervent believer, my attitude was that the constant recitation and repetition of "God" was unXian. Taking God's name in vain. So when required to say it for Scouts, in those few places in school where I was actually expected (but not compelled) to utter the words, I'd just stay silent. Same for court oaths, etc. If they want to "deem" me as having said it because I didn't scream bloody murder and pitch a fit, that's their self-delusion.

Nobody ever noticed. But had they, I'm sure they'd have found it confusing, if not humorous. "I refuse to say "under God" because I find it un-Christian."

Now I require my students to be quiet during the DoA, if they don't actually say it (I'd rather they just stay silent, but some insist). If they insist on being silent and not participating, I ask them politely to at least stand as a sign of respect--they're not participating, but they don't draw attention to themselves. If they don't want to stand, I still expect them to be silent since that's what they choose. They can read, they can stare off into space, but they can't be disruptive.

[cbayer]

15. You make a good point which is echoed by the member below.

I never thought much about it and just recited it to not cause waves, I guess. To me it is pretty meaningless, like saying Happy New Year for the first few weeks of the year.

Yours is certainly an interesting approach and not one I had heard previously. I thought one outcome of this might be that a teacher or school or institution might continue to have the pledge but drop the "under god" at their own discretion.

What does seem most important is to not single out kids that don't wish to be singled out. It is certainly not a one size fits all solution.

[Htom Sirveaux]

14. I drop "under God" whenever I say the pledge.

Last edited Wed Sep 3, 2014, 11:23 PM - Edit history (2)

I believe in God, but I don't think having "under God" in the pledge is meaningful or appropriate.