Pledge Of Allegiance

[OldApostate]

Well, my kindergarten aged daughter just recited the Pledge of Allegiance to me. The version that includes the words added by an Act has been ruled unconstitutional by federal courts in my state. The one that contains the words "under God." She tells me that she "has to say it in the morning" and that it "means she loves America."

 

I have the resources to fight it, but I'd rather not have my daughter singled out. I don't have an objection to her saying the Pledge, I'd just prefer it be the version that doesn't exclude her based on her religious beliefs. I'd also not like the administration against me, as this is a good school, and one that is very very convenient for her to attend.

 

I also know that she is likely to deal with this crap all the time so I would rather teach her how to deal with this on a personal level and in a way meaningful to her.

 

Any advice?

 

Edit: So far it's only actually illegal in one district in my state, as far as I know.

[HuaiDan]

You could tell her to say "under heaven" instead of "under god", and teach under heaven has two meanings, one means under the sky, and she could tell her classmates she says it that way because it sounds prettier to her.

 

Other than that, no idea how to handle this at a kindergarten level.

[mwc]

Tell her to just pay the words lip service by just mouthing them because there isn't really a god but these poor people think there is and you don't want them to feel silly by pointing this fact out to them.

 

mwc

[ShackledNoMore]

I think the day to day teaching of critical thinking skills to our children does them a great service, and it provides them with their best defense against stuff like this.

[woodsmoke]

Can the school really require her to say it? When I was growing up it was common knowledge any student who wished could opt out of reciting the pledge for whatever reason seemed best to them.

 

'Course, that would naturally lead to being singled out and quite possibly ostracized, so I'm with Huai Dan and mwc. Honestly, though, as much as I'm opposed to the endorsement of theism inherent in the current pledge, I never knew a single person for whom the daily morning recitation thereof really meant anything. It was just one more mindless activity we did at school.

[OldApostate]

I think the day to day teaching of critical thinking skills to our children does them a great service, and it provides them with their best defense against stuff like this.

 

I agree with this. It is difficult at her age though because the reality/imaginary line is rather blurred. My daughter really doesn't even know who/what this "god" person/thing is, so I also want to avoid calling undue attention to the whole god concept to begin with, lest she begin to think it has more importance than it really does.

 

All of this is complicated by the fact that the family we are closest to is Jewish, so I don't want to come across as overly critical of god belief. After all, they're not overtly critical of my lack of god belief.

 

My ex says he'll talk to her about it also, but he also dropped today the fact that he has issues with her exposure to Judaism at the moment as well, so I think this is going to get interesting.

 

I have attempted to explain to her what a religion is and all that. It is really difficult to describe religion to a child raised without one, by the way. I think it's extra confusing because there is no context created by indoctrination. Even harder to explain what a "god" is.

[Jack]

Can the school really require her to say it? When I was growing up it was common knowledge any student who wished could opt out of reciting the pledge for whatever reason seemed best to them.

 

'Course, that would naturally lead to being singled out and quite possibly ostracized, so I'm with Huai Dan and mwc. Honestly, though, as much as I'm opposed to the endorsement of theism inherent in the current pledge, I never knew a single person for whom the daily morning recitation thereof really meant anything. It was just one more mindless activity we did at school.

 

This is a rather confusing subject to me. I had problems with saying the Pledge, 'under God' among them, and one day I found this:

 

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. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

 

We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.

 

Neither our domestic tranquillity in peace nor our martial effort in war depend on compelling little children to participate in a ceremony which ends in nothing for them but a fear of spiritual condemnation. If, as we think, their fears are groundless, time and reason are the proper antidotes for their errors. The ceremonial, when enforced against conscientious objectors, more likely to defeat than to serve its high purpose, is a handy implement for disguised religious persecution. As such, it is inconsistent with our Constitution's plan and purpose.

 

I agree with the opinion of the Court and join in it....

 

I am unable to agree that the benefits that may accrue to society from the compulsory flag salute are sufficiently definite and tangible to justify the invasion of freedom and privacy that is entailed or to compensate for a restraint on the freedom of the individual to be vocal or silent according to his conscience or personal inclination. The trenchant words in the preamble to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom remain unanswerable: ". . . all attempts to influence [the mind] by temporal punishments, or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, . . ." Any spark of love for country which may be generated in a child or his associates by forcing him to make what is to him an empty gesture and recite words wrung from him contrary to his religious beliefs is overshadowed by the desirability of preserving freedom of conscience to the full. It is in that freedom and the example of persuasion, not in force and compulsion, that the real unity of America lies.

 

I came to the conclusion that I did not have to stand, salute, or recite the Pledge if I didn't want to, and was promptly given three days of in-school suspension when I exercised my assumed right. I never did anything about it (other than blubber aimlessly to the vice principal about rights, Supreme Court, not fair, ACLU, etc.) and I'm not sure what I should have done had I decided to do anything. The VP showed me the state law (Texas) which said that students are required to stand, salute, and recite the U.S. Pledge and pledge to the Texas flag daily, which, as far as the U.S. Pledge goes, rather confused me -- I was under the impression that there cannot be state laws that conflict with Supreme Court rulings.

Does anyone know anything about this?

[Ro-bear]

Does anyone know anything about this?

 

One cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in any of the 50 states or the District of Columbia. Such offenses are actionable. I told my kids they don't have to do it (teachers sometimes "forget" to tell their students this fact; I work with a woman who thought she had the right to compell recitation until I corrected her) but they choose to do so anyway so they don't become objects of derision. This is why I believe the wording should be changed or the pledge scrapped altogether.

[Jack]

Does anyone know anything about this?

 

One cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in any of the 50 states or the District of Columbia. Such offenses are actionable. I told my kids they don't have to do it (teachers sometimes "forget" to tell their students this fact; I work with a woman who thought she had the right to compell recitation until I corrected her) but they choose to do so anyway so they don't become objects of derision. This is why I believe the wording should be changed or the pledge scrapped altogether.

 

I see, thanks. Wouldn't such a law (Texas' requiring students to recite the Pledge) have been challenged by now?

[AKR]

this is fucked up. we need to ban the pledge of allegiance from school. it's bullshit patriotic/religious brainwashing. i would have difficulty in addressing this situation if i had a young kid in school. on one hand, you don't want your child to be picked on by idiots, but on the other hand, you want to teach them to be themselves and not ramble off religious and political phrases they don't mean.

 

if it was my kid, i think i'd just say to stand there with your hand in place, but not say anything. or just not say the "under god" part.

 

i just think it's fucking disgusting and ironic that people would MAKE children say a phrase that involves god, and ends with "with LIBERTY and justice for all." if we have liberty, why are you idiots forcing your religion and politics on us?

 

there needs to be an ogranization that fights all of these ridiculously unconstitutional laws that blatantly spit in the face of the separation of church and state.

[ShackledNoMore]

I think the day to day teaching of critical thinking skills to our children does them a great service, and it provides them with their best defense against stuff like this.

 

I agree with this. It is difficult at her age though because the reality/imaginary line is rather blurred. My daughter really doesn't even know who/what this "god" person/thing is, so I also want to avoid calling undue attention to the whole god concept to begin with, lest she begin to think it has more importance than it really does.

 

All of this is complicated by the fact that the family we are closest to is Jewish, so I don't want to come across as overly critical of god belief. After all, they're not overtly critical of my lack of god belief.

 

My ex says he'll talk to her about it also, but he also dropped today the fact that he has issues with her exposure to Judaism at the moment as well, so I think this is going to get interesting.

 

I have attempted to explain to her what a religion is and all that. It is really difficult to describe religion to a child raised without one, by the way. I think it's extra confusing because there is no context created by indoctrination. Even harder to explain what a "god" is.

That's true about the line between what is real and what is imaginary being blurred at that age. That's also why it's prime time for indoctrinating children into a god belief.

 

I have a daughter who is probably between one and two years older than yours, so these issues are near and dear to me as well.

 

Just like you, I haven't drawn attention to the whole god thing. My wife is a STBC (supposed to be Catholic) who doesn't attend mass at all and infuses near zero religious influence. Since she's married me and gotten insight into my background and family, she's become educated and disgusted with the ill effects of religion run amok, and what little religious emphasis there may have been has diminished even further, but she still derives comfort from the idea that her mother is in heaven. The net result is probably similar to your Jewish friends. It's probably a good thing--there will always be religious people around us, some of them close by blood or friendship and that's another good thing for kids to learn--mutual respect (of course many theists lack such mutual respect, but such does not seem to be the case with your friends).

 

So anyway, as I was saying, the god thing has never been blown out of proportion in our house, either. When my daughter asked how people got here, I explained how life evolves. I used an example of how wolves were bred into dogs to help illustrate. No mention of god necessary.

 

Sometime during kindergarten, she was the one who asked me about god. I simply explained that it was a belief that some people held. I expect that your daughter will come up with this same question sometime within the next year. Now she will become exposed to children who have been brought up in xianity, and she will start hearing things at school.

 

Now some people, let's see, criticize is too strong a word..., some people sort of think it's a folly that I have the style I do with my daughter. I stretch her a little beyond her level. I give her explanations that she might not fully understand yet--that she may partially understand and have to reach. And I ask her questions that require her to reason things out, on the simpler level that an early elementary school kid is capable of, but thought provoking enough to stretch her skills. It usually leads to an exchange as we analyze things. Some may roll their eyes, but I think that I have a kid who's developing a good foundation at processing all the information that's going to fly at her over the years and evaluating what is sound and what is not. I don't see her unduly influenced by "under god" in the pledge or by her school mates. (I very much share everyone's disdain for forcing the kid to participate in this or face ridicule or ostracization, mind you, but that's another reply.)

[RankStranger]

I don't have any kids... but for what it's worth, I think that at her age, the pledge is pretty meaningless. I'd just let it go. A man's got to pick his battles... and this one doesn't seem worth bothering with.

[pitchu]

It's an opportunity for laying the groundwork, simplistic as it may be now, of who you're going to be to her in the realm of ideas, and who she's going to be to herself.

 

Right now she understands nothing about god but a great deal about mommy, and mommy is key to her.

[mwc]

Even harder to explain what a "god" is.

Say that "god" is like a "Fairly Oddparent" only not real (but some people think he is).

 

mwc

[Ro-bear]

I see, thanks. Wouldn't such a law (Texas' requiring students to recite the Pledge) have been challenged by now?

 

One would think so. You have Jehovah's Witnesses in Texas, don't you? I'm told by a JW friend of mine that they don't do the Pledge.

 

Maybe you should re-read your law. In my state, which is easily as backward as yours, the law states that the Pledge must be recited in any classroom with an American flag in it (our local Republicans generously saw to it that flags were available to all). However, no child may be compelled to stand or recite the pledge. Most of the younger kids do so anyway, either because they don't want to stick out like a sore thumb or because their teacher tells them to do so. In the high school, a fair number just sit while the Pledge is piped into every room. An ROTC cadet recites over the PA (My job includes all of the morning announcements, but I declined my principal's offer to recite the pledge daily, even volunteering that I thought the law was a stupid one).

[Jack]

I see, thanks. Wouldn't such a law (Texas' requiring students to recite the Pledge) have been challenged by now?

 

One would think so. You have Jehovah's Witnesses in Texas, don't you? I'm told by a JW friend of mine that they don't do the Pledge.

 

Maybe you should re-read your law. In my state, which is easily as backward as yours, the law states that the Pledge must be recited in any classroom with an American flag in it (our local Republicans generously saw to it that flags were available to all). However, no child may be compelled to stand or recite the pledge. Most of the younger kids do so anyway, either because they don't want to stick out like a sore thumb or because their teacher tells them to do so. In the high school, a fair number just sit while the Pledge is piped into every room. An ROTC cadet recites over the PA (My job includes all of the morning announcements, but I declined my principal's offer to recite the pledge daily, even volunteering that I thought the law was a stupid one).

 

Yes, there are some LDS churches to be seen here. I wouldn't know any numbers, though; they don't seem to be noticeably overt about it.

 

I wish people here were so [comparitively] laid-back. When I went to high school in Alvarado (small, predominately Christian town), most teachers there would yell (yes, literally yell) at and write up any student who refused to stand -- but some didn't mind if they stood in silence or didn't salute. I go to a charter school in the Dallas area now, and as it's exempt from many requirements of tax-funded schools (it's only state-funded directly, not tax-funded as public schools are) we don't bother with the Pledge.

 

Here:

 

(a) A school day shall be at least seven hours each day,

including intermissions and recesses.

 

(B ) The board of trustees of each school district shall

require students, once during each school day at each school in the

district, to recite:

 

(1) the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag

in accordance with 4 U.S.C. Section 4, and its subsequent

amendments; and

 

(2) the pledge of allegiance to the state flag in

accordance with Subchapter C, Chapter 3100, Government Code.

 

(c ) On written request from a student's parent or guardian,

a school district shall excuse the student from reciting a pledge of

allegiance under Subsection (B ).

 

(d) The board of trustees of each school district shall

provide for the observance of one minute of silence at each school

in the district following the recitation of the pledges of

allegiance to the United States and Texas flags under Subsection

(B ). During the one-minute period, each student may, as the student

chooses, reflect, pray, meditate, or engage in any other silent

activity that is not likely to interfere with or distract another

student. Each teacher or other school employee in charge of

students during that period shall ensure that each of those

students remains silent and does not act in a manner that is likely

to interfere with or distract another student.

 

When I had researched more on W.V. vs. Barnette and was reasonably sure that the teachers and admin were unjust in insisting that we stand and recite the Pledge, I posted a short essay -- a compilation of information, more like -- around the school, saying that we did not need to stand, salute, or recite the Pledge if we didn't want to. They were all removed by the end of the day. I posted them all before school began; the principal said in the morning announcements that we /do/ have to stand and recite the Pledge, mentioning that "it says in the Texas Education Code...."

 

I responded by scribbling "Supreme court supercedes state law" on what flyers remained, but they were taken down eventually and the excitement was forgotten.

 

[rant rant fascist school authority figures anarchy fuck the world rant et cetera]

 

Thanks, by the way; I never got a perspective on how this situation is outside of Texas.

[MrBungle]

I think that some people take this issue too far, while I do agree the words "under god" probably should not be in the pledge it really doesn't offend me... I don't feel like I'm being forced to go through some religous ritual by saying the pledge in its present form.

 

I don't see how this is anymore offensive to anyone else here then the labeling natural disasters "acts of god" by insurance companies. The pledge is used to swear allegance to the United States not "god".

[Ro-bear]

I think that some people take this issue too far, while I do agree the words "under god" probably should not be in the pledge it really doesn't offend me...

 

 

It does offend me. Do you have any children? I don't like the state putting god language in my child's mouth. The pledge requirement in Tennessee schools is coercive, in my opinion. I don't like it one little bit. Taking it too far is what congress did in the 1950's when it added the offensive and unnecessary phrase "under God".

 

It was a pledge before; it's a prayer now.

[Oldjew]

Last year one of my grand children asked her mother "Why does the pledge to the flag say one nation of under dogs? Whats an underdog Momma?"

 

When my daughter told me that I laughed my ass off. Tell her to say "one nation of under dogs" as my grand daughter is still saying it as my daughter being an atheist told her children to all say "one nation of under dogs" instead of one nation under God.

[SilentLoner]

I'm just glad I never had to deal with saying the pledge (grew up outside of the US) until high school. And then hardly anybody cared anough to recite it during announcements.

[MrBungle]

It does offend me. Do you have any children? I don't like the state putting god language in my child's mouth. The pledge requirement in Tennessee schools is coercive, in my opinion. I don't like it one little bit. Taking it too far is what congress did in the 1950's when it added the offensive and unnecessary phrase "under God".

 

It was a pledge before; it's a prayer now.

 

nope no kids for me, yet. So I suppose I can't really fully understand where you're coming from on that one.

 

I'm not sure where you're equating the pledge to a prayer though.. It's not being directed at any supernatural being, its more of a public statement in which you acknowledge the existence of something you obviously don't believe in. I guess in that respect you're lying on some level by reciting it.

[HuaiDan]

It IS sort of a prayer. You're praying to the flag, worshiping the flag as it were. And by reciting the words "under god," you're giving divine rights legitimacy to the ruling power of the flag. It's an old old idea that goes back to the pharaohs of ancient Egypt and the Sun King legacy of the post renaissance era French court. Government given ruling legitimacy by god himself. So, likewise, you're paying homage to god by proxy of praying to his symbol of ruling power on earth, the flag of the United States of America.

 

It's a truly blatant and appalling violation of separation of church and state.

[Vigile]

I don't have any kids... but for what it's worth, I think that at her age, the pledge is pretty meaningless. I'd just let it go. A man's got to pick his battles... and this one doesn't seem worth bothering with.

 

I'm not a parent and I don't know what it will do to a child if he/she is singled out by making an issue of this.

 

That said, I respectfully disagree.

 

The pledge is patriotic indoctrination that takes advantage of children at their most trusting stage in life. When you are older and you feel goosebumps as the anthem plays and you feel the need to send your sons off to war, when you feel that your counry is somehow the best country amongst all other countries, it all started with early age indoctrination.

 

It is certainly not meaningless.

[♦ nivek ♦]

_ _ _ Bless America

Nolan Chart

by R.J. Moeller

 

"Thursday's headline atop Chicago's Daily Herald read: 'Atheists daughter takes own stand at school.' Dawn Sherman, daughter of local outspoken atheist and all-around public nuisance, Rob Sherman, led the charge in a Student Council meeting to have the song God Bless America removed from a list of songs to be played at this year's Homecoming at Buffalo Grove High School. I guess my suggestion during my own senior year of high school that the Homecoming theme be inspired by Joan Osborne's 1997 Pop-hit What if God was one of us? would have probably been off the table here, huh?" (10/01/07)

 

http://www.nolanchart.com/article208.html

[pitchu]

Here's a little background on how we got stuck with this miserable piece of American injustice.

 

Excerpted from:

 

http://www.slate.com/?id=2067499

 

Given this tradition [separation of church and state], it's not surprising that the original Pledge of Allegiance—meant as an expression of patriotism, not religious faith—also made no mention of God. The pledge was written in 1892 by the socialist Francis Bellamy, a cousin of the famous radical writer Edward Bellamy. He devised it for the popular magazine Youth's Companion on the occasion of the nation's first celebration of Columbus Day. Its wording omitted reference not only to God but also, interestingly, to the United States:

 

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

 

The key words for Bellamy were "indivisible," which recalled the Civil War and the triumph of federal union over states' rights, and "liberty and justice for all," which was supposed to strike a balance between equality and individual freedom. By the 1920s, reciting the pledge had become a ritual in many public schools.

 

Since the founding, critics of America's secularism have repeatedly sought to break down the church-state wall. After the Civil War, for example, some clergymen argued that the war's carnage was divine retribution for the founders' refusal to declare the United States a Christian nation, and tried to amend the Constitution to do so.

 

The efforts to bring God into the state reached their peak during the so-called "religious revival" of the 1950s. It was a time when Norman Vincent Peale grafted religion onto the era's feel-good consumerism in his best-selling The Power of Positive Thinking; when Billy Graham rose to fame as a Red-baiter who warned that Americans would perish in a nuclear holocaust unless they embraced Jesus Christ; when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles believed that the United States should oppose communism not because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime but because its leaders were atheists.

 

Hand in hand with the Red Scare, to which it was inextricably linked, the new religiosity overran Washington. Politicians outbid one another to prove their piety. President Eisenhower inaugurated that Washington staple: the prayer breakfast. Congress created a prayer room in the Capitol. In 1955, with Ike's support, Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money. In 1956 it made the same four words the nation's official motto, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." Legislators introduced Constitutional amendments to state that Americans obeyed "the authority and law of Jesus Christ."

 

The campaign to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was part of this movement. It's unclear precisely where the idea originated, but one driving force was the Catholic fraternal society the Knights of Columbus. In the early '50s the Knights themselves adopted the God-infused pledge for use in their own meetings, and members bombarded Congress with calls for the United States to do the same. Other fraternal, religious, and veterans clubs backed the idea. In April 1953, Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., formally proposed the alteration of the pledge in a bill he introduced to Congress.

 

The "under God" movement didn't take off, however, until the next year, when it was endorsed by the Rev. George M. Docherty, the pastor of the Presbyterian church in Washington that Eisenhower attended. In February 1954, Docherty gave a sermon—with the president in the pew before him—arguing that apart from "the United States of America," the pledge "could be the pledge of any country." He added, "I could hear little Moscovites [sic] repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag with equal solemnity." Perhaps forgetting that "liberty and justice for all" was not the norm in Moscow, Docherty urged the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge to denote what he felt was special about the United States.

 

The ensuing congressional speechifying—debate would be a misnomer, given the near-unanimity of opinion—offered more proof that the point of the bill was to promote religion. The legislative history of the 1954 act stated that the hope was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the Creator … [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism." In signing the bill on June 14, 1954, Flag Day, Eisenhower delighted in the fact that from then on, "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town … the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."