Making children say the pledge of allegiance over and over is “teaching them history.”
I remember how, back in the 1960’s, I was forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day in grade school. Those were the days when we had nuclear bomb drills: we lined up and marched to the school basement, where we would presumably be safe from the fallout of atomic bombs. Some of my neighbors even had bomb shelters dug out in their yards.
Image by Crafteepics at Dreamstime (with permission)
Based on my own experience, children don’t like saying the pledge. It is mind-numbing to children; as proof, consider that you never see children saying the Pledge on their own. They say the Pledge only when they are forced to do so by insecure adults. All honest and rational people know that the children say the pledge only because they are forced to do so. All honest people also know that one can be a patriot without ever saying the Pledge of Allegiance. As proof, none of the following people ever said the Pledge of Allegiance: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine . . .
Here is some more history about the Pledge: It was created in 1892 and it didn’t originally contain any reference to “God.” The phrase “under God” was added in the late 1940’s and made popular through the 1950’s.
Fast forward to 2009. Many public schools force their students to say the Pledge of Allegiance each day. In addition to being mind-numbing, the Pledge forces children to acknowledge the existence of “God.” But isn’t it unconstitutional to allow government employees to force children to acknowledge “God”? No problem, according to a recent decision by the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire. According to the Court, the phrase “under God” merely recognizes “the historical fact that our nation was believed to have been founded under God.” You see, when we force the children to say the Pledge, we are (according to the Court) “teaching” them about what people in the past used to believe. How can it be that a Pledge that is written entirely in the present tense is somehow teaching children about something that happened in the past? This kind of reasoning should get an “F” in law school. In its long, contorted and evasive opinion, the Court invokes a state law “Patriot Act”:
The New Hampshire Pledge statute is titled “New Hampshire School Patriot Act.” RSA 194:15-c. The statute’s own words describe its purpose as continuing “the policy of teaching our country’s history to the elementary and secondary pupils of this state.” RSA 194:15-c, I. That is a secular purpose.
Note further that, to the extent that the Pledge is about history, it is false. “Liberty and Justice” were not “for all,” for long periods of our history. Many of our people were enslaved and denied any voice in our government. As “history,” the Pledge is facile and absurd. Children should be taught real history rather than be forced to stand up and repeat the same phrase over and over.
The Court also held that saying the Pledge (including the words “under God”) has no religious meaning, because it does not “thank God” or “give gratitude to God.” It constitutes “benign deism,” which, according to the Court, is not really about religion.
When Congress added the words “under God,” to the Pledge in 1954, its actual intent probably had far more to do with politics than religion — more to do with currying favor with the electorate than with an Almighty.
The Court concluded that the phrase “under God” is not religious, but merely an “historic artifact.” With this reasoning, saying the “Our Father” is also about history, not religion.” The Court came to this opinion even though the Pledge requires children to acknowledge the existence of God. This is a religion assertion with which many millions of Americans fervently disagree.
The Court further held that making children say the Pledge is not “coercion,” suggesting that little children had the power to decide not to participate. According to the Court, recitation of the Pledge is to “enhance instruction in the Nation’s history.” I guess it’s official now. Making children recite the same vague things over and over is “teaching them.” and having them acknowledge God is teaching them “history.” And putting the pressure on 8-year olds to affirmatively opt out of saying the Pledge when most of their classmates are too scared to do otherwise is supposedly giving them a “choice.”
I suppose, then, that if a public school in Detroit were to make children recite every day that the United States is “one nation under Allah,” that this would not be religious, but merely a history lesson, “teaching” the children about the beliefs of some of the people who have lived in the United States.
This Federal Court’s decision is about the most dishonest legal opinion since Plessy v. Ferguson. It’s a classic case of drawing the curve, then plotting the data–it is a perfect example of results-based jurisprudence. What an honest Court should have admitted is that the government is prohibited by the First Amendment of the Constitution from taking any position on whether “God” exists, and that the Pledge (written in the present tense) is a clear assertion that a supernatural being named God exists.
I’m not arguing that no one should say the Pledge. If someone can find a wayward child who, entirely on his/her own, wants to say the Pledge instead of playing at recess, have at it. As far as requiring groups of children to say it together, save it for churches.
See this related post: Religious Rituals are Adaptive Because they are Onerous.
Gives my article The Changing Recipe of Pleasure Lesion Stew from last November new life or currency.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation and its family of local plaintiffs will appeal the decision last week by U.S. District Judge Steven J. McAuliffe, District of New Hampshire, to dismiss their challenge of a state law requiring daily recitation of the religious Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m10d7-Freedom-From-Religion-Foundation-to-appeal-Under-God-decision?cid=examiner-email
The United States is, thus far, still a nation state, and its citizens should be encouraged to recognize and respect our country.
I have no problem with children saying the pledge of allegiance in school. I remember doing so as a child and did not find the practice mind-numbing.
The pledge of allegiance is, at least, nonpartisan.
Is this any better:
Mmm, mmm, mmm
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must all lend a hand
To make this Country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mmm
Barack Hussein Obama
He said? we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mmm
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we all must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mmm
Barack Hussein Obama
He said red, yellow, black, or white,
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mmm
Barack Hussein Obama
Yes, mmm, mmm, mmm
Barack Hussein Obama
Lyrics of the song:
Hello Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments
We all [inaudible] say “hooray!”
Hooray Mr. President, you are number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!
Hooray Mr. President [inaudible]
[inaudible] economy number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!
We say for all America, the great Red, White & Blue!
So [inaudible] President, we honor you today!
So here’s a hearty [inaudible]
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)
Sarah: You’ve offered a ridiculous comparison. This is not an either/or situation. Why are you suggesting that I think it’s a good idea to say a pledge to Obama? That would be a terrible waste of time.
My suggestion is that school children shouldn’t be indoctrinated in any way. They should not be forced to say any mind-numbing pledge, whether it be to a flag, to Barack Obama, or any other sort of pledge to any other cause. Instead, we should forget pledges and spend the valuable minutes of the school day teaching children to think for themselves. Children will learn to “respect their country” best to the extent that they learn to think for themselves.
And I do question your claim that the Pledge is “non-partisan.” Not as currently written. Not as currently used.
While were speaking of the pledge, I think it is important to note that pledge did not have religious elements till the 1950’s(I think). Check wikipedia for more info.
we don’t have to say it. We aren’t forced too. Plenty of children sit down. I have a friend who, according to her religion, can’t even stand up during the pledge. Some kids even talk through it. So we aren’t being forced to say it, if that’s what you think. We get choices. And we don’t care not because we don’t believe in the pledge or whatever, we’re just lazy and WE DON’T want to be standing, at school, or anything else in the morning. So calm down, this rant is totally wrong. Kids are just lazy in the morning. And we don’t want to be there.
Don’t forget the traditional proper pose to salute the flag:
Although another country with extreme patriotism made that pose unpopular before the middle of the last century.
Annabelle and her peers cannot even muster up the self-disclipline to hoist their petards out of their chairs for a symbolic twenty second ritual? They can’t come together as Americans for twenty friggin’ seconds?
What do you plan on teaching them, Erich?
If they are too lazy for the pledge, why do you think they’d be eager to learn anything at all? Especially when the State will provide. Why even get out of bed in the morning?
Sarah: You amaze me at your willingness to accuse me of writing things I didn’t write. I never wrote that we should cut out the Pledge because children are too lazy to say it–a commenter named “Annabelle” wrote that. What I said was that children (and thinking adults) don’t see the point because the Pledge has no educational value. It is empty calories–it is a power play by those who can make others reaffirm their commitment to a group by challenging their patriotism. Making students say the pledge has to do with insecure adults getting a self-serving jingoistic glow by forcing little children to mouth words they don’t understand, including forcing them to acknowledge God in public schools.
Or are you too lazy to read the First Amendment? It would only take 20 seconds. How about having the children read one of the Amendments to the Bill of Rights every day? Twenty seconds per day to learn the Bill of Rights. Over the course of a year, they’d have something to show for their effort. They might even start to question why their state employee teachers are making them affirm the existence of God at public school.
I’d cut the Pledge out of the curriculum any and every day. If it takes 20 seconds, that’s 20 seconds wasted. If saying the Pledge is such an important thing to do, why don’t you say the pledge every hour of the day? Let’s encourage people to say it at grocery stores and as they enter every government building. Maybe you could make your friends say the pledge with you whenever you spend time with them, and see if they stay your friends.
Thinking adults and thinking children have better things to do with their time. Saying the pledge repeatedly is as mindless as making children repeatedly assert the Christopher Columbus “was a great and good man who discovered America, failing to mention that he hunted the natives for sport and murdered them for dog food.”
i agree entirely with erich’s arguement
Erich and Sarah,
Empty calories as an argument against saying the Pledge is not the best. We’re talking about culture here. By the same token, why would anyone teach “Tom Sawyer” other than as an element of American culture?
But as part of the culture, it behooves us to look at what is being taught.
My objection to the Pledge is that semantically it gets the cart before the horse. Pledging allegiance to the Republic may have some value, if for no other reason that to make kids aware that there is something in which they live that merits attention and occasionally defence. The flag is nothing but a symbol and to pledge allegiance to a symbol is pledging yourself to the least important aspect.
The Republic is an idea, like the Constitution—which is why elected officials and military personal are made to swear an oath to defend, not the president, not congress, not even the territory, but the Constitution. Defend the idea. Admittedly, most people fail to make a distinction between the idea and the people in power, hence we always overlook the fact that the President is not the country—he is, in fact, an employee, and his (so far) performance should be judged accordingly.
I object to the isolation of the pledge. Presumably we get the context in civics when we’re older, but I do not ever recall being taught the why of saying the pledge in any class. It was simply taken as a given that we would say it and thereby cement our solidarity with fellow citizens. But given the misuse to which our national symbol is often put, it would seem to me a pernicious indoctrination, one that suggests strongly that if the flag is wrapped around someone or something, no matter what, we ought to support it. It becomes the equivalent, in some instances, of using a human shield.
Indoctrination, even on so innocuous a level as 20 seconds of mouthing words by rote, really shouldn’t be made. Kids should be taught the context, then asked if they’re willing to support this, making it clear that the idea is what they’re supporting, not the facts, past or present, which are a mixed bag at best.
But it is, then, a cultural thing, and far from the empty calories Erich asserts. It’s just if you don’t know what it is you’re pledging to, it can be more harmful than we intend.
Hey, I believe that saying the pledge of alligence in school is a bad thing! I believe that its out of respect for our country and our flag. Listen up, Im not one of those “Insucure adluts” that you were talking about, Im an 8th grade middle school student! Allthow I do agree with you on some terms. Such as the part where they give students a “choice”. Ill admit, THEY NEVER DID! And also thank you for showing me how offenceive “Under god” could be. Ive been a christan all my life so I was never bothered by it but now that I think about saying “Under Allaha”, I get it now! Allthow I disagree that saying the pledge of alligence is mind numbing. We stoped saying the pledge after we got to middle school so I dont truely rember how mind numbing it was if at all. I also stongly disagree that children never say the pledge on their own. In kindergarden I used to say it just about every time I saw a flag! But like I said that was a long time ago so memorys are kind of fuzzy. Thank you for the con point of veiw. Im writing a paper and you have been very helpful Mr.Erich Vieth.
Also Ms.Sarah Connor I dont mean to offend but, Im just not feelin that pledge of alligence. Frankly my mind would go numb if I had to say that every day. I think elementry children would enjoy it more.
My over all veiw on the pledge of alligence is that it is a peice of America’s history and that it should be left allone. Also, IF CLASSROOMS DONT EVEN HAVE FLAGS ANY MORE THE WHY MUST WE TAKE OFF OUR HATS?!?!