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.
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 only say the Pledge 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~y…
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.
You make two ridiculous assumptions. First, you assume that anyone who is against the pledge is a liberal, second you assume that all liberals are for President Obama. The pledge is used to ostracize any who don’t say it. Of course it is said that you have the right not to say it, but if you exercise that right, then you’re not an American. You claim that the pledge is at least non-partisan, but you’re supposed alternative is explicitly partisan to mock those who are against the pledge. Your’re a hypocrite
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:
<img src="http://dangerousintersection.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/1892pledgeofallegiance2hy7.jpg" alt="Saluting the Flag in 1892" title="Saluting the Flag in 1892">
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?!?!
The most important thing is to pledge our allegiance to the principles of liberty and justice for all. Equality is important too, but justice implies equality. Another important thing is that our country has never had perfect justice or perfect liberty, that’s why they’re called principles. They’re our goals that we strive to attain.
Pledging allegiance to a country is entirely different. What if that country does not represent liberty and justice for all? I don’t believe there’s anything that can ensure our country will ALWAYS represent liberty and justice for all, despite our pledge. It would be a dangerous thing if our country had us fighting AGAINST liberty and justice for all, right?
And I agree, the pledge should not include the words “under god” as it presupposes the existence of god. It should be removed. It’s a part of history, yes, but history is one thing and the pledge is another.
I remember saying the pledge, and it has me thinking about many things now that I have read this. I am 33 now. I was very naive. Sometimes I said it meaningfully, and sometimes not. I didn’t know at the time that we have never had perfect liberty or justice. We had more in common with other countries than I ever could have believed. Saying the pledge made me feel as a child that we were the only country that believed in those things and that somehow made us special and separate from the world.
But the more I learn about the world the more I fear any kind of fierce allegiance to a flag or country or faith. Why? Firstly because it seems very naive, just as I have said here. It’s like saying that the whole of heaven rotates around the earth and that humans are the object of gods love. It separates us from the rest of the people on the planet and I don’t like that. And also because a country or a flag is meaningless too. They’re meaningless without principles. Liberty and justice for all and equality are meaningful. I believe every person on earth desires those. Those are worth pledging too. Flags are just pieces of cloth, like a country. Who knows what they symbolize? They could stand for tyranny or religion or anything really. I’m sorry for saying that, but only lightly. Even the constitution was written on paper. Paper is paper. The principles embodied in the constitution do mean something, however, but they’re not restricted to the United States of America. We cannot solely be the voice of the entire planet. I can’t speak for europeans or africans or asians or anyone other than myself.
I’m not saying I don’t respect everything people have died for in our country to maintain our freedoms. This argument is a very common one. The very act of questioning our government and being critical of what we pledge our allegiance to is exactly what embodies the principles of “liberty and justice for all.” All that I am protesting is that the flag or country is separate of the principles upon which it strives for. The pledge should be more like this: I pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all. We don’t need the nationalistic over-idealised zealotry in our pledge. That’s like candy for a would be hitler, seriously.
Remember that we shouldn’t be pledging to a country. We should be pledging to principles. Remember that people who served under Hitler also pledged and fought for him with undying obedience. Pledging allegiance to a flag or country is candy to any would be Hitler, seriously.
Sarah Connor, what happened to SkyNet?
In reply to John Swenson: Shouldn’t we be pledging that we will be critical of our government? Isn’t that the only way to achieve excellence?
When we pledge allegiance to a flag, or other symbol, we are denying our birthright of self-sovereignty. We should be pledging allegiance to ourselves, and to the family and friends we love.
Erich is spot on IMO.. Think For Yourself!
Mike M.: I hadn't really appreciated the Pledge from the angle you raise. The dictionary definition of "allegiance" is startling: "the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord." It is interesting that the Declaration and Constitution recognize that the power flows FROM the people, yet the Pledge seems to subvert this basic idea. By stating the Pledge, it would seem that I am recognizing that the collective has power over me.
Perhaps we would be much better off with a Pledge of Personal Empowerment and Responsibility:
I Pledge:
– That I will stay well informed in order to be a responsible citizen;
– That I will do my best to elect competent representatives;
– That I will stay active in my community and government to maintain a country of which I am proud.
– That I will not take any Pledge to abide by the will of others, because my personal duties to myself, my family and my community are nondelegable.
I see the Pledge of Allegiance as an early indoctrination program, crafted by the government to instill unquestioning loyalty in their citizens. A "patriotic imprint" of young impressionable brains in an effort to insure the next generation of automatons needed to fill the ranks of the armed forces. That is why I believe any serious movement to remove the pledge of allegiance obligation from our schools will be strongly resisted at the highest level of the u.s. government. We have to remember that the mentality of the Warrior Archetype must be one of blind obedience– the military cannot tolerate a fully conscious, free thinking, self-willed individual.
Erich:
I really enjoyed your personal responsibility/empowerment pov on the revised Pledge. I would have no problem with my children reciting a pledge like that in school.
Here's my re-imagined Pledge:
"I pledge allegiance to myself, and the family and friends in my world.
And to the universe for which I stand– one consciousness, under will, fractally divisible, with liberty and tolerance for all."
Mike: You kept the cadence and successfully subverted the meaning 🙂
To be fair, I don't thing that most people who want their kids to take the pledge want their kids to be robots. And further, even those of us who treasure individuality and self-critical thinking realize that we have ties and obligations to society beyond our own friends and families.
Yet the Pledge, as currently written and recited is creepy and robotic. I'm probably not a good judge of pledges, however. I tend to think that the only pledge worth anything is one that I create and decide to make myself, not one that is imposed upon me by outside authority.
No one should perform the pledge, old or revised. It was the origin of the nazi salute and influenced the National Socialist German Workers Party. See the work of Dr. Rex Curry (author of "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets").
Well, I think we should go against that saying. I mean like what Tinnyray said its all true. It all started from the Germans. It doesn't really symbolize anything at all.
Reciting a bunch of words in the proper order, without knowing the meaning of those words is equal to memorizing the refrain to this song, without a translation of the lyric.
Niklaus: What stands out to me is that the song to which you linked communicates some emotion by the tones and the expressions on the singers' faces. The Pledge, recited by children who know nothing about what the words mean, do know that there is a power structure in place such that these children must recite these meaningless words or suffer consequences. And it's ironic that the words essentially are a declaration by the pledgers that they are subservient to the collective. Pledging blank-check allegiance to the collective. how anti-individualistic. How robotic. How very un-Ayn-Randian for a Pledge so revered by so many Ayn-Randians.
Erich, I apologize for being so late in finding this. You’ve written an excellent piece and I wholeheartedly concur.
Thank you, Betty. I was reminded of this post yesterday when I saw a couple candidates wearing those little American Flag pins. That, in turn, reminded me of the works of Amotz Zahavi, who would characterize both of these jingoistic traditions as cheap and therefore unreliable signs of loyalty. http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/02/05/shopping-for-sex-wasteful-consumerism-and-darwin%E2%80%99s-theory-of-sexual-selection/ I would prefer that Americans display fewer of these cheap displays and, instead, more self-critical thinking, less innumeracy, more patience and more a a willingness to suppress tribal instincts. We could still have a great country, but we’re going to need to be disciplined thinkers who work at it. Pledges and flag pins are not a necessary condition for having a great country.
Gonna make this quick, not a book of a opinion. I was just wondering why he doesn’t pledge to his country anymore and I feel sick after reading what I’ve read here! I served in the marines in Kosovo and afghan with the best men on our planet while people like you sat around and did nothing but ran your mouth as usual. I pledge to my fellow warriors, family, and the corps. Not the croked gov. And those who did the same before me
Leatherneck: Maybe we should be thinking more about whether shooting people is the best solution rather than fervently reciting the Pledge and falling in lockstep with our corrupt leaders. Let’s take Afghanistan as an example. We are spending $2 BILLION per week, and (I’m sorry to break this to you) but this ten year war has accomplished next to nothing. We’ve been supporting a highly corrupt leader and we’ve wasted a chance to build up the American infrastructure. Do the math: $2 billion/week x 10 years = One Trillion Dollars.
Why not pledge to higher ideas rather than fallible people? I’d recommend taking a Pledge that we will take the time to be informed and self-critical thinkers who refuse to do damage to our country by wasting massive amounts of money and killing lots of poor brown-skinned people, almost none of whom had qualms with us until we started our military occupation of their country. Back up, take a deep breath and look at the facts before you assert that I “did nothing but ran my mouth.” I’ve been a careful student of the facts:
http://dangerousintersection.org/2011/09/06/the-cost-insatiable-us-warmongering/
http://dangerousintersection.org/2011/09/01/alan-grayson-reports-on-u-s-waste-and-fraud-in-the-middle-east/
http://dangerousintersection.org/2011/06/20/our-amazingly-screwed-up-budget-priorities/
http://dangerousintersection.org/2011/07/27/one-year-ago-wikileaks-documents-showed-us-why-we-must-leave-afghanistan/
http://dangerousintersection.org/2011/06/29/the-cost-of-warmongering/
http://dangerousintersection.org/2011/05/05/photographs-will-end-these-wars/
http://dangerousintersection.org/2011/04/20/who-is-the-united-states-killing-with-its-drone-attacks-in-pakistan/
I’d rather that we spend a few minutes each morningbeing better informed rather than “pledging allegiance” to anyone at all. Let’s prevent catastrophic wars whenever possible. That’s a pledge I would take: No more foolish wars and no more fighting wars to pour money into the coffers of the military-industrial complex.
Sorry, but you don’t get a free pass from thinking things through just because you shoot a gun for a living. Shooting a gun doesn’t make a person smart. I am proud of my military only when it does things that help America, but not otherwise.
If you disagree with me, I challenge you to describe the end game in Afghanistan, including the final cost in blood and tax dollars. Make sure you indicate whether, if we ever leave, the government that remains will be corrupt. If you find this task difficult, maybe you could stop and utter the pledge a few times to remind yourself of your belief that loyalty is more important than thinking things through.
THOUSANDS of schoolchildren are being forced to sing an alternative version of the Australian national anthem that installs “Christ” as the country’s head of state and removes any reference to the Southern Cross.
In a move that outraged parents’ groups have labelled “disrespectful”, some 50 Christian schools of mixed denominations have replaced the second verse of Advance Australia Fair with the lyrics, which begin, “With Christ our head and cornerstone, we’ll build our nation’s might”, for school assembly renditions.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/schools-insert-god-into-australian-anthem/story-e6frfkvr-1226155301780#ixzz1ZYJVMO4C
Further to Leatherneck’s post, the fact is that those who do America’s shooting are taking their orders from politicians who “sat around and did nothing but ran [their] mouth as usual.” Indeed, people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., made lots of money (personally) by giving those orders. Meanwhile, many of these ‘leaders’ also opposed spending increases for, among other things, veterans’ benefits. So, as Erich points out, when corrupt people give the orders, there is no free pass. Pulling a trigger does not make a person smart.
For much the same reason, it also does not make a person morally superior to those who don’t pull triggers.
The only fools in this regard are the ones who let their governemntal leaders and personal friends receive any personal or corporate gain beyond a years salary from their “service to their country.”