The question is often asked, whether the word “God” should be spoken in public schools by children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Whenever this comes up, I’m amazed that all the fervor on both sides of the issue is about separation of church and state and whether reverence is appropriate or legal, rather than the larger issue of whether the Pledge of Allegiance should be recited in any form in public schools, at all.
When I was in school, this was something that we did day after day, year after year, and almost every time I did it, I felt creepy about it. It seemed so strange that we, as students, were compelled to start each day by standing, and facing a symbol (the flag) with the mandatory putting our hands over our hearts, as we recited some words that we had been instructed to memorize.
To this day, I can’t understand how adults can allow this to go on, and on, and on, through the years, debating whether a certain word should be included, but rarely questioning the practice of indoctrination of young children into a nationalistic way of thinking, by compelling them to recite memorized words aloud by rote. If patriotic or nationalistic ideals can’t stand on their own merit, without this kind of conditioning, what good are they anyway? It seems to me that the process devalues the very thing it's intended to promote.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 101
why?
why?
We have seen in recent years the "indivisible" part isn't true any more. People care much more about pushing their religion and agenda on others than they do living in a united country made up of many different viewpoints. "Liberty and justice for all" applies to those who can afford it. If we got up and said only, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands," that would be to the point and more inclusive.
How many of us who grew up saying the pledge every morning in school as youngsters (I seem to think we stopped in 6th grade), really took any time to think about what the words meant? How many teachers ever took time to go over it? If they did, there would probably have been more students not wishing to take part in the mindless ritual.
Very very very good! How courageous of you! Kudos!
Empty words. Nobody thought about them. It was just something you had to do in the morning.
After teaching on the college level, I was shocked on,my,first,day teaching in,a middle school,that I had to go through this ritual. I made sure that my students could define "liberty" and "justice." At the end of the pledge, I always said quietly, "Some day!" My students caught on and agreed. No one noticed that I omitted "under God."
Take care.
Was it the ritual that brought about emotion, or was it the fact that your flesh and blood achieved and advanced to a new station in life and this ceremony acknowledged that fact?
Social Christianity
Important figures
I don't think any citizen considers the pledge a bad thing. I do think that most folk go through the motions of reciting the words while thinking about something else.
do you mean?
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy(1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898).
The best-known socialist society is the Fabian Society, founded in 1884, some years before the creation of the Labour Party itself (in which the Society participated). The Society's membership is relatively small (around 7000), but in Labour circles, it exerts much influence. The Co-operative Party is not strictly a "socialist society" in the context of the Labour Party. It is in fact a separate political party with an electoral agreement with the Labour Party. It acts as a socialist society for the most part although it has certain additional rights.
The CSU has strong support throughout Bavaria, but on the municipal level the situation is more diverse, with independent voter groups leading many municipal administrations in the rural areas. The two largest cities in Bavaria, Munich andNuremberg, have elected mayors from the German SPD. In state and federal elections the CSU usually wins the majority in both cities
The Communist Party of China (CPC), also known as the Chinese Communist Party
Liberation theology is a school of theology within Christianity, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church. It emphasizes the Christian mission to bring justice to the poor and oppressed, particularly through political activism. Its theologians consider sin the root source of poverty, believing sin as exploitative capitalism and class war by the rich against the poor.
respect and loyalty can be lost much easier than won.
I believe respect must be earned, not won. It is true that a reputation years in the making can be destroyed quickly and easily.
Loyalty that is lost was probably never loyalty at all.
{Loyalty that is lost was probably never loyalty at all. }
jan this idea is simply fantacy, loyalty must be grownded in something. thats the point being made. that this simple respounce conditioning amonts to fake patriotism.
There are many reasons for loyalty. Do you have children? Would anything induce you to be disloyal to them? That is loyalty. Unwavering support for who and what we love is loyalty.
Now, go pick on someone else, Darren. You are trying my patience.
LOL picking? Boy dont you feel special today.
you cant answer the issue of why your so beholding to a socialist theology?
{You are trying my patience.}
more like you beliefs.
I just don't feel like arguing with a jackass. Catch me on a good day and I'll scorch your shorts.
Jan S said: "Do you have children? Would anything induce you to be disloyal to them?"
I don't have children, but I can tell you if I did there certainly would be things that would cause me to be disloyal to them. Say for example they have anger issues and in a fit of rage push you down a flight of stairs (for the fifth time), yeah that's where loyalty ends.
This is like the fantasy ideal of "unconditional love" that people are always mooning about. Uh, no. There are conditions. A woman (for example) may think she loves her husband unconditionally, but when he comes repeatedly comes home drunk and beats her up -- it's time for the loyalty to end.
If you feel loyalty for your country it should be for something that makes you feel loyal, not because you've been indocrinated by years of saying some required words by rote in front of a symbol (flag).
So, in conclusion I don't really feel learning the pledge of allegience is a bad thing and I certainly don't think God's name should be taken out and I really don't wish to get into a heated discussion about this with anyone. I'm not here to step on people's toes, but I do agree with Jan here where God is concerned.
And as far as your loyalty and unconditional love rant, Robert, I have to agree with you too. I know I sound wishywashy, but humans ARE wishywashy. Like you said, we're unconditional until something doesn't go our way and then we slide into conditional. That's just the way it is. We're humans and humans are very conditional creatures.
I guess I just stopped by to ramble. LOL
why?
Child A goes to class to learn about the pledge line by line.
Child A comes home, hears family strife and struggles
hears neighbors fight
sees horror on the news
Child A forgets class lesson because real life is just the opposite.
really?
Our founding fathers wisely separated Church and state.
No one has the right to force any religion on another.
TJ Harding: This country was built on (besides economics) the fact that our "rebels" and "Liberals" wanted to be free of a state religion.
(This from the white male based history books that were largly fantasy books in the 1950s and 1960s. It is what they wanted us to believe. That we founded the nation based on religious FREEDOM.
Nuff said.
Wilka
The God of wrath?
How do you feel about 6 or 7 year old Iranian schoolchildren being indoctrinated with group pledging of allegiance to the Iranian flag and nation? Is this also a good thing, or is that somehow different?
What kind of nationalism do we want?
Robert makes a good point but by pretending that its not conected to its origen is a big part of the trick.
Socialism was strongly criticized in the 1878 papal encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris by Pope Leo XIII. It was again denounced in the 1931 letter Quadragesimo Anno. Socialists were accused of attempting to overthrow all existing civil society, and Christian socialism was deemed to be an oxymoron because of this. Pius XI famously wrote at the time that no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. [1]
If an Iranian decides to be a citizen of our country, then they should pledge to our flag. We should not go into another country and demand they change their ways to our ways.
Other countries should not come over to America and insist on changing us.
I don't think you can force anyone to pledge, any more than you can force someone to love you. I would have no objection to allowing people the opportunity to say a pledge or prayer, if we could be sure some people wouldn't judge those who opted out. I can't see that ever happening.
That is exactly what I said. I think if people were honest with themselves and to their childhood memories, they'd admit the same thing. Reciting the pledge with or without the phrase 'under God' in it neither adds to nor detracts from a child's scholastic career.
I agree with Sandy and Joyce. It was just something you did every morning by rote! Growing up on Air Force Bases I also remember standing for the National Athem before any movie at the Base Theater...but again, it was just done by rote! If people are SO concerned about teaching children THEIR brand of religion...do it at HOME, and don't wait for the state to train your kids! The difference between a christian fanatic and a muslim fanatic? Not MUCH!
Reciting a pledge written many years after the deaths of the founding fathers, is very questionable, to me.
agreed
The ritual becomes meaningless.
why?
Maybe, but try to get a child to memorize anything is a feat. This would bore a child to the point of acting out in very short order.
he Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy(1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898). Bellamy's original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8th issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's discovery of America, conceived by James B. Upham.
I spent the next 3 weeks being sent to the principal's office every morning when I refused to say the pledge, while the school board debated and consulted whomever they consult on such matters. My point that forcing someone to say the pledge was completely contrary to the very principles that one was pledging to uphold was finally conceded, and I was no longer required to say it.
Good on you!!
It's recited every day in every school in our district, from what I've seen. (Decadent Liberal California, No-On-Prop-8 Division)
For the record, I'm a Vietnam vet, purple heart, CIB, I didn't experience a llot of drama, but I had friends die near me. I don't mention this to add weight to my opinion, because it shouldn't. Combat experience doesn't make me a better judge of something like this. I say this to counter the citation of another Vietnam vet as if his opinion was more important because of it.
"...I feel like 'god' has a hand in much of the division in this country."
Perhaps the more accurate thought would be 'by the ones who THINK they know God's mind...'
Well, Joyce, if I were striving for accuracy, I'd have said 'people who think there is a god have had a hand in much of the division in this country.' Thanks for allowing me to clear that up. 8)
LOL! Can't arge with that, Shannon!
My favorite comedian of my youth, Red Skelton, The Pledge of Allegiance
It truly meant something to the people then.
I think the pledge, like prayer, should be one of those things that you're allowed to do if you feel so inclined, but should not be mandatory.
Exactly.
Penny's comments iced a really fine cake, in my view. While not presuming that Penny would see it exactly this way; it strikes me that she demonstrated something that trumps nationalism -- individual thought and free will. The idea that "thinking for ourselves" and to "question things," is of monumental importance because it provides the only substantive base to, as Sandy put it: "Learn[ing] about your country and the people in it, and form[ing] intelligent opinions about the goals for your country."
Adding to that, the other value that I believe should trump nationalism, is regard for humanity as a whole. Here is where some conflict lies, with patriotism and nationalism excluding or opposing all others.
When we think of helping people, or just working for our own interests, we surely have to recognize that the most progress, can most effectively be made closer to home. In that there is something to be said for nationalism, but I'll take mine served without the mandatory rote mass recitations, the tired symbols, and without the patriotic wrapping that has become the popular device of exploitation by so many manipulative politicians and administrators. As Samuel Johnson famously said: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
The ideas that "we are inherently better than other nations or peoples" or "God is on our side" should be, by now, archaic modes of thought. It would be wonderful if we could just recognize that in almost all wars, both sides thought God was on their side. And instead of continuing to follow the same old, tired reasoning (or lack of) make the best use of our collective intellect and resources for the sake of real benefit, while letting these slogan concepts drop away.
In a million years I could not say it better. My hat is off to you, Robert. Well done!
Amen! I'll second this motion! Way to go, Robert! (Imagine my pompoms) One of the saddest things -to me, anyway- about the Bush brand of patriotism is that it encouraged forgetting that we are part of the bigger world. I am not proud of my country when we do that. Thank goodness - and I mean goodness, I'm not replacing the word God - we are in a position to move beyond that stinkin' thinkin'.
Excellent point, Sandy! As George Carlin said just before his death..."If Jesus came back today would he be saying "God bless America"? Hell, no....he would be standing at the top of the Statue of Liberty saying, GOD BLESS EVERYONE IN THE WORLD!"
I'm partial to Ambrose Bierce's amendment, myself.
PATRIOTISM, n.
Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.
In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
(Third attempt on the link...)
I'm not fond of ritual in general. It doesn't have the emotional effect on me that it has on some people. I doubt that my life would have been any different if I'd never recited the pledge except for all of the time I would have gained to use for productive things like staring into space.
My home room teacher in high school did this in a history class he taught. A group of parents petitioned the school board to have him fired. It was a fact vs. opinion exercise, for gosh sakes.
Another dupe of the RR's Revisionist History. The founders that wrote the Bill of Rights were deists and theists, not Christians. Many Christians voted for their product, but those that wrote it were of an entirely different understanding of the term God, and didn't believe in the Bible at all. The only ones twisting the meaning of our laws are those that insist we were founded a Christian nation, and that the wall of separation between church and state isn't what the founders intended. The true history of our founding is apparently not in your knowledge base.
Alex De Tocqueville in his famous 1835 work “Democracy in America”, wrote: “They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.”
When I went to a one-room country school house (yes...I'm that old) we said the pledge and the Lord's Prayer everyday. Didn't think any thing of it....which is the point...it really had no meaning for us as kids....no harm no foul. The harm comes from the adults.
I don't think the Lord's Prayer should be recited that is a blatant intrusion of church and state, however, the kids aren't going to pay attention to the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance.
good article.
On July 14th, 1954, Flag Day, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was the one who approved putting "under God" into the wording of the Pledge. After reading his reasoning, taking into consideration the State of the Union at that time, my viewpoint about the Pledge has changed. It was originally written for a youth magazine called, "The Youths Companion", Sept. 8, 1892. It was a 22 word recitation for school children to use durning planned activities the following month to commorate the 400th anniversary of Colombus discovering America. It was titled, "The Pledge to the Flag" and is the earliest version of what we now knowas the "Pledge of Allegiance". I thought you might like the website, it was full of facts I did not know, and I am ashamed of that, and is very interesting. I feel Mr. Eisenhower had no idea of the controversy his actions would eventually cause, at least not the extent that some would go to for the removal of the Pledge in our schools. Pretty interesting. I really thank you for getting me off my duff. Now I think we should teach children about how we came to have the Pledge to begin with. The rest I am going to think about:) Ellen B
http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag//bpc_pledge
I really enjoyed what I read there. I would be interested in your take on these facts and if it could sway your thoughts as it may shed some light on the Pledge and its real purpose..
I don't think this is something that should be "taught" to young children. They have no idea of the complexities of this or what it represents, and are merely being indoctrinated just as Russian children were indoctrinated into the Communist philosophy.
As you know, I'm not big on nationalism when it compromises our humanitarianism. And to my thinking there is way too much glorification of the flag, and even our armed forces (which seem to be the prime focus of our nationalism - i.e. "They're fighting for our freedom.") as it is. Sure there are soldiers who exhibit bravery and courage, but the reality is the military is an instrument of policy, and sometimes that policy compromises our moral and ethical values. These are the same values we are a little too self-righteous about when applied to the reality we (public) are too ignorant about, and thus we are responsible. Since WWII we have been involved in more than twenty military conflicts and they haven't been about securing or preserving freedom. They have all been about promoting our national interest over the interest of the people of those countries. Our adversary in every single one of those wasn't even a threat to our freedom. Most of those wars were started on the basis of, or after, false propaganda: Viet Nam - Gulf of Tonkin, Granada - the endangered students, Gulf War I - the phony incubator babies, and our recent Iraq WMD adventure, as well as Panama, the Dominican, and on and on.
Instead of "teaching" young children of 5 and 6 years old, by indoctrination, if we really want to be a country as "great" as we profess to be, we ought to teach real history in all of our schools, about how the CIA began a program in the late '40's which resulted in installing cruel and tyrannical dictators like the Shah, Pinochet, and the like, and how we supported others like Pol Pot, and Papa and Baby Doc Duvallier. I'm not saying we should concentrate only the bad stuff, but rather ALL the stuff, so we can really base our understandings and objectives on truth, which is really what we profess to be about anyway. Until we do that, by exposing the reality to those learning and letting them make up their own minds about what our country is, and should be, we are just like the Russians, or Arab countries who indoctrinate children in the Madrassas. "Teaching" children to live in a fantasy world of false glory does them and our nation a disservice.
This happens in every country. Many citizens in Japan knew they were done for the day after Pearl Harbor, but millions were turned into cannon fodder. What possible purpose was served?
Especially the ONE NATION UNDER GOD!
Mooch
It is not lack of prayer, but lack of accountability, together with too much self-centeredness and greed. These make up a superhighway directly to hell.
Well said Joyce. I'll add ignorance on the part of too many Americans about what our country really is, has done, and what it should be and should do.
So, did some looking up, and here's a bit more background on the pledge:
"In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - 2008) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part:
"Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow."
After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. In the following weeks, the news spread, and public opinion grew. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution 1954-JUN-8. It was signed into law on Flag Day, JUN-14. President Eisenhower said at the time:
"From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." 4
With the addition of "under God" to the Pledge, it became both "a patriotic oath and a public prayer...Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change." 3
The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase "Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and "un-American" as communism."
Source doc: http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm
I am a proponent of some of Emerson's ideas on education in terms of teaching children to think, and abandoning the "regurgitation education" mode of instructing children. Enjoy! http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emerson/
And, what Orwell wrote regarding Politics and the English Language should be re-read by every thinking, working, taxed adult. Enjoy this, too: http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/politics-english-language1.htm
Amen, Friend!
This is an interesting topic and thread. I grew up saying the pledge in elementary school, and I can't say I thought much about what I was saying either; and it did become something I just said by rote- it started in my head just reading this! I don't think it should be something that is required though, a student shouldn't be forced; or indoctrinated to say it; as already mentioned.
Wish I could add more to the topic though
One of the differences that Canadians often cite between ourselves and our American friends south of the border is that you guys tend to be more patriotic than we are. This does not mean we have no patriotic feeling for Canada. Most Canadians are very proud of our country and feel that the United Nations was right to designate us "the best place in the world to live" for many years.
But the level to which Americans carry patriotism tends to make a lot of us uncomfortable. It seems a manic thing.
When you think about patriotism you have to ask how different it is from prejudice and bigotry. The bigot dislikes those who are different, but the patriot prefers those who are the same. Patriotism makes me think of the Biblical story of the good Samaritan. To modernize that story for Americans the injured person on the side of the road would be an American, those who passed by without offering to help would be fellow Americans and the one who stopped to lend a hand would not be a Samaritan but a Muslim Arab.
Is this brainwashing? Then I'm in favor of brainwashing if it promotes a constructive society. The pledge does not appear to have done so. Ideally a focus on benefits, obligations, decency and fairplay would lead to an allegiance of sorts.
If the ideals are practiced, it would be clear to every American that they were better off than a Canadian. ;)
But that's just me I suppose.