I don’t like the under god part either, but swearing loyalty to the flag bothers me too. I’d like the pledge to read thus:
*I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, to the ideals it represents and the republic born of those ideals, and swear on my life’s blood to be true to the nation and its people. *
Ironically, your pledge is anathema to the Constitution it purports to offer allegiance to.
I, too, would like some cites. I refuse to say it and refuse to lead students in saying it in my classroom, but it would be nice if a court somewhere said I was in the right to do this.
Fortunately, my District has never made an issue of this. The last time it was brought up, the mention of the ACLU was enough to kill idea before it gained any traction.
When I was in high school, when they did the morning announcements, the student doing so always lead the pledge. (And it was always some really chipper, super perky individual. “Good MORNING, Hampton High!!!” Ugh!!!)
So it was part of whoever did the announcments – that leading the pledge would be a requirement if you volunteered to do so.
For starters, it’s a contradiction to state that we are “under God” and “indivisible”. Americans are divided up under different gods, and the Pledge itself has divided us into those who will recite it and those who won’t.
Indivisible modifies “one nation”, not under God. The people can still be of different opinions in an indivisible country. Indivisible does not mean we agree on everything.
FWIW, I am not a big fan of the pledge of allegiance.
I think it silly not to say the pledge of allegiance for one phrase. Just leave out that phrase. If you want, even take your hand off your heart when other people are saying that part.
As far as I’m concerned, you have the right to say what you want, and they have the right to say what they want.
I believe the whole reason for the wording anyways was to put Christians’ minds at ease, that they were not pledging to honor their country above God, but under Him.
Also, I admit I find it jingoistic and slightly bigoted, myself. It seems to imply that every non-American is inferior, and not worth fighting for.
This discussion is very on point to me, as I teach HS, and I don’t say the pledge. It seems that the requirement is still somewhat up in the air. Is that right?
My problem is semi-religious, but not in a formalized form, like with Quakers and pacifism. I view the pledge as swearing loyalty to the actions of the federal government, who will of course claim that its actions are in the name of the flag and the principles of the republic.
How can I swear to follow these actions when they are unknown? Do we value the actions of East Germans who supported so many awful government policies just because they were loyal? Shouldn’t we be very careful what we’re loyal to? I think of it as being intellectually lazy and dishonest. “Well, I could give this real thought and run it through an ethics filter in my own brain/soul, but instead I’ll just go along with whatever Mr. Big says. Then I can say that I had no choice but to follow.”
Is there any sense of what a principle’s right is in faced with this religious-ish objection?
What if they would not do it for the country of their birth? I have never had to say anything remotely resembling a pledge/oath of allegiance.
A biology teacher refusing to teach evolution is as ridiculous as a math teacher refusing to teach addition. In either case, religious protection does not apply.
I certainly think that a teacher firing for refusing to lead the recitation of the Pledge (or, indeed, for refusing to pledge his or her allegiance) would have at least a colorable claim and some favorable precedent to point to. However, after Cole v. Richardson, I think, ultimately, the government would win. I think the “under God” element, which a lot of the non-lawyers seem to think is the big deal, would be analyzed as ceremonial deism, like “In God We Trust” on currency. Barnette, which everyone seems to know about, is the source of confusion, I think. While it is true that Barnette was a Jehovah’s Witness, that case is more one of prohibitions on compelled speech than religious liberties. Students are obligated to attend school; no one is required to become a public employee. If pledging allegiance to the government that employs one is too much to bear, another line of work needs to be found.
When I was a teacher in California, I know I was legally obligated to:
Lead the class in the Pledge
Not be a member of the Communist Party
Be free from TB
I always wondered how each would hold up under
Freedom of religion
Freedom of association
ADA
This discussion does bring up an important point I’ve mentioned before in other threads that seem to be lost on the “under God” contraversy. A student cannot be compelled to say the Pledge nor have to justify their reason. If they don’t want to say “under God” then don’t say it.
I urge those of you actually teaching and wrestling with this issue to contact your teacher’s association, perhaps the state affiliate of the National Education Association.
Personally, I don’t usually have students in the room during the pledge, so I just ignore it. I’m too busy to worry about the “Minute of Silence” nonsense, too. However, if I actually had students during that time, I think I could be compelled to provide the atmosphere for the students who wished to recite it. In our school, the principal leads the pledges over the PA. In our high school and elementary, students lead them.
Were I a principal and had objections to leading the pledges, I would simply delegate the task to someone without those objections. The pledges and Minute of Silence are mandated by the Texas Education Code, so not doing them at all is not an option. As a classroom teacher, ensuring that the students are quiet and respectful during the pledges is not the same as leading them, so I don’t think I could object. My directive from the principal would simply be, “Have the kids be quiet during announcements.” The principal is well within her rights to direct me to do that and to expect that I comply.
Sort of like having blasphemy laws up until the 2000’s. Or witch trials in the 20th century. Or no free press or free speech. Or a “State religion.” Or a monarch that is treated as a minor deity with their own cult of personality. Or the very concept of a “nobility” at all.
The US has other strangeness too. But I’ll reckon that if we pick holes in each other’s coats we’ll both end up naked, yes?
Nava was the one who brought up “Allegiance to the flag and to the country, at least for us, involves being willing to do things that one should only be willing to do for his own country (like kill and die for them, for example).” You should pose your question to her, because I can’t answer by proxy.
FTR, I’ve never “had” to say anything remotely resembling a pledge/oath of allegiance either. We’re taught to do it in school, but I cannot recall any punishment ever meted out for someone who didn’t speak it. But then we’re taught to do a lot of stupid shit in school that we go along with, because we’re kids and we don’t know better.
True, but besides schoolteachers who else is expected to publically affirm that loyalty on a daily basis as a condition of employmen? And then there’s the pesky matter of the state forcing it’s employees to affirm the existence of a deity (even as part of empty ceremony) everyday.
Excellent summary.
I am also interested in what authority Hari Seldon is relying upon with the “shaky ground” analysis.
Sorry, I’ve never been required to take that kind of vow about my own country, either. The only ones who are required to do so in Spain are soldiers and Guardia Civiles, and back when I was of a soldierly age I wasn’t allowed to be one by reason of gender. The vast majority of Spaniards, either by birth or adoption, and of people living in Spain, are not required to defend either the flag or the country. People in Spain are legally required to not attack either, though, but “not attacking” is not the same as “defending”, nor this the same as “risking life and limb”.
Being a physical wuss, the closest I’ve come to defending the Spanish flag has been staring at my cousin, heading back home and never going out with her again after she asked “what the fuck is that supposed to be doing there?” where “that” was a Spanish flag someone had hung from a balcony to celebrate that Barcelona (where we were, surrounded by 14 adults who agreed with her) had been given the 1992 Olympic Games; it’s also the only time anybody has attacked the Spanish flag in my presence. I’ve been attacked several times on grounds of being Navarrese (mostly verbally), but that’s not quite the same as people attacking Navarre (and I did defend both myself and the honor of my countryfolk, as well as telling the morons to please get their facts straight).
Isn’t requiring a teacher to recite the pledge, including “under god”, a religious test, forbidden by the 1st and, to the states, by the 13-15th Amendments?