Why do kids recite the Pledge?

[Musicat]

@Brutus

Jews, Christians, and Muslims make up over half of the worlds population.

According to your cite, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, the non-religious and Buddhists make up more than half of the world’s religions, too, but that isn’t relevant. Lumping Muslims with Christians is what you chose to do, not what I claimed. the Pledge does not say “under Allah,” and I seriously doubt if the Christians who inserted that phrase in 1954 were intending to include such heretics as Muslims.

The chart you linked to shows 33.2% as the Judeo-Christian component of the world. All others make up 67%. Christians are clearly not the majority. I stand by my statement "The followers of the world’s non-Judeo-Christian gods greatly outnumber the Judeo-Christians, so the Pledge is specifying a minority belief in a global sense. "

@Brutus

May as well say that those who pray to Bog will offended.

And if I wish to pray to Bog, the government-sponsored oath says I am wrong and not a true American. Exactly what the 1st Amendment was designed to prohibit.

Randomletters, if “Allah is the Arabic word for God; Christian Arabs would say they worship Allah,” then I suggest we clarify that point by inserting the words “under God or Allah” into the Pledge. Or if they are truly equivalent, replacing “God” with “Allah” entirely would be expressing the same thought, right? “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. One nation, under Allah…” Sounds the same to me. What do you suppose the ultra-fundies would think about that? Do you think they would say, “No problem. We all worship the same Allah, no matter what we call Him”?

I understand what you are saying about monotheism, but the Pledge does not say “under monotheism.” Even if it did, it would exclude millions of Americans, and billions of others from the government-specified correct religion.

And as an IMHO side note, I have always questioned if you can call the Christian belief in a 3-in-1 God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) a true monotheistic religion. A large part of many (most?) Christian sects concentrates on Jesus Christ, and their treatment of him is more like a separate entity than a part of the whole.

[Mr.Moto]

@Max_Castle

Even as a kid I thought it was wrong to force everyone to swear a loyalty oath.

@rjung

Because the grown-up make them do it, of course.

FYI, the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory Pledge for schoolchildren way back in 1943. Kids (and adults) are perfectly free to abstain from the recitation.

Most school districts are pretty scrupulous about obeying this point of law.

[The_Llama]

Does Bog Bsmash?

[Musicat]

@Mr. Moto

FYI, the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory Pledge for schoolchildren way back in 1943. Kids (and adults) are perfectly free to abstain from the recitation.

You’re absolutely right. But don’t you think there is a stigma attached to a child who abstains (the second-class citizen argument)? What kind of message are we sending to our children – sure, you can believe as you wish, but your beliefs aren’t the ones the government endorses?

I can relate to this from personal experience. When I was in 7th grade, I was one of 4 students out of a class of 500 who were not allowed to take the ballroom dance instruction class given as part of the Phys Ed curriculum one semester. Our parents felt that dancing was immoral for religious reasons and we were given a study hall instead (within earshot of the dance music, no less!). We were subjected to taunts for being different, and I confess I was ill-equipped to defend irrational beliefs that weren’t mine in the first place. It wasn’t fun.

If the US govt created a formal church, but didn’t require anyone to join or attend, would you argue that this wasn’t an “establishment of religion” because of the lack of coercion?

[rjung]

@Brutus

Regardless, the rest of those ‘religions’ you mention are statistically insignificant in America.

Yes, and we all know that if you’re part of a “statistically insignificant” group in America, you have no rights. :rolleyes:

@Brutus

And the most important part remains: If it so offends a person to recite ‘under God’, they don’t have to!.

So why does the phrase have to be codified in law? Why not omit the phrase all together, and tell folks, “if you’re offended by its absence, just add it in while you’re reciting it”? Same idea, but from the other direction.

@Mr. Moto

FYI, the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory Pledge for schoolchildren way back in 1943. Kids (and adults) are perfectly free to abstain from the recitation.

Perhaps, but last I checked, California state law requires a daily “affirmation of patriotism” as part of the public school curriculum. And we all remember where Mr. Newdow’s suit was filed from, right?

[PigArcher]

@Mr. Moto

FYI, the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory Pledge for schoolchildren way back in 1943. Kids (and adults) are perfectly free to abstain from the recitation.

Most school districts are pretty scrupulous about obeying this point of law.

It’s incredibly disigenuous to suggest that kids don’t have to say the pledge. Most kids don’t have the political or philisophical wherewithall to understand why the pledge is objectionable. Furthermore, school children are subject to intense peer pressure and anyone who sets themself off from the mainstream would most certainly be subject to persecution.

[AngelicGemma]

@Polerius

My question to Dopers from around the world: does your country have a Pledge that kids recite every morning at school?

No. But I did have to say the Lords Prayer every day in primary school, as it was a Christian school.

[Musicat]

@rjung

So why does the phrase have to be codified in law? Why not omit the phrase all together, and tell folks, “if you’re offended by its absence, just add it in while you’re reciting it”? Same idea, but from the other direction.

Good idea. Sort of an “opt in” rather than an “opt out.”

[Mr.Moto]

Well, to be fair, I really don’t see why too many people wouldn’t want to say the Pledge, except for the “under God” phrase. Yet the Supreme Court case was decided prior to the inclusion of these words. So there you go.

If you go through the Pledge, abd read it objectively, you’ll find that what you’re pledging allegiance to is a unifying symbol of America, the nation itself, and certain broad and inclusive ideals.

There’s nothing really objectionable in it for most people, and thus the Pledge serves as a useful oath of American unity. It basically serves the purpose its author intended.

I’ve lately been of the opinion that perhaps, to remove the issue from the political arena, the phrase in question should be removed legislatively before the courts can do it. You’ll then have, on paper, the old Pledge.

And, since there is such a thing as free speech in this country, anybody leading the Pledge should skip a beat after “one Nation.” Those who wish can then say, themselves, “under God,” and the pledge can continue.

[Musicat]

@Mr. Moto

If you go through the Pledge, abd read it objectively, you’ll find that what you’re pledging allegiance to is a unifying symbol of America, the nation itself, and certain broad and inclusive ideals.

Well, that was certainly the original intention. But inserting “under God” doesn’t unify people who don’t believe in that; quite the contrary.

And, since there is such a thing as free speech in this country, anybody leading the Pledge should skip a beat after “one Nation.” Those who wish can then say, themselves, “under God,” and the pledge can continue.

If the officially-sanctioned oath is not changed, that would be similar to the government creating an officially-sanctioned church but not requiring anyone to attend.

Whether anyone is forced to recite the weasel words is not the issue. The issue is a government establishment of religion.

There are those that argue that

[Bryan_Ekers]

@AngelicGemma

No. But I did have to say the Lords Prayer every day in primary school, as it was a Christian school.

When I entered first grade back in 1975 or so, I can remember all students rising, bowing our heads and mumbling something. Being the polite young man I still am today, I went along with this, even though I had no idea what the point of the ritual was. It was dropped by second grade, and only years later did it click that we were reciting the Lord’s Prayer. What makes me chuckle about it now is that I was too ignorant to be indoctrinated! By just mumbling along and not listening to the words, the recitation just an empty ritual to me, which hardly made it unique among all the other crap I went along with in school.

Although an atheist, I learned the prayer (or at least one version, since I understand there are several) years later just as a matter of trivia, along with the Americans’ pledge.

[Musicat]

Hit “submit” prematurely, sorry. I’m multitasking here, or as a friend once said, “I’m running in interrupt mode with no stack.”

There are those that argue that “under God” in the pledge is not establishing a religion. I don’t agree, but that argument has more merit than many others I have heard. I think we need to take into account at this point the history of when they were inserted: in 1954 at the height of the McCarthy era, by whom: at the urging of the Knights of Columbus, and why: to combat “godless communism.” If you are well aware of these circumstances, which are highly religiously charged, it becomes more clear that the intention was to give a religious slant to what was previously a patriotic affirmation only.

If that isn’t an establishment of religion, it comes darn close.

[Musicat]

MEBuckner, in your post about Pledge imposition historically, it certainly rings true and I don’t question your statements. But, since there is much subjectivity there, I am curious as to the source; how much of that post is your opinion and how much is mainstream, well-established historical knowledge? Or, to look at it another way, how supported are your observations?

As far as why Americans feel the need for flag-waving and allegiance-swearing more than some, could it be because, unlike some other countries where the population is more homogenous, we cannot easily claim broad class or geneological common ties, but we can (and feel we must) claim ideological solidarity?

And that might be a good thing. It’s certainly better than the national anthem of a fictitious, dark-skinned Polynesian country in a Leonard Wibberly novel that goes, in translation:

Lily-skinned feller
Across the sea,
I’ll eat you
Or you’ll eat me.

[Mr.Moto]

But it’s not the establishment of a single religion as a state church, which is what a strict reading of the Constitution would interpret the establishment clause.

And there sure is a whole lot of case law permitting ceremonial deism, much of it decided by a Supreme Court opened by a blessing.

As for a true establishment of religion, as an American, I’m dead set against it. But I find it interesting that a Methodist like Margaret Thatcher can become Prime Minister in Great Britain, whose established church is the Anglican Church.

Far more paramount than an establishment of religion is freedom of religion. It is the latter that is more at risk, in my opinion, in America today. While people are getting bent out of shape over the inclusion of two words in a pledge people are not required to say, there are cases of kids being made to take off Stars of David necklaces or Wiccan symbols in school. The ACLU has done a pretty good job of defending the religious rights of these kids, and of Christians similarly persecuted.

[MEBuckner]

@Musicat

MEBuckner, in your post about Pledge imposition historically, it certainly rings true and I don’t question your statements. But, since there is much subjectivity there, I am curious as to the source; how much of that post is your opinion and how much is mainstream, well-established historical knowledge? Or, to look at it another way, how supported are your observations?

As I noted, it was basically “just a guess”.

The Strange Origin of the Pledge of Allegiance (from the ACLU) does state that the change from pledging allegiance to “my flag” to “the flag of the United States of America” was explicitly made out of fear that little immigrant children would not know which flag they were pledging allegiance to. Incidentally, that article has an answer for the question “Does any other country have a Pledge of Allegiance?” The Philippines, a former American colony, has a Pledge of Allegiance, modeled on ours.

From this article about a lecture given at California State University, Sacramento:

[Richard Ellis of Willamette University in Oregon] says there are two popular stories about the origins of the pledge – the first that it was about instilling American ideals, and the second that it was written by a subversive leftist before being co-opted by conservatives. Ellis says both are oversimplified. He says that many people contributed to creating the pledge, all of whom were deeply religious and concerned about the growing number of immigrants in the United States as well as how to integrate them. They were also worried about growing materialism and commercialism.

Finally, from With Liberty And Justice For All: A Brief History of the Pledge of Allegiance (originally a newspaper column from the Minneapolis Star Tribune):

At the end of the 19th century millions of immigrants poured into a country beset with social unrest. Many believed we needed some symbol to tie the nation’s peoples together. The first widely used pledge of allegiance was written by a Colonel Balch of New York. His was a simple pledge of fealty and devotion. “I give my heart and my hand to my country–one country, one language, one flag”.

(While I know what the “agenda” of the ACLU is–it’s one I wholeheartedly share–I don’t know who or what the “Institute for Local Self-Reliance” is or what they might be pushing.)

I would say that it’s likely that the exact reasons why Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge in the first place, the reasons why having it recited by schoolchildren subsequently “caught on” with the general public at the end of the 19th Century and beginning of the 20th, the reasons why that idea would have remained popular through the '40’s or '50’s (World War II and the Cold War), and the reasons the idea is still popular today, may each be somewhat different.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@MelCthefirst

When I went to a British school, we had to say the Lords prayer at the end of everyday before going home (it meant nothing to me, just something you did as part of the daily ritual) and ofcourse God save the Queen in assembly.

What school was this? In eleven years worth’ of English schooling I had to sing the national anthem exactly once- on Founders’ Day at a particular boarding school, when I was head chorister.

@Mr. Moto

As for a true establishment of religion, as an American, I’m dead set against it. But I find it interesting that a Methodist like Margaret Thatcher can become Prime Minister in Great Britain, whose established church is the Anglican Church.

The Church of England isn’t a religious organization (at least, not in England). It’s a social one. God and Jesus and all that haven’t really been a substantial part of Church activities since the Reformation, you know…

[Odesio]

@Ms Ann Thrope

I remember reciting the pledge daily through the 8th grade. Don’t remember saying it in grades 9-12, only recall standing silently while they played the national anthem. By the time I got to 6th grade, I remember hating the fact that I had to say “one nation under God.” and would go silent at that point instead of uttering it along with the rest of the sheep.

So during the rest of the speech you went “baaa, baaa?” Good thing you were nothing like the rest of the sheep. :rolleyes:

Marc

[Odesio]

When I was younger my father was in the military and I always went to school on base. From kindergarten until my fathers retirement I remember we used to recite the pledge every morning. After my father retired I don’t remember ever reciting the pledge on a regular basis at any of the public schools I attended.

Is reciting the pledge really all that common in most classes these days?

Marc

[Musicat]

@Mr. Moto

But it’s not the establishment of a single religion as a state church, which is what a strict reading of the Constitution would interpret the establishment clause.

I’ll grant you that. I feel the phrase in question DOES qualify as “establishment”; others do not. Certainly my argument isn’t as strong as a government-supported physical, gothic-spired, bell-ringing cathedral. That is what judges are for, to draw or move those fine lines. Some courts move the lines left; some right. Myself, I would rather include citizens than exclude them for something as important as a government-certified oath.

And there sure is a whole lot of case law permitting ceremonial deism, much of it decided by a Supreme Court opened by a blessing.

And there was a lot of law enforcing racial segregation for over a hundred years, too, but all of it was eventually overturned. And not because the Constitution was revised, either, but because its interpretation required revision in light of actual events.

Far more paramount than an establishment of religion is freedom of religion.

Don’t forget freedom from religion. We are not truly free if the goverment says you must worship something, call him God, Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin.*

I would put all of these in the “establishment” category, but I rank them from the serious violations to the more questionable ones:[ul][li]Requiring citizens to attend or join a particular church[]Forming a church, but not requiring attendance[]Passing a law or resolution specifying a deity or a religious concept as the official government position[]Requiring a pledge to a particular church[]Requiring a pledge to a general concept of a deity[]Including a specific church or deity in a patriotic oath[]Including a general deity in a patriotic oath[]Including a reference to a deity in a national motto or anthem[]Having chaplains or ministers paid by the public coffers, as in the military or to open government functions[]Including a reference to a deity on money[]Using “God save this honorable court” as an invocation[/ul][/li]Thanks, MEBuckner, for the links to the supporting positions. Isn’t history fascinating to fearlessly study the feckless foibles and fears of societies past?

*Tony Hendra, Deteriorata

[Brutus]

@Musicat

…The chart you linked to shows 33.2% as the Judeo-Christian component of the world. All others make up 67%. Christians are clearly not the majority. I stand by my statement "The followers of the world’s non-Judeo-Christian gods greatly outnumber the Judeo-Christians, so the Pledge is specifying a minority belief in a global sense.

Stand by your statement, but it’s still wrong. Muslims agree: Add Islam to ‘Judeo-Christian’. Your uncited disagreement doesn’t carry much weight, I’m afraid. Not to mention, you add ‘Jews’ (they put the ‘Jud’ in ‘Judeo’, you know) with Hindus and whatnot. Why?

"And if I wish to pray to Bog, the government-sponsored oath says I am wrong and not a true American. Exactly what the 1st Amendment was designed to prohibit.

No. The oath is in english; The english word for Bog/Allah/Dios is ‘God’. Do you understand the concept of different languages having different words for the same thing? For instance, though you may really yearn for a refreshing glass of water, in Barcelona, you may have to settle for a refreshing glass of agua. See how the same thing had a different word representing it in each language?

Randomletters, if “Allah is the Arabic word for God; Christian Arabs would say they worship Allah,” then I suggest we clarify that point by inserting the words “under God or Allah” into the Pledge.

That would be redundant, as both ‘God’ and ‘Allah’ are a word for the same concept. If one translated the oath to Arabic, Allah would be in there. Ditto for Bog and slavic languages and Dios and spanish. You don’t seem to grasp the concept.

@rjung

Yes, and we all know that if you’re part of a “statistically insignificant” group in America, you have no rights. :rolleyes:

You are under no legal obligation to say, ‘Under God’. Saying that you have ‘No Rights’ is a red herring, at best. More drama queen than reasoned statement.

So why does the phrase have to be codified in law? Why not omit the phrase all together, and tell folks, “if you’re offended by its absence, just add it in while you’re reciting it”? Same idea, but from the other direction.

The vast majority of Americans have no problem with it. Is it not easier for the few that have a problem to just not say it, as is the case now? Or is not saying three words too difficult?

Perhaps, but last I checked, California state law requires a daily “affirmation of patriotism” as part of the public school curriculum. And we all remember where Mr. Newdow’s suit was filed from, right?

Yes. But nobody is obligated to recite the words ‘Under God’. Newdow was just a prick with an axe to grind that used his non-custodial daughter (who is religious). Hence, his case was bounced out of the USC.