I pledge allegiance… because I have to? A bill just passed in the Arizona House which would make saying the Pledge of Allegiance mandatory for K-12 students.
The bill's sponsors say this is necessary to imprint a strong sense of citizenship within students at a young age.
However, free speech and religious freedom advocates alike are fighting the bill, arguing that the bill will force students to recite something they may not believe in – including that we are “one nation, under God.”
Should the Pledge of Allegiance be required in schools?
Sponsors of HB 2523 argue that the bill will “make sure that students growing up understand the country in which they live and embrace the citizenship and the founding principles that we hold so dear."
And co-sponsor Rep. Barba Parker argues that the members of the House stand for the pledge of allegiance every day, so why shouldn’t students? As she puts it, “what's good for us is good for the children."
The bill allows students 18 years of age to opt out, as well as students who obtain express permission from their parents.
However, everyone else will have to stand and pledge, whether they like it or not.
A Covert Prayer?
Opponents point out that should this bill pass, one passage in the Pledge could make students affirm religious beliefs they may not necessarily hold.
You know the phrase: “one nation, under God."
Advocates say that forcing students to say that is tantamount to a religious ritual in the classroom.
But the bill’s supporters argue that allowing children’s parents to decide whether to allow them to sit out the Pledge is adequate free speech protection. From going to school to doing chores, children are compelled to do things they don’t want to do all the time.
And as for religious freedom? The Pledge doesn’t say which God this nation is under. Why, it could be any God!
Should the bill be signed into law, it will undoubtedly be challenged in court. In fact, the bill’s opponents say that this was all legally decided long ago.
A 1943 Supreme Court ruling says that students cannot be compelled to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. In the majority opinion Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote "if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
Supporters of the bill say that allowing students to opt out with parental permission is enough religious freedom protection, and that the original 1943 ruling can’t possibly apply to the “under God” portion of the Pledge anyway, considering that was added in 1954.
What do you think? Is forcing kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance a barely covert attempt at injecting Christian prayer in school? Or is this bill really about affirming a sense of national loyalty and pride in our nation’s children?
You know, I have some pretty liberal values politically. However, I can see nothing wrong with pledging allegiance to our flag. If someone is an agnostic or atheist they can just keep silence during the "under God" part of the pledge. Life is really good here. We have so much to be thankful for.
As a public school student in the mid-1950s, I and others were required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and the Lord's Prayer (!!!) daily. My Jewish classmates were excused from the latter utterance. The Pledge did not make us patriotic and the Prayer did not make us religious. We mumbled our way through a mandatory noise because we had to. I suspect that many did not really know all the words, just an approximation of the sounds, like those songs whose lyrics we can't quite discern.
If we want kids to be patriotic, teach accurate history, warts and all, not some sanitized version. Those who want their kids to be religious can teach that in the home, by word and example. Just don't mandate some silly ritual that has no effect except to make the adults feel good.
OMG... Lol! I used to do the same thing in school. In first grade I had absolutely no idea what I was saying or what it meant. I agree, we should worry more about teaching the history of our country, both good and bad. The pledge of allegiance teaches nothing but repetition.
Mr. Campbell, isn't that the real problem with making the Pledge of Allegiance mandatory? They are making students, children, who can't vote, are not yet mature enough to understand what they are saying, to pledge, i.e. promise, to hold their allegiance to a republic that itself promises freedom and justice for all. How many of those children really grasp what they are promising? How many realize that justice for all is not as clear and present as it should be? We all want to believe that our country is the best in the world, and compared to many it is; however, we have to face the fact that our great nation is far from fulfilling its promises to the people. Not saying there's a quick fix, or change will happen quickly, but maybe a new pledge should be created; one that promises that we'll all work towards creating a nation where there will be liberty and justice for all, instead of making a blanket cold-war-era platitude.
That's the major problem. Most people aren't very thankful.
I think everyone one should realize WW3 is about to happen.
WW3 will be partially caused by the ultranationlism that this brainwashing creates. Have you ever watched the movie 'The Wave'? There have been numerous psychological experiments conducted, all with similar results. The whole idea is frightening
I wonder about that. I am over 70 and we had to recite the pledge every day in school, I was always conflicted that pledging to a flag resembled worship of a graven image. my 10-year-old solution was to move my lips but remain silent in the begining and only speak the words that resonated for me - 'One Nation, with liberty and justice for ALL'. I was never noticed as non-conforming.
But we shouldn't have to "move our lips." There is ZERO reason that our pledge has to include anything religious.
No buts, we should not be forced to recite a meaningless jumble of words. I moved my lips because as a 10-year-old girl i was not prepared to be called out for non- compliance.
Humans form gangs. You can call them what you like but they operate like gangs. Except you get no choice in the matter. You’re born into them. I forget when I stopped saying it. It stopped sometime, perhaps junior high school? I stopped singing the anthem in high school. Partly didn’t like singing, really stopped when the Vietnamese war started and never sang it again. Worked in sports medicine at high schools and just made myself busy when the band struck up.
Gangs start wars. And if there were a another gang war which gang I sided with would depend solely upon who I thought was in the right. I don’t give my unquestioned allegiance, especially if it is based on being born there.
As a Secular Humanist Pantheist, who’s also a ULC Bishop, I can accurately say “One Nation under God” because God and nature are the same thing.
One nation under nature is true — because even the deplorables know that nature exists.
If my fellow ULC’ers (bishops, or not) want to drive home the point they’d like to make, ask your Arizona politician of choice — to identify which God in whom they are supposed to trust, or to be under.
In Arizona’s case - “One nation under the Christian God” — get the Arizona State Legislature to make this the law — and watch the sparks fly.
Utah did this a few years ago. But they have exceptions. Except not only is it acceptable for someone to choose not to participate in the pledge of allegiance for religious or other reasons, but students should show respect for any student who chooses not to participate.
But as we have seen when laws like this are enacted, the children who choose to opt out of the brainwashing will be picked on by the other students and the school administrators will do nothing to protect them.
Mormons have already taken a pledge to the LDS church. And that is to put the interests of the LDS church above everything else.
53G-10-304. Instruction on the flag of the United States of America. (1) In accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, the state board shall provide by rule for a program of instruction within the public schools relating to the flag of the United States. (2) The instruction shall include the history of the flag, etiquette, customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag, and other patriotic exercises as provided by 4 U.S.C. Secs. 1 to 10. (3) (a) The pledge of allegiance to the flag shall be recited once at the beginning of each day in each public school classroom in the state, led by a student in the classroom, as assigned by the classroom teacher on a rotating basis. (b) Each student shall be informed by posting a notice in a conspicuous place that the student has the right not to participate in reciting the pledge. (c) A student shall be excused from reciting the pledge upon written request from the student's parent. (d) (i) At least once a year students shall be instructed that: (A) participation in the pledge of allegiance is voluntary and not compulsory; and (B) not only is it acceptable for someone to choose not to participate in the pledge of allegiance for religious or other reasons, but students should show respect for any student who chooses not to participate. (ii) A public school teacher shall strive to maintain an atmosphere among students in the classroom that is consistent with the principles described in Subsection (3)(d)(i).
Comment has been removed.
Thats the first problem “seeing nothing wrong with” mandating in a supposedly free society, an political act that has zero value in it.
I totally agree, hearing the word God won't send them into seizures. Same ones complaining want everyone to say they/them. Kids are not that fragile.
Apparently you unable to distinguish difference between the two ideas. Btw God prefers you use “they/them” to describe God. As God’s being a nonsexual entity, that “he” thing is completely wrong and was falsely perpetrated by little incels.
When I was in elementary school in the forties we would start the day with the Pledge and the students would take turns reading from the Bible or having the passage memorized. And I think we sang a song, maybe My Country Tis of Thee or alternated it with a similar patriotic song. Along with hiding under our desks in case the Atom Bomb was dropped on us, I don't see how any of this harmed any of us. The kids won't be bothered, it is some of the parents that will get their panties in a wad over it. And, unfortunately, put their children in the middle of it. Respectfully, David Lee Valdina
Atomic bomb drills in which elementary schools the 1940s?
I for one believe the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE should be taught and open the school day. Perhaps I didn't understand it when I was first taught to recite it in school. However, as I progressed in school and began to learn about the history of our great nation, I became PROUD, HUMBLED and GRATEFUL, that I was born and raised in this GREAT COUNTRY. As a PROUD PATRIOT, I believe if ANYONE does not APPRECIATE this nation, your are free to leave and GO LIVE ANYWHERE ELSE on the planet and GIVE UP your citizenship, you don't deserve to be here. Furthermore, once you've forfeited your citizenship and the VAST BENEFITS of being an AMERICAN, you cannot return to live or reinstate your citizenship.
I say go back to the original pledge as it was written .
Historic Documents The Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.
In its original form it read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Section 4 of the Flag Code states:
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.", should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute." The original Bellamy salute, first described in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, who authored the original Pledge, began with a military salute, and after reciting the words "to the flag," the arm was extended toward the flag.
At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the flag the military salute — right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it. Standing thus, all repeat together, slowly, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." At the words, "to my Flag," the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, toward the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side.
The Youth's Companion, 1892
Shortly thereafter, the pledge was begun with the right hand over the heart, and after reciting "to the Flag," the arm was extended toward the Flag, palm-down.
In World War II, the salute too much resembled the Nazi salute, so it was changed to keep the right hand over the heart throughout.
Thank you for your comment, venerable Rev. Andrew!
I fully support it and I consider the restoration of the original Bellamy's Pledge of Allegiance as a very important and good idea.
The original Bellamy's Pledge was fully matching with one of the core principles of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is: people's religious freedom.
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
It was so beautiful! So simple... so close to the hearth... feel how these amazing words resonate.........
As you, venerable Rev. Andrew, correctly mentioned, the original Pledge of Allegiance unfortunately was drastically changed to worse during the highly controversial Roosevelt administration. Historically speaking, F. D. Roosevelt did many deeds that would be fair to call as strange and suspicious and potentially even treasonous...
But thankfully, history is not a dogmagic religion. At least, not here in America. History is a science.
The legendary U.S. General George S. Patton was saying "We've defeated the wrong enemy, we've destroyed the most noble nation of Europe" (1945, Berlin).
General Patton conquered half of Europe, he was there, and he surely knew what was really the truth...and what to the contrary was just an epic pile of Soviet lies (being later presented by tricky Roosevelt and atrocious Stalin to the Americans and Europeans as "the new official version of history")... If only we would hear and follow General Patton, we would stop both Communism and racism much, much earlier...
We, as smart people, should learn from mistakes of the past, and that will help us to change our present time to better. But only truth can build a good future.
And the restoration of Bellamy's Pledge of Allegiance and the Salute would be a good step ahead, in many aspects.
But there are other reasons as well.
Many Americans who live in the USA (and never travel abroad) use American benefits and take them for granted, or even don't value America at all. A big mistake!
Many countries of the world don't have even a small portion of the American freedom.
Many countries of the world have a very poor (disarmed and oppressed) population and very rich tyrannical (psychopathic) governments. Their local people dream to have at least something of what the Americans have achieved. But to dream is not enough, every dream needs big efforts to be achieved.
We should appreciate our own achievements, and the achievements of all our ancestors of all races and faiths who have struggled and built the U.S.A.
And the restoration of Bellamy's original Pledge of Allegiance and the Salute - is a truly good idea, which I personally have supported for many past years.
All American people need healthy patriotism.
For many decades the foreign hostile actors were desperately trying to divide Americans by race, religion, gender, and social classes (a standard Marxist "Divide and Conquer" tactic, which usually ends either with a civil war or with a world war).
Modern-day Russian propaganda including the so-called Kremlin trolls keep fueling and igniting both far-Left and far-Right, to only saw more division and mutial hatred into American society, which obviously benefits only neo-Communist "antifaschist" Russia and Communist China, but clearly harms the U.S.A... If our aggressive enemies are trying to divide us, then we must UNITE instead.
Therefore, we need to restore our Pledge of Allegiance. And we need exactly the original Bellamy's Pledge and Salute that unite all American people, of all races and faiths, together.
People deserve truth.
I think it’s time our nation grow up from these silly nationalistic rituals. It means nothing to do it, and is just used as an othering factor. No thanks.
I felt very much as though I was being indoctrinated and brainwashed by the rote repetition of words. I rebelled. I will not be brainwashed into any program. I am very much American and I love my country. I will live in no other country.
The pledge is dangerous in that some will blindly accept that it is true and solid, while failing to see the very real danger of a divided America.
i hope that America can survive and heal this division.
SCOTUS has already ruled on this. Compulsory "patriotism" isn't patriotism. Kids can and will Stand Their Ground on this issue.
The problem is that a lot of the people who are complaining about this claiming that it is somehow a violation of the mythical separation of church and state (which was never mentioned in the constitution and was only brought up by the SCOTUS who have no legal nor constitutional authority to add into or remove from the Constitution) are the ones this is going to upset. Tough too bad. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the pledge is legal and constitutional. So deal with it.
You should bone up on your American history a little.
Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, was the first public official to use the metaphor. He opined that an authentic Christian church would be possible only if there was “a wall or hedge of separation” between the “wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.” Williams believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church.
The mention of said separation can be found in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.
He wrote "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
It was first used by Chief Justice Morrison Waite in 1878 in the case Reynolds v. United States. It's been a part of Constitutional jurisprudence since Jefferson was cited there.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court held that the establishment clause is one of the liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, making it applicable to state laws and local ordinances.
The Supreme Court doesn't add or remove anything from the Constitution. It never has. It's job is to interpret the Constitution and rule on matters of law.
The question here isn't about the legality of saying the pledge. The question is can the students be compelled to say the pledge? Which the Supreme Court ruled cannot be done.
IMO if people need to be forced to do it then is it really a true and heartfelt pledge of allegiance? Or simply following the crowd and doing what one is ordered to do? In which case, it's a meaningless action and a waste of time.
I also personally find the idea of making oaths to pieces of colored cloth and setting subjective value in man-made lines drawn on maps to separate this group from that group to be more divisive than helpful. It's Us v. Them. "We're Better Than The People Over That Imaginary Line." It reminds me of ancient clans smashing each other to death on some field based on what color clothes they wore and what color banners they waved. How incredibly silly and wasteful. It's time to see all people as just that: fellow people. We're all so very much the same when you get past the cultural wrappings.
Thank you!!! Very well said Rev Kev!!
My statement is fact. Exactly WHERE in the 1st Amendment does it say anything about the separation of church and state? Go look, I will wait.
And while you are doing that check the powers of Congress which are clearly stated in article 1 section 1.
And now go to Article 3 and show us WHERE it says that SCOTUS has the constitutional authority to add to or remove from the Constitution.
We wont have to worry about hearing anything from Rev D or Rev Ken as they cant find something that does not exist so nothing and no cite or quote they can use will change this.
The 1st Amendment has been interpreted as the Separation Clause. It doesn't need to explicitly use those words. That's how Constitutional law works. That's what the Supreme Court does, by its very mandate.
No one ever said SCOTUS added or removed anything from the Constitution. They interpret it since the Constitution was written at a time long before many new issues would face the growing Republic over time. The Founding Fathers created a document that could be changed or reinterpreted to handle new issues as they arose.
It doesn't matter if you like it or agree with it, or not. That's just the way it is, and has been for a very long time. I see you also need to bone up on basic civics.
BTW, I don't know who this Rev Ken is. I don't see any comments from him. But I sincerely hope you didn't think you said anything of which I am not already aware or had some amazeballs zinger you pulled out of your quiver. I'm sticking with both history and legal precedent, as well as the stated intent of one of the Founding Fathers.
Makes no difference. Article 3 of the Constitution does NOT give the SCOTUS the right to "interpret" anything meaning they have to go by what is written. Period end of story. Now if you want a section of the Constitution to mean something else then you have to change it and that takes a constitutional amendment. And sorry but "intent" does not matter either as if it did then it would be plainly stated in the Constitution, and its not.
So it does not matter if you like it or not or agree with it or not, The Constitution is very clear and the Separation of Powers does not and never has given the SCOTUS the right to interpret anything no matter who claims it does, all you have to do is read the first three amendments to understand them.
I DID bone up on my history, maybe you should have done so before you said anything. The Constitution was ratified in 1787. The VERY FIRST mention of this myth was in 1802, 15 years later in a letter. According to the Constitution the ONLY way you can alter it or change it or add to it is by a constitutional amendment. Not a letter by a President NOR a decision by 9 judges in black robes. Its very clear in Article V which states "Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures." And your problem is NEITHER of these has ever been done and no record of them has ever been shown to exist in the US Library of Congress.
As such you can make any wild claim you want, but the fact remains that The Constitution says this never happened and there isnt any way you can change it without a constitutional amendment as there has been a movement for a convention of the states and the most they were able to get was 30, and then got slapped upside the head when 11 states rescinded their approval for this dropping this back down to less then 20. The people pushing for this tried to claim that the states tat approved this could not rescind their approval and it went all the way to the SCOTUS who ruled that they had the right to approve it and they also had the right to rescind it. You have just been schooled, deal with it
Mythical separation? Upheld legal & constitutional? Hmm, ok quote the source of your claims please. I’ll be quoting case law & founding fathers like Rev Kev has.
"Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures."
Seems my source far outweighs your source and has far more legal backing then yours. So you can quote whatever you want Rev D, but the fact remains you cannot violate the constitution no matter who does it.
actually Thomas Jefferson refers to a separation of church and state in some of his private correspondence. But, not the way we perceive it today. The Church should keep a moral checks and balances on our political leaders.
Church should have zero “moral check and balance” on political leaders seeing as church allowed decades of known child abuses by church leaders to be swept under carpet.
Upon what do you base your assertion that Jefferson had a different intent? Does he have other writings where he talks about the Church keeping some sort of checks and balances on the political system?
What does that entail, exactly? Why a church and not rule of law?
I'm not very certain this or that church has the qualifications to do the monitoring. Let's not forget our recent history. Christian nationalism is a cancer creeping across politics. Evangelical leaders almost deified president 45, a man who not only never actively participated in a church but has a list of what any church would call sins to his credit that he explicitly said in a news interview he had nothing for which to be forgiven. People waving Christian flags and hoisting crosses participated in the terrible attack in the nation's capitol.
When you say "the Church", which church, exactly? Christianity is not a homogenous faith. Different churches have a varying degree of ritualistic, theological and dogmatic differences. Many say the other churches are doomed to Hell. Hardly a consistent source to keep things in check.
Then we have the problem of living in a pluralistic society of more than one religion. Why "the Church" and not any other religious institution? Aren't we guilty of discriminating or dismissing the faiths of other Americans by insisting on a specific religion to do this checking and balancing?
Which is why we are better left with the admittedly faulty system we have of rule of law. But, then again, no system is perfect. We can only do the best we can.
Ok answer this simple question, if this was the intent as you claimed then why was it not included in the constitution? if its not in the constitution then it cant be claimed as constitutional.
makes no difference what he said in his private papers, if its not in the Constitution then it does not amount to a passing of gas in a high wind.
patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
all of the members of the terrorist teams that took part in 9/11 were instructed to get a hair cut, shower, shave and use deodorant, to fit in. any terrorist, anti-american, anti-patriot, anarchist would have no problem pledging allegiance to the flag they are intent on burning.
politicians want students to recite the pledge as a show of loyalty, like they do...and did, on January 6th.
PATRIOTISM IS THE LAST REFUGE OF THE SCOUNDREL
But not the only one...
Although it's being required of students it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't being patriotic about it. That all depends on what's in the hearts and minds of each individual while that person is saying it. I had to say it in school, and always felt good about doing so. Why shouldn't every citizen of every nation not be supportive and patriotic of that nation? I'm proud to be an American, and patriotic! It sounds to me that any nay sayers are anti-American, sissified crybabies,! They sound like they could use a good spanking, before we have them deported.
i want to make sure I understand your position correctly. Are you saying if people in a supposedly free nation have different opinions on a topic than you do, they should be deported?
I was under the impression people could express certain views and hold different political, social, and religious opinions/beliefs in America. Sort of an integral part of what makes it "free". As Justice Samuel Alito explained in his written opinion of Iancu v. Brunetti, “Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society”.
Not only is there no mandate of patriotism (vigorous love, concern, devotion, attachment to one's country) attached to citizenship -- especially for natural citizens -- it's not necessary. In fact, one can be completely dissatisfied with the direction their nation is heading, or really dislike the way the majority of citizens and politicians act, and be a good citizen. A person is allowed to not like much of anything about their country and freely walk the streets and be an American citizen. No one else has the right to tell them to leave (which requires a rather tidy sum of money to accomplish). Because once we start sterilizing the country of "un-American" or "undesirable" people, we cease to be a free nation. We have entered an authoritarian state stripping people of their freedoms and instituting the beginnings of the Thought Police.
The so-called "patriotic" people may even approve until the Authorities decide their thoughts and beliefs are also undesirable and start coming for them. Because once all the Enemies of the State are cleared out, the State needs to create new enemies to point the finger at.
I'm for it but take under god out because it's put in in 1956....Not original.
George Washinton included it in his oath to office. He didn't leave God out.
You are 100% wrong: Robert Livingston, Chancellor of the State of New York, administered the oath of office prescribed by the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Thats all George Washington said. No mention of any god at all. Why do you lie so much Kenneth? Go research before posting your lies.
Rufus Wilmot Griswold, a mid-nineteenth-century literary critic and editor, published the tale of Washington adding the words "so help me God" in 1854. Well after the inauguration in question. No one knows where he got this story. He could have made it up himself. There is no evidence it is true.
The actual oath of office (which Rev "D" provided) and his speech afterwards can both be found in the National Archives and are available online.
Sorry but you cant go by what someone said 50 years after, you have to go by what happened at that time and even the US Library of Congress stated that the words "so help me God" were stated at Washington's own inauguration. Heck even Obama had to take the oath twice because this was left out of the first one.
I'll repeat myself just for you: The actual oath of office (which Rev "D" provided) and his speech afterwards can both be found in the National Archives and are available online.
I went to the National Archives website. It has the oath Washington took. Go to archives.gov and search George Washington oath of office. It takes you right to it.
The Library of Congress is a library. if you plan to use that as a citation, as is, it's a fail. You need to cite the exact reference source.
So go ahead and offer a refuting citation. I'm betting you can't offer anything to affirm the National Archives have it wrong.
Right now, you are just making an assertion and expecting to be believed. Not likely to happen given your credibility issues. I'm not expecting anyone to just take my word for it. I support my position.
Instead of blind allegiance that is used as nonsensical sign of patriotism, lets recite this:
“I, ( name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of ……. against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of …”
Similar oath military, LEOs, politicians take? Or is it that politicians are terrified of an educated citizenry? Mandating reeks of “communism” or is it USA is not really free after all?
Pledging your allegiance to a flag is Idol worship.
people need to understand that these christofascists have literally taken over god and country. they really believe that only their god, in their way is acceptable and that only they get to be in this country.
some have learned to couch their 'thoughts' in a more delicate language but in the end, christofascists are only interested in making everyone else believe, worship, think and...importantly...LOOK like them
Just another form of brainwashing. I am English and live in the UK. Our National Anthem is so awful, it is embarrasing. We used to be forced to stand whenever it was played and even sing the words. All for a King that I never got a chance to vote for.
If they truly want to promote a sense of citizenship, they need to teach accurate history. Not as a way of shunning a certain group but as a way of demonstrating that this country learns and evolves from its past to provide a better quality of life for "ALL" which is also in the pledge.
Considering it isn't just too the flag but also "and to the Republic for which it stands" I don't see why not. I do think they need to roll it back to the original pledge though. Religious inclination should never have been added to it.
What's the meaning of a pledge you are compelled to make? If I'm threatened with punishment for not saying the words, the act is meaningless, even if I believe in what I'm saying. All that is being taught is that compliance is more important than conviction.
If a person cannot stand for our national anthem or the pledge of the flag then just move to Mexico. It's simple, freedom isn't free, America love it or leave it just do not disrespect it🇺🇸🇺🇲
in all my pubic schools we pledged allegiance to our flag. We were taught the meaning of every word . If some parents don't want their child reciting it than it would probably be best to home school him/her.
Hmm, guessing your school didn't teach about freedom of choice? Please point out where our CONSTITUTION or BILL OF RIGHTS mandates reciting blind allegiance seeing as our founders fought against those very idea.
I bet all those South American migrants who keep coming over here wanting to become U.S.citizens would be happy to say the Pledge Of Allegiance, and would mean every word of it (once they learn enough English to read, understand, and say it). And for every South American who comes here there's room for an unpatriotic American to go live over there. When they empty those buses at Kamala Harris's house let's fill them back up with unpatriotic Americans,who won't say the Pledge Of Allegiance, and take them south of the border and leave them there, with instructions to the border patrol to not let them come back.
I won't say the pledge, come and get me big mouth
And you are not in this school so nothing you say has any bearing.
As long as you're not a student in school JJ there's no reason why you'd have to say the Pledge Of Allegiance. I don't have any reason to say it iether, but do know it. Maybe you don't know the words to it big mouth, and are too embarrassed to ask. I don't care if you or anyone else ever says it. If and when we say it, it should be done for ourselves, and not to impress others.
JJ, I should have guessed by the immature things you say that you are one of those children who are required to say the Pledge Of Allegiance in class. You need'nt pout about not saying it to me little boy. I'm not one of the ones who is requiring it of you. Besides that, the only places I go to are my kitchen and bathroom. Then it's right back to this black, button tufted, wing back recliner, where I rule the world on this Android Smart phone. Sometimes I find it best to minister by giving my congregation on this blog something to pray about. I won't come there and do it for you little boy. You'll have to do it all on your own. Believe it or not, it's just part of growing up.
I grew up saying the Pledge. It was a great way to get the students attention and start the moment focused on the front of the class. I see nothing wrong with this decision.
Carl Bernard Elfstrom certain religions forbid swearing of oaths to nations
Can you say: "American Civil Liberty Union? I knew that you could?"
I can, and will. Thankfully the one group that actually upholds our Constitution. Send a support donation, ACLU is a great cause fighting for all USA’s citizens.
About as bad as the Southern Poverty Law Center.
This pledge has been said in schools for years. Why are stupid people always trying to change things. This pledge shows Allegiant to AMERICA. You know the country you live in? And the people that fought and died for this country. It's not a prayer.
Stupid people make ignorant comments like yourself constantly. People fought & died for the country I live so fellow citizens were free of political allegiance mandates. It serves no purpose, and has no value.
You can whine and cry ad call names all you wish Rev D, but you CANNOT refute nor dispute Article 5 of the Constitution, the same article that is saying that you have no idea what you are talking about
"Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures."
So try and refute this...that is IF you can. Oh and BTW, sorry to wipe the floor with you even more but I challenge you to show under what section of Article 3 (Powers of the Judiciary) where it gives them the right to interpret anything. They are required by the Constitution to go by what it says, not what you wish it says. And just to make sure that you cant claim that it says what you want it to, here it is:
" Article III
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
And did you pay close attention to Article 3 Section 2 Clause 2 last line? It clearly states that Congress can tell the SCOTUS what cases they can and cannot hear. It states and I quote " the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Meaning your claim of cases does not amount to passing gas in a high wind.
Deal with it
Allow me to direct you to the official SCOTUS webpage that discusses interpretation of the Constitution.
From that page: "The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."
I have to admit it has been a while since I ran across anyone who was not only a Constitutional literalist but had zero idea it didn't stand in a vacuum. Our government runs on a variety of additional laws and rules not found specifically in the founding documents. They are the basis. Not the entirety. There's a mountain of legal precedent that is followed. Things change.
Kev, let me direct you to Article 3 of the US Constitution https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/ Now since they MUST swear to uphold the Constitution, show me where it says they can just interpret it any way they want. That little authority does NOT exist in the Constitution and never has in over 240+ years And NOWHERE does it give them the authority to decide what powers they do and dont have. They only have what the Constitution gives them, nothing more.
Do try again but dont be surprised when you are shown to be wrong.
I have yet to be shown I am wrong.
However, it's apparent you can't understand that and I won't waste any more of my time attempting to help you understand.
Have a nice day.
I too said the Pledge of Allegiance every morning in school and was not traumatized by it. From reading all the comments, I think of the verses in the bible that a divided house cannot stand. Satan is succeeding very well in this world that is near its end, in dividing everyone. As much as the constitution has benefited each and every one of us, the bible says that it will go away. The lamblike beast will speak as a dragon. It has been happening slowly for years and sped up during Covid. People's right to free speech and free exercise of their beliefs or peaceable assembly. were removed. Most likely a test for the future. As far as teaching history, I never liked history for several reasons. One of those was I was taught that man was to learn from his past mistakes. Ha, that never happened. Another is what history are you going to believe, so much of it is revisionist history now adays. What my younger brothers and sister learned in high school about George Washington, Bettsy Ross, Pearl Harbor is totally different than what most of us were taught and never do you read about the church's negative role in it.
The Bible doesn't say 'make no prayer'... it says 'swear no oath', which the US Supreme Court gave credence to, under the 1st Amendment freedom of religion.
"People's right to free speech and free exercise of their beliefs or peaceable assembly. were removed."
Nope. Literally none of those things have been removed.
"Another is what history are you going to believe, so much of it is revisionist history now adays."
Any specific examples? What's the "real" history and what's the "revised" history? And upon what criteria do you determine the difference? Which historical scholars or experts can we consult?
Something older isn't necessarily the more true or accurate by default. Some things change as people discover and learn new facts.
Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is a sign of respect to the nation that gives you the right to freedom. Just because it says "under God" does not mean it is a prayer or even leading to one. Anyone and everyone that has any type of spiritual belief has a god they pray to; the only difference is what you call him. To do the Pledge of Allegiance should be a privilege to say, for what this country offers everyone. In these troubling times you should want to say it more than ever, so let's all just come together and become a strong and devoted American people and quit all this five-year-old bickering. In case you have not noticed, our country has become a laughingstock among the nations of the world and everyone is making fun of us and does not fear us anymore. We are unable to be the peacekeepers that our country was born to be, that is why the world has fallen apart.
Who's god? Or, as many of us ask, what god?
I have no problem with the Pledge or saying it. I've never considered it a prayer, and I'm agnostic. My father, an atheist, strongly believed in saying the Pledge. Technically, according to those "advocates," any time the word "God" is said, it's a prayer. 🤯 Madre de Dios ! ! ! 😲 Holy cow ! ! ! 😯 And 🚫🐝⬅️🐂 (unbelievable) ! ! ! Let's not forget that the colonization of this country was pretty much done by those seeking religious freedom. That pretty much makes it "one Nation, under God;" whoever your "God" is.
To those of us who reverence the Divine title too much to use it casually, the subordinate place of this title as subsidiary to a pledge of national loyalty is painful. The Deity is not trivial. The Divine title should not be used as subordinate to any other entity. Moreover, I feel unworthy to sully the Divine name or title by speaking it without washing my hands first. I take my example from the prophet Isaiah who expressed concern over his own "unclean lips." We are all merely human and unworthy to use sacred Names or Titles so casually, without even washing our hands immediately beforehand. (As for animals, they don't say it at all. Their mere existence is praise, if you like, or if they are saying it, they were created to do His will, so perhaps they are purer than we are. It's not a sin for an animal to kill another animal for food. It IS wrong for us to eat a human.)
So although I have the opposite reason for objecting to the use of "under G-d" in the Pledge, I support those who object to it, whatever their reasons.
In keeping with this outlook, I have no objection to the "Our Father," even though it is a prayer, because the word "Father" is NOT a Divine title. It is whomever we choose it to be, including the Universe. I am similarly OK with The Creator or The Holy One or even The NAME. Literally, the word "name." Or simply, "Heaven."
O how I wish the Pledge said "Under Heaven." "Heaven" is a great euphemism and it also simply means "the sky." We are certainly under the sky, everywhere. I do not worship the universe, or the sky, so to me it is a euphemism for the Deity. For others it could literally mean simply the sky. Since we may sometimes have the need to reference the Deity, it is good to have a few euphemisms for His/Her Name or Title for those times. I use "Father in Heaven" or simply "Heaven" all the time for expressions of gratitude. I have severe problems of balance and am in constant danger of falling (unless I am seated or whatever), so whenever I stumble and don't fall (which occurs often), I say, "Thank You, Dear Heaven!" This allows me to pray all I want without ever having to wash my hands first.
I cannot speak to the legality but I will speak of my experience and my opinion. I have read the the first version of the pledge was instituted at a time of increasing immigration, so that students would be clear that their loyalty was now to the United States. Then it became "the United States of America" in case there might be (and there used to be) other nations called the "united states of...something." However, I attended K-12 during the period when "under G-d" had not been added. After it was added, I closed my mouth during the moment when others were saying those words, BECAUSE I believe in G-d. You notice that I do not spell out the Divine title casually. In my religion, it is seen as trivializing the Divine title to write or speak it other than during worship or when reading sacred texts. In other words, making G-d subordinate to our national loyalty insults G-d by trivializing this sacred word. So I am glad to have students begin the day proclaiming their loyalty to their country. We SHOULD have a morning ritual reminding students of this. But we should not trivialize G-d by placing mention of Him as subordinate to national loyalty. Our FIRST loyalty of a believer is to G-d. He must not be made secondary to anything else. So I think you are right to object to the current version of the Pledge. I wish the pledge could be changed back so that it no longer trivializes the Divine Title.
However, many people imagine they can mention the Divine Title casually, as if it were an ordinary word. Those of us who shudder at this kind of trivializing casual mention of the Divine title are WAY outnumbered.
There is something wrong with people who don't want children to be patriotic. However, there is also something very wrong with people who think they are patriotic and are doing their best to divide the nation, and those people are in both parties. You can hear division on a daily basis. People will try to divide us based on saying the Pledge of Allegiance just to do so, not to look at the words and see that it is a positive example of unity. We are in a really bad place and many believers of the Gospel, or at least they say they believe, are involved in the effort to fracture the nation just as much as others who are not believers. We need help. So we need to look to the hills and see where that help comes from... The Lord our God!
I was forced to say the Pledge and sing the national anthem every morning in school all the way through 10th grade in high school. The words were empty and meaningless to me. Oh, and the Star Spangled Banner? Racist as can be. Doubt me? Look at the second verse. I don't think reciting the pledge makes you patriotic. It was just another thing you are expected to do. It didn't mean anything to me or my classmates. You want to teach children to be patriotic? Teach them the real history of the US. All of the good and the bad. You can't make up for the sins of the past, but you can teach the children about them. Make history inclusive. Make the last phrase in the pledge, "with liberty and justice for all" true for all because right now, that is not the case. Teach them about the constitution and the laws of this country. How the government works. Teach an in depth civics curriculum. Forcing kids to regurgitate words does nothing for them. Put value behind the words. That is something they will remember. Now, I don't participate in the pledge or Anthem. That doesn't make me any less patriotic. I love my country and would fight to the end for it. Regards, Margarita
there is no national idenity or belonging in this country, which is part of the crime problem with our youth. we need to bring back the pledge of allegience and teach goverment and civics in the classroom..
Well, I think we need to stop arguing the constitution and teach our children what allegiance is.
Then they need to be free to decide where to pledge their allegiance, once they are old enough to understand and make that personal decision. Teaching about our country, our flag and our history is factual information they need to have to make this and other future choices. We do not consider children of age to make binding commitments of allegiance until age 18. They are not old enough to pledge themselves to anything. They are learning. That is what they are in secular public schools to do, and we have a responsibility to teach them fairly and factually, not partially and with bias. That's not law, it's plain common sense and love in action.
There is devotion, which comes from knowledge, love and choice, and there is indoctrination, which comes from rote repetition until the mind cannot think in another direction.
I grew up repeating the pledge too. Finishing school was a graduation from being a child that "had to" to an adult with choice. But we did listen and learn. Remember all those riots in the 60's? Someone made us repeat what still resonates with many of us today: "with liberty and justice for all." If we teach our children what that means, we will be doing well.
I have a proposal for a different pledge that would make it more universal: "I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America and to the republic for which they stand, as one nation, united and indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Comment removed by user.
one problem e m we have is we've allowed discontented groups in here which doesn't add to believing in anything in this country. I.e, the Muslims who have become congressmen or women. They wish to tear down our values and establish their own system of law. Doesn't ork that way.
What a ridiculous statement. Poor Kenneth, only discontented group in USA are the quickly dwindling ignorant racists and bigots that have no values. Tsk tsk, the “isms” of any religion want to create their own systems of law, or have you not listened to MTG and that other from CO, Boebert ?
if your christian the bible says not to swear oaths to anything but god
Correct... which is why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Christian plaintiffs, in striking down such oaths being mandatory for public school children.
Nathaniel, it's best to just rip out those bible pages without reading them, fill them with herbs, roll them up, and smoke that weed all the way down to a tiny roach!
First off that would be bad, bible or any book paper sucks as rolling paper
And the certain race of people that want to divide this country by removing all the southern statues that are AMERICAN HISTORY.
Those removing those losers statues are onto something. All those anti USA rebels statutes should never been erected. Every single rebel should have been hung or shot as penalty for violently attacking their elected government.
I remember pledging allegations to flag and I know one thing.. never join a church. I disavow myself. Ha nothing left from church. Done did.
WW3 STARTED THE MOMENT I WAS BORN! MAY 12 1983.
ਤੁਸੀਂ ਜਾਣਦੇ ਹੋ, ਮੇਰੇ ਕੋਲ ਸਿਆਸੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਕੁਝ ਉਦਾਰਵਾਦੀ ਮੁੱਲ ਹਨ। ਹਾਲਾਂਕਿ, ਮੈਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਝੰਡੇ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਵਫ਼ਾਦਾਰੀ ਦਾ ਵਾਅਦਾ ਕਰਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੁਝ ਵੀ ਗਲਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਦੇਖ ਸਕਦਾ ਹਾਂ। ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਨਾਸਤਿਕ ਜਾਂ ਨਾਸਤਿਕ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਉਹ ਸਿਰਫ਼ "ਪਰਮੇਸ਼ੁਰ ਦੇ ਅਧੀਨ" ਸਹੁੰ ਦੇ ਹਿੱਸੇ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਚੁੱਪ ਰਹਿ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇੱਥੇ ਜ਼ਿੰਦਗੀ ਸੱਚਮੁੱਚ ਵਧੀਆ ਹੈ. ਸਾਡੇ ਕੋਲ ਧੰਨਵਾਦੀ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ ਬਹੁਤ ਕੁਝ ਹੈ।
ਇੱਥੇ ਜੀਵਨ ਵਧੀਆ ਹੈ. ਇਹ ਚੰਗੀ ਗੱਲ ਹੈ ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਕਠੋਰਤਾ ਕਹਿਣ ਦਾ ਹੁਕਮ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ।
ਸਾਡੇ ਸਾਰਿਆਂ ਕੋਲ ਇੱਕ ਵਿਕਲਪ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਭਾਵੇਂ ਕਿ ਅਸੀਂ ਦੁਹਰਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਬਿਆਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਦੁਹਰਾਉਣਾ ਚਾਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਨਹੀਂ। ਅਜਿਹਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਮਜ਼ਬੂਰ ਹੋਣਾ ਇੱਕ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਦਾ ਦਿਮਾਗੀ ਧੋਣਾ ਹੈ।
Lionheart, is that what they mean by talking in tongues?
Freedom to some people means being allowed to do whatever you want, wherever you want, however you want and with whomever you want. In other words, a Godless society with no moral compass. As an immigrant who swore allegiance to this country and fought for this country, we are fortunate to be able to pledge allegiance to our flag, (a symbol of our country), rather than to a dictator. If that offends someone, too bad.
"Freedom to some people means being allowed to do whatever you want, wherever you want, however you want and with whomever you want"
With the added caveats that those acts are done within the boundaries of the law and not done to intentionally harm others, that's pretty much what freedom actually is. The trick of any society is to balance those freedoms to the point where they don't stomp all over the same freedoms of others (which is what many of our laws exist for).
Such a view neither leads to a Godless nor Godly society. It allows individuals to believe -- or not believe -- in a god or gods as they choose. That said, the "Godless" people are not necessarily devoid of morals or a moral compass. One need not believe in any god/ess to have a firm, moral stance. Just as believing in a god/ess doesn't guarantee a person has any moral scruples at all. That seems to be a very individual thing that arises from many factors in upbringing, education, and experiences. Along with one's definition of what is moral or not.
That freedom allows you to wave as many flags as you want and swear allegiance to them as you desire. As much as it allows others the freedom not to do so with zero repercussions. To each their own. Neither side is hurting anyone in that respect so I see no issue there.
Who is honoured and proud of the Country you live in? Put your hand up if you are. Who believes when you come to a new Country, you come with respect for their language and beliefs? As did my ancestors before I came from Scotland, Ireland, and England came here with great love and respect. Why does it have to change? If we move to another Country, we are only expected to do the same; as God would say to you, We love because God loved us first,
Concerning that, if a Country is Christian, Hindu or any other faith - we respect them as they would respect us.
Love and kindness always is the best way to be in life,
Even when we speak.
Comment has been removed.
Stop your thinking and just leave it alone. Stop trying to find a fault in EVERYTHING. Government has removed most if not all statues in the south because it's racists. This tearing apart everything will indeed destroy this country. If you love the country you live in then say the pledge.
No thank you. :)
Pink, for St. Patrick's Day, have you thought about coloring your clover green?
I see nothing wrong with requiring the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag being mandatory. I said it every morning in grade school and it did not harm anything.
Many of my family and I have served under that Flag along with my children. When watching a parade go by, if there is a color guard with the Flag, I always come to attention and salute the Flag.
We need more patriotic people and less push for socialism.
The issue is the harm in forcing the pledge on other people's kids. Secondary issue is spitting on the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees individual freedom of religion. What is patriotic about that?
If it was taught that way it would be marvelous. 6-10 year old's do not have the capacity or depth of understanding to get that - they are doing exactly what the teacher observed. Repeating a requirement by rote that they do not as yet have the ability to conceptualize. Red gave that speech to adults, not children. That is high school level understanding there. You can dumb it down a bit for middle school and simplify it a whole lot for grade school. But it needs to be taught, not recited.
Personally, I see no particular problem with the “under God” part of the pledge. As others point out, that might not interfere with religious freedom. Moreover, I also agree with the comment that it has little impact on our ability to develop progressive ideas. It didn’t for me and, I suspect, most children, as has been suggested, are blindly mumbling words that mean nothing to them.
That said, I think all the emphasis on “under God” highlights the religious component and overlooks the supreme court’s total ruling. They said we shouldn’t be forced by any authority to pledge agreement with someone else’s opinions regarding politics or nationalism as well as religion. In short, the founding principles are based on freedom.
Those wanting to force students to pledge allegiance should pay special attention to the last line in the pledge - “freedom and justice for all.”
Because for those who are not religious or not Christian in their religious persuasion shouldn't have to to be pushed into implying they are in an actual pledge.
Instead of that Amber, might it not be better for them to all sing Yankee Doodle, together in unison, and pull a feather out of each of their hats?
Comment removed by user.
I pledge allegiance to the republic of the United States of America. One nation with liberty and justice for all.
That's not exactly how it goes P., but you're on the right track.
The problem with compelling kids to recite the pledge of allegiance is that they don't understand what they're saying. Instead of mindless repetition of the words, why don't they talk about what the words mean? What does it mean to "pledge allegiance"? What's "allegiance"? What's a "republic"? What does it mean that the nation is "indivisible"? What does "liberty and justice for all" mean? Does everyone in this country feel they have liberty and justice? As for letting the parents choose to have their kids opt out of saying the pledge, what kind of ostracism will that cause the children to endure if it's only one or two kids in the classroom that are singled out for not saying the pledge. I think kids would rather fit in with their peers than stand apart because of something their parents don't believe in. Why not teach the kids what the pledge of allegiance means and let them decide if it's something they want to participate in? It shouldn't be looked upon as a requirement like doing homework or chores.
I like these words of the late John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960. " I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute-where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no protestant minster would tell his parishioners for whom to vote- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source - where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
Unfortunately, it has happened in the past and biblically we are told it will happen again.
I work in a school. Not a school/district employee but a professional partner / psychotherapist embedded in the school and neighborhood. Ours is a predominately AA inner city-type "suburb" which might as well be "inner city." It's a stretch of three miles from downtown. And the school is smack in the middle of the neighborhood and one of the few safe spaces. Here, they still say the pledge of allegiance, along with the school's "Bee Attitudes" a formulation from our school district about treating ourselves and others correctly, and focusing on school. "Bee Prepared, Bee Responsible" and etc. Rote learning that never evolves past rote learning. The school curriculum is designed to surpass "rote" learning. It's not actually meant to be religious, but there is always that "Bee Attitudes" thing and the "Beatitudes" thing. When it comes to certain traditions, there it is in the flesh. And there's no "word." The kids don't get it, or the school mantra. I've always thought that something simple along the lines of the 4-H pledge I grew up with would be more poignant: I Pledge My Head to Clearer Thinking. My Heart to Greater Loyalty. My Hands to Larger Service, and My Health to my Community, my Country and my World." I like that one.
Never mind that the US Supreme Court ruling (at the height of WWII patriotic fervor) was based on the Christian plaintiffs' sincerely held religious belief that forcing that socialist pledge violated Scripture. Never mind that those same legislators cannot be required to take it as a test to hold office, in the plain words of the Constitution.
Comment removed by user.
I never understood why we were pledging our "allegiance" to a piece of cloth ("and the republic for which it stands" - for the Republican Richard Stanz). And I was an agnostic by the fourth grade anyway. I just moved my lips when everyone recited in unison.
Alice, you could think of that cloth as the clothing you wear, and be pledging your allegiance to never taking it off in public, except for at nude beaches. I've been there and done that too.
It seems to me and a few Billion other people that this Country (USA) went spiraling downward when our leaders started letting Atheist tell them who what and when to teach or not teach our children. I mean really !? I understand to each his own, but, We all should be given the right to Pray when and where we like even if it offends someone!!! It offends Me that Men want to be women and Women want to be men ! I don’t say “hey that is offending me”, or tell anyone they can’t go in public wearing All Black with tattoos and piercings all over their body ! Do what you do and leave us alone if we want to Pray or say Thank You JESUS in front of you or your kids ! I would rather expose my Children to God over some of the other DANGERS going on in this World…. Let them bring back the Pledge and let them bring back Prayer too
You are free to expose your children to whatever religious rituals you desire. And, last time I checked, people are free to pray anywhere at any time. A child can pray silently to any deity of their choice even in the middle of an exam in class.
The majority of our political leaders profess to being religious (primarily some sort of Christian). Not that such assertions mean anything given the love of money and power, and lack of basic compassion most of them display.
Our federal Congress opens each session with a prayer. Then they move on to pandering to wealthy donors and special interest groups while debating how to cut more money from services the poorest and least able of American depend upon. Services of which Jesus would most likely approve, given his sermons in the gospels.
Speaking of Jesus, he was the one who told people not to make a show of fasting and prayer for all to see. That was supposed to be from the heart. In silence. I mean....you believe God can hear silent prayers from the heart. Right? Or are rote prayers muttered out loud before class or a football game the only ones God can hear?
Lastly, if you want public displays of religious belief intended to be seen by other children, then I can assume that you equally support such displays from other Christian denominations, or Muslims, or Hindus, or Wiccans, or even Satanists? They all get equal time leading prayers in school and before the Big Game? Because public schools are government run. And the government can't discriminate or be seen as endorsing any specific religion (or sect of any religion). You open the gate and everyone gets to come in and play.
It seems to me that it's always best to think about the things we say before we say them. Maybe the lawmakers are hoping students will do that when saying the Pledge Of Allegiance, and somehow that might make them better citizens, potriotic or not.
Yeah. Well. Our lawmakers don't seem to have a track record of making wise decisions and having the best interests of their full constituency in mind. They're more about optics and the never-ending election cycle.
IMO the pledge never made anyone a better citizen. If it worked like some magic spell then just about everyone would have turned out a great citizen. But that didn't seem to happen.
A better population is the result of a better upbringing, positive family role models, a certain amount of discipline, a good education, and developed critical thinking skills. But...I mean...that takes a ton of time and effort. And just making people say words seems so much easier. So I guess we go with that. :-)
I had been thinking about putting the Pledge Of Allegiance on the wall above my air conditioner, in the back middle of the room, where it could be seen by all, but decided instead to buy a 16"×24" personalized tin sign from Amazon next month to put there instead, which will read: CARL BERNARD ELFSTROM'S MANCAVE. ESTABLISHED DECEMBER 4, 2010. MY CAVE MY RULES (and they sometimes change). FOOD AND DRINKS CAN ALWAYS BE EXPECTED BY PRETTY NAKED WOMEN, WHEN AVAILABLE. EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD BRING FOOD AND DRINKS, AND SHARE THEM WITH ME. I already have a metal red, white, and blue with stars and stripes bald eagle wall plaque hanging to the left of that, above and between two 27" high stone naked woman wall sculptures, on iether side of a twelve bottle rack. And that's patriotic enough for me!
That certainly sounds very patriotic. I'd even bring food and drinks to see that.
I would like to say, that saying the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a socialist minister Francis Bellamy. Mr. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge could be used by citizens in any country. (US History.org / Historic Documents). It has been changed several times.
I heard mass in the morning before class, went to clase and we stood for the flag, placed our hands over our heart and recited the Pledge of Alleginace as it was changed to in 1954 by President Eisenhower.
We live in a country to which many want to come live here, work and raise children. If it is their desire, and choice I personally believe that they should pledge allegiance to a country that is feeding and clothing them through their work. In turn we give give thank you for our freedom, which by the way, was not free, but bought with the lives of young men and women in war protecting the soil that we live on. It is fair, with the requirements that the parents could have the children opt out is fair.
This is my opinion. Thank you.
Merriam-Webster defines allegiance as: the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government.
What do you think that means in practical terms? When someone swears allegiance to a flag and the Republic what, exactly, does that really mean in the individual's personal actions, or what the State can demand of them?
I'm sincerely curious. A lot of people keep using the words. I honestly wonder what people think they mean in real life?
I for one believe the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE should be taught and open the school day, open meetings, etc. As an American Citizen, I am proud to PLEDGE MY ALLEGIANCE to this GREAT NATION.
Perhaps I didn't understand it when I was first taught to recite it in school. However, as I progressed in school and began to learn about the history of the United States of America, I became PROUD, HUMBLED and GRATEFUL, that I was born and raised in this GREAT COUNTRY. As a PROUD PATRIOT, I believe if ANYONE does not APPRECIATE this nation, you are free to leave and GO LIVE ANYWHERE ELSE on the planet. GIVE UP your citizenship and forfeit all the benefits of being an American Citizen. Furthermore, once you've forfeited your citizenship and the VAST BENEFITS of being an AMERICAN, you can only return for a short visit and can never return to live, work or reinstate your citizenship. You don't deserve it.
Every single one of us in this great country, should do all we can to contribute and make it a better place to live. It is our duty as a PATRIOT.
I realize this may not be popular to many, but I feel incredibly fortunate and am strongly steadfast in my convictions as an American.
I believe one of the things that makes this a GREAT COUNTRY is the ability to exercise personal freedoms as long as they don't trample on the equal freedoms of others.
For example, people who simply don't want to recite the pledge for personal reasons shouldn't be required to do it by force of law. Does that hurt anyone, or stop others from reciting it? Nope. So no problems.
And people who don't personally share your pride in being a PROUD PATRIOT should be free to hold their opinions and not be told they have to leave the country. Isn't that sorta like having a Thought Police? "Think the correct Groupthink or be cleansed."
It doesn't matter if what you believe is popular or not. You're free to have your opinions. I support your right to have them. But it becomes problematic when people want to have their personal opinions enforced on others who simply have different opinions and aren't hurting anyone in the process.
In fact, we may learn something by listening to others on the matter. Maybe they have different experiences and knowledge to support their positions. Might see things from a new perspective. Might even see ways to improve things to make this a better place to live.
Value differences as opposed to trying to suppress or cleanse them.
P.S. People are, indeed, free to leave the country. But leaving is not a free endeavor. It takes time and a lot of money to set up in a different country. Love It or Leave It may be a snappy soundbite but it's wholly impractical.