Unfortunately, school is a vastly different setting than being in a church with many other adults. With children, fitting in is always a prerequisite and peer pressure is phenomenally effective. I can imagine that a little kid who chose to say “under Allah” in a classroom of predominantly Christian children could come under scrutiny and pressure to fit in and say “The Pledge” like everyone else. While freedom of speech is a protected right as well as freedom to practice one’s own faith, that legislative guarantee has little weight in the minds of kids in classrooms across the country.
What the Supreme Court should grapple with is the connotatively religious nature of “The Pledge” as opposed to its tradition as a way to honor our country and flag. As a Catholic secure in my faith and belief in God, I feel no threat to my religious freedom by eliminating “under God” from “The Pledge of Allegiance” ; furthermore, I have no objection to God’s name being removed from our money or any other public commodity or institution. Our religious freedom protected by the Constitution is an individual one; thus rendering my faith as equally protected as yours or the next person’s. Also protected is someone’s freedom not to believe; therefore, we must consider the effect of these words as potentially offensive.
If we can legislate secondhand smoke in public, use of cell phones and seatbelts in cars, and perhaps eventually even the size of portions served at McDonald’s, then it seems there is an issue of public concern here. If my cigarette smoke bothers you and I am not allowed to smoke in order to protect your rights, perhaps my words can be equally offensive and even potentially more damaging.
The issue goes actually much deeper than superficial things such as cell phone use and secondhand smoke. I mention these more mundane items to illuminate that we as citizens are free but within context. Freedom of speech might guarantee that someone can sing the praises of the Ku Klux Klan all day long, but is it not a violation of your rights if one does so on your front lawn? Even if the person does it on his/her own lawn in plain view of an offended party? Freedom is contextual and conceptual; furthermore, our own individual freedoms are subjectively limited. I may well think that Paul McCartney is god, and I would be well within my rights to recite “The Pledge of Allegiance” including “under Paul” providing that I do not impose that subjectively held view on anyone else.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Nancy
As with so many issues, lots of shades of grey. Good post. Thanks.
2 - Natalie Davis
Thanks for giving notice to peer pressure in schools. Kids used to beat the crap out of me regularly because I refused to say your pledge at all. I certainly find "under God" offensive, but for me the primary issue is keeping church separate from state overall -- and enforcing people's right not to recite the damned thing at all.
3 - hifi
Nicely said.
The main problem with the Pledge is that it is NOT PATRIOTIC ENOUGH. If some people feel that the religious language of the Pledge does not represent them and so must abstain, then the practice is not serving it's purpose, which is to affirm national unity.
This is particularly unfortunate in the school room where patriotic kids who are abstaining for reasons of conscience are being left out. They can't do it at home by themselves. The exercise of patriotism is about community. These kids are essentially being discriminated against when they can't join with their fellows.
But if we can't have a government sponsored activity that includes everyone equally (a religiously neutral one that supports all worldviews), then let's have a separate but equal policy and give every student the same opportunity to stand and profess their own patriotism and belief. In other words, at least let these kids ride on the back of the bus. Right now, they don't even get to get on, but must watch from the sidelines with their desire to exercise their patriotism neglected.
4 - Ed Myers
Patriotism is honoring the Constitution. Flag adoration is idolatry. So let's replace "I pledge allegiance" with "We the people..." from the preamble to the Constituion.
5 - Dave Nalle
I like my idea of replacing it with "We hold these truths, etc." from the Declaration of Independence - way catchier.
Dave
6 - Ederlore
I was eight years old when we had to use "under God" when doing the pledge. I couldn't see the logic of it then nor do I now. Granted, I wasn't brought up in a church-going household but I couldn't understand what God had to do with the flag. When I pledge my allegiance I do it to the Constitution not a flag. Too many people have lost the concept that the flag is a symbol not the substance of our country. Today, many would choose to destroy that substance to save their version of the symbol. Every country has a flag but, not every country has a Constitution like ours. I don't say "under God" because it begs the question of "who's God?" Do I believe in a higher intelligence? Yes, but I don't feel I have to pronounce that fact to the world simply to prove that I'm a good, patriotic American.
Mike Newdow doesn't want to remove the pledge he simply wants to restore it to the pre-1954 version and I agree. Check out his website
7 - Anthony Grande
If you do not want to say Under God in the pledge then simply do not say it. If you want to give the pledge and don't want to say Under God then say the pledge without it.
At my school when we say The Pledge of Allegience, the same 4 kids sit down. They have every right to do this and know one questions them.
Why must you pigs take that away from the rest of us (the far majority) who are proud to say the our nation is "One Nation Under God"???
8 - RogerMDillion
Then how about we take it out, restoring it to its original form, and if you want to add "Under god," you can.
Same thing.
9 - Anthony Grande
You are right it is the same thing, but guess what: We are the majority and you are the minority so you are the one who has to take it out.
We don't got to kneel down for atheist idiots like you.
10 - Lee Richards
A.G.--
Does God tell you to call other people pigs and idiots or is that your own idea? And if you think minorities' rights don't matter, consider this: Christians are a minority in the world!
Since you mention your school I assume you're a student. I hope you're learning the most important lesson of all:to think for yourself.
You have every right to your opinion. But an opinion without strong reasons to back it up is worthless. The best question you can ask to help find reasons is WHY? Why should I believe something I'm told or have read or heard? Why should I listen to authority figures, etc., etc.
When you look at possible answers to that question, you may discover some GOOD reasons for your opinions and beliefs.
Insults and name-calling won't ever convince anyone;using your brain might.
Carpe Diem
11 - Bushwacker
Anthony
You use so many big words in your posts that when you run out of them, you resort to calling names which by the way is not NECESSARY (look it up in the DICTIONARY). 2 big words and I have more if it would be PRUDENT.
12 - Lyrical Reckoner
When the Supreme Court ruled that Michael Newdow lacked standing in his previous suit RE the Pledge of Allegiance, Newdow promised us it wasn't over.
Will the matter go back to the Supreme Court? Will it even make it back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? Will the appeals court reiterate its agreement with Newdow? Who knows?
But, let's look to the future. Suppose it goes all the way to the Supreme Court and that court says the Pledge is just fine as is. Then what?
Here's what might happen
13 - Victor Lana
Thanks to all of you for your posts. What I would hope for is intelligent and repectful discourse on this or any subject. What I mean by this is giving the other side the opportunity to propose its points without being subjected to ridicule. That kind of thing is not collegial or anything close to it.
Why do we have to regress to playground language? It demeans the argument someone is trying to defend. I understand this is a sensitive topic, and I tried to deal with it accordingly in my post.
Again, thanks to all for commenting.
14 - Joey
If my theology indoctrination to Hebrew and early Christian scriptures serves.... the people of "The Way" aren't supposed to swear blood oaths, or oaths anyway... in other words it's against scriptural principle to "Pledge Allegiance" anyway.
In fact, demanding people to enact a Pledge to anything or anyone is against the Word of God.
Surprizing turn of events. Those desiring to erase the pledge out of public schools are actually doing stupid Christians a favor.
I wonder if those responsible for the act of brotherly protection even realize the implications of preventing their "brothers" from stumbling or striking "his" foot against a stone (causing one to sin).
15 - Anthony Grande
"Christians are a minority in the world!"
Since when have Christians been is this conversation??? Did I say anything about Christians??? NO, Did I ever say I was Christian??? NO
What Religion doesn't believe there is a God??? Who are we offending??? Do you know this isn't about Christianity???
What more reasons do I need to back it up then that the far far far far majority of people are proud to say that this truly ONE NATION UNDER GOD???
In a different matter, Christians are NOT a minority.
16 - Matthew T. Sussman
Can little kids just sing "The Preamble" in the same verse as Schoolhouse Rock did?
Because that's the only way I know how to remember it!
17 - DrPat
In a pie chart labelled "Religious Adherents As a Percentage of World Population in 2000", the percentage of Christians in the world is given as 33%.
That's one-third, certainly a minority in any book.
18 - Anthony Grande
So by your standards every Religion is a minority. There are more Christians therefore Christians are not the minority.
Everyone here exept the small small small small small number of Atheists believe that we were created by a God.
19 - gonzo marx
and ocne again, Ant G is proven factually incorrect..this time by DrPat and a pie chart
and yes Ant, we don't get french benefits
Excelsior!
20 - RogerMDillion
"Did I ever say I was Christian??? NO"
Less than 24 hours ago
Comment 98 posted by Anthony Grande on September 15, 2005 02:30 AM:
I do not regulary pray, I haven't been to Church in 10 years and I still know that God exists and Jesus died for our sins, and because of this I consider myself a good Christian. (bold mine)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
21 - DrPat
"by your standards"
No, by the numbers. By counting. By acquiring FACTS, and assessing them to see what they reveal (not to see how they can be spun to support my pre-conceived notions.)
When Christians total more than 50% of the world's population, they'll no longer be a minority on the world. (Good luck, though -- the percentage of Muslims went from less than 10% in 1975 to the current 19.6% in 2000.)
And in the US, even the generous 75% interpretation STILL does not give Christians the right to determine the religious practices of any other group, religious or atheist.
THAT is Freedom of Religion.
22 - Anthony Grande
What I said on any other site is not revelent here. Lee Richards just assumed that I was a Christian and he had no back up to say that.
23 - gonzo marx
again, factually incorrect..you did not say it on another web site, you said it here on BlogCritics, albeit on another Thread
and YES it DOES count, because you still said it
you lose again, and we still don't get french benefits and it's not the Leaning Tower of Pizza either
Excelsior!
24 - RogerMDillion
It was on this site less than 24 hours ago and it is absolutly relevant because you tried claiming you weren't a Christian.
Lee was correct and you got caught lying about it. Don't you hate it when your words come back to haunt you?
If you deny your religion two more times before the cock crows, we can call you Judas Grande?
25 - Victor Lana
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let us turn the other cheek and accept each other's slings and arrows (of rather outrageous commentary). In doing so, we perhaps will understand the incongruous nature of Church and State in relation to the matter at hand.
Wherever there is a fine line, it can be easily erased. I think you all bring up valid points, and in their validity is hope for redemption and understanding.
Whatever happens, we all know that "forcing" any amount or percentage of people to do something is inherently incorrigible.
Freedom of choice is not only the naswer but the AMERICAN way.