That Pledge Of Allegiance Thing Again

[badstar]

One nation (not always), under God (since 1954)


I've read somewhere that Jon Stewart said the other night somethign about there being no better way to trivialize somethign than to make 5th graders repeat it every morning?

I've said many times, I really wonder how many 5th graders know what they're saying when they recite the pledge? Hell, how many high school seniors?

I know I was in 7th or 8th grade before I really understood it and I sure as hell didn't learn it from school. I learned it from Girl Scouts. Every time I tried to ask a teacher what it meant, from kindergarten on, I was dismissed with something along the lines of "If you say it it means you love your country. If you don't say it it means you don't."

No kidding folks.

Why do we insist on making little kids mindlessly recite the same thing over and over and over. How many know that they have the right not to? People used to get in trouble in the various elementary schools that I went to for not saying it. As I was going into high school, people whispered about how you didn't actually have to say it in high school, though you still had to stand. Though in the few instances that I saw anyone try to not say it, they were generally either scolded or on one case sent to the principal's office. I don't know what came of that exactly, but I never saw that student not try to say it again.


Without knowing and being able to compreend what they're saying, I really don't think that students should be made to recite the pledge. Really, I don't think it's something they should have to do at all. If you don't agree, okay. Please tell me intelligently how it benefits them.

Comments

[fervid-dryfire.livejournal.com]

My dislike of the subject has simply reached the point where I say, "If the atheists want control of the public schools, they can have it. The system is trashed enough, a little more garbage legislation just makes the whole thing stink a little more." The same applies to removing "Touched by an Angel" from regular programming, along with the use of the word "God" (except when spoken in vain, of course).

The secular world can take its screwed-up schools and filthy media, for all I care. If the rats want control of the rusty sinking ship, it can't get much worse- in fact, we're probably better off not having His name tainted (or even paid lip-service) by either one anyway. =\

[smileydee.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's atheists (or "rats" as you so charitably call them) who want to be in control of the schools. Atheists aren't trying to coerce school children into daily recitals of secularism. Atheists don't demand that any lesson that might, in some twisted application of logic, imply that somebody believes in God be counterbalanced by a lesson in atheism.

Whereas some Christian-types do, in fact, want to coerce our children into daily recitals of Christianity, and they do demand that any lesson that, in their twisted brand of logic, might imply that God maybe didn't do exactly what their interpretation of the Bible says He did, be counterbalanced by lessons promoting Christianity. These Christians are so self-centered that they demand the whole world revolve around them, and that their culture at all times enforce their particular brand of Christianity, and the second someone says that maybe that's not the way the world should work, that maybe everyone should be allowed to believe and practice whatever religion they want in private and that the public sphere be neutral, all of a sudden Christians are SO PERSECUTED OMG.

In other words, um, bullshit.

[fervid-dryfire.livejournal.com]

You're as free to your obviously-biased opinion as I am to mine*.

The only thing I agree on within your little tirade is that none of these programs/efforts/etc. should be engaged or enforced via coercion. Aside from that, you seem to be running BS on tap.


*The rats metaphor refers to much more than just atheists.

[odalisques.livejournal.com]

In retrospect, seems to me a scary sort of hypocracy, bullying children into swearing to something ethically binding, whether you explain what it is or not. Seems like it has no meaning unless someone does it voluntarily, after understanding what they're saying...but what do I know? Lancaster, or really the whole country lately, isn't big on anything that smacks of intellectualism.

Eventually they give up scolding. Though my high school vice-principal did insist it was 'in the book' that one was required to both swear allegience in the morning and pray en masse before every class, until I insisted he had to show it to me. Feh.

[sunneyone.livejournal.com]

i agree with you. if they're going to say it, they need to know exactly what it means, not the whitewashed explanation you got in grade school.

[dcnblus.livejournal.com]

I stopped saying the "under God" part a long time ago -- just because nobody said it properly. There is NO comma between "one nation" and "under God," so please stop inserting that dramatic pause where none is called for.

Morality and loyalty begin at home... but every child deserves an unbiased, fact-based education, without any interference from ANY religious group. When you adjust the facts to account for one set of beliefs, you detract from developing the child's ability to think for themselves -- and necessarily trivialise the quality of the child's education.

You want to teach religion, then home-school your children.

[tecie.livejournal.com]

I stopped saying the pledge sometime in high school - I don't remember exactly when. It never really had anything to do the the "G-d" reference. I just always put it into the pile of wierd Judeo-Christian references in most of our rituals. It was the fact that I didn't believe the rest of it. Sure, they're a nice lofty set of goals, but let's face it: We're no where near equal justice of liberty for all. We are very divisible.

I decided somewhere along the line I didn't like the idea of pledging my allegence to the US, because the truth is more and more I disagree with actions that this nation is allowing its government to take.

[fervid-dryfire.livejournal.com]

Maybe it would be more agreeable for you to start living in another country, then.

[tecie.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I follow:
I don't say something I specifically don't agree with factually, nor do I pledge my loyalty to them because I know full well it's not completely there. Therefore I should move?
At this time I can't decree my total allegence to ANY country.

Out of respect for Renee, I'll put this politely:
You missed the point of America.
Where you're going with your comments through this thread seem to be the "love it or leave it" mentality, which I also (surprise surprise) disagree with.
The point of our government and social structure has been to adapt to change and accept new ideas.
Even ones that aren't popular.

[fervid-dryfire.livejournal.com]

You missed the point of America.

...your comments through this thread seem to be the "love it or leave it" mentality, which I also (surprise surprise) disagree with.

I didn't miss the point of anything. Your apparent allusion to a shallow mantra of "love it or leave it" demonstrates that you don't at all understand what I've said or why I said it.


...for one thing, if you don't support the nation (and I do specifically use the word "nation" and not "government"), then you should not be in it.

Disagreeing with the government is fine- especially if you're doing it on behalf of the nation- but if you're using that as a personal excuse not to affirm your allegiance to the country, then that's about as petty and self-righteous as you can get. Furthermore, your BS about me missing the point of America is both an insult to the principle of both loyalty and patriotism as well as a failure to understand why someone might actually check your hypocrisy on this issue- and please give a rest on that condescending "by the way, we as a people have to accept unpopular ideas" straw man crap, as it's quite irrelevant to this argument.

[dcnblus.livejournal.com]

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Loyalty, Patriotism, or Hypocrisy? You decide...