BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Atheist Pledge of Allegiance

Americans: Are you for or against requiring students in public schools to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and why? Would the removal of the words "under God" that were added to the pledge in 1954 change your opinion one way or another? Does your state have a pledge as well? Do you feel a state pledge is necessary or useful?

Citizens of other countries: Does your country have something similar to a pledge of allegiance? Is recitation of said pledge required in public schools? What do you think of the American Pledge and the requirement that public school students repeat it each morning?

As an American, I can honestly say I don't think it matters. I don't believe that any compelled or tricked oath is binding, much like a "broken seal" or click through EULA. I think the indoctrination of our more sheep-like young citizens is thoroughly accomplished during the other 15 hours and 59 minutes of the day. I think that it might provide a useful lesson in the ways of the world to our more cynical students, and a demonstration in etiquette to our more aware ones. But again, that's readily done elsewhere.

I didn't hear pledge in any course of studies here as I didn't pledge for anything so far except my marriage. just heard medical staffs have to pledge about their carrier and care of patients when graduated from university.

I am unsure about a mandotory recital of the pledge in schools, will have to think about that, but I am AGAINST the "in God we trust" portion being mandatory in public schools for sure!

It's not legally binding, that is certainly true. All the same, I would maintain that it does more harm than good to require citizens to pledge allegiance in a way that forces them to submit themselves to something they don't even believe exists. "One nation under god" implies that we are under the dominion of a deity, and that concept completely violates not only my understanding of our nation's philosophy but also of my own personal belief system. Inasmuch as freedom of religion and freedom of speech are considered essential to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I would hold that requiring citizens to recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the principles upon which this nation is founded. Regardless of the fact that the pledge is not legally binding, I still do not find it so trivial as to dismiss enforced recitation of it as something that "doesn't matter."



Are you saying that recitation of the Pledge should be required because it teaches students that liberty is an illusion? Furthermore, are you defining etiquette as the art of going along with the crowd and/or authority figures in spite of having to violate the most basic elements of your belief system to do so? Wow, that's pretty cynical. If that's how you see things, then you must think that the U.S. Constitution is nothing but a worthless old rag either. Perhaps you think we should just abolish the Bill of Rights altogether and accept the ways of the world with no delusions of individual freedom.

Not only is it not legally binding, it's not morally binding, or frankly socially acceptable in the student community.



Waaaitaminnit. You're saying that the implication of the dominion of an airy guy-in-the-sky (who doesn't do any dominating, btw) is bad, but pledging allegiance to a freaking cloth rectangle is OK?

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source al�le�giance (ə-lē'jəns) Pronunciation Key
n.
Loyalty or the obligation of loyalty, as to a nation, sovereign, or cause. See Synonyms at fidelity.
The obligations of a vassal to a lord.


[Middle English alligeaunce, alteration of ligeaunce, from Old French ligeance, from lige, liege; see liege.]

al�le'giant adj.

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright � 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

I think the "under God" bit is hardly the most objectionable. Especially when I really think it's a bit of a stretch to think it is to be taken literally. There's an awful lot of poetry going on in the pledge. Indivisible...1861-1864? Liberty and justice for all...Innocence project?



What is this enforcement thing you keep talking about? I've never seen any kind of enforcement. Heck, in my school, the only people that said it were the insufferable student government/pep squad types. A lot of students didn't even bother to stand. The right of students to not say or stand during the pledge is long established.



straw man


First of all, are you really saying that the foundation of your belief system is shredded by speaking two non-literal words in a meaningless micro-ceremony? Second of all, I define etiquette as:

et�i�quette /ˈɛtɪkɪt, -ˌkɛt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[et-i-kit, -ket] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
�noun 1. conventional requirements as to social behavior; proprieties of conduct as established in any class or community or for any occasion.
2. a prescribed or accepted code of usage in matters of ceremony, as at a court or in official or other formal observances.
3. the code of ethical behavior regarding professional practice or action among the members of a profession in their dealings with each other: medical etiquette.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1740�50; < F �tiquette, MF estiquette ticket, memorandum, deriv. of estiqu(i)er to attach, stick < Gmc. See stick2, -ette]


�Synonyms 1. Etiquette, decorum, propriety imply observance of the formal requirements governing behavior in polite society. Etiquette refers to conventional forms and usages: the rules of etiquette. Decorum suggests dignity and a sense of what is becoming or appropriate for a person of good breeding: a fine sense of decorum. Propriety (usually plural) implies established conventions of morals and good taste: She never fails to observe the proprieties.

So yes, giving false testimony is a fundamental principle of etiquette.



Hardly. Although it's got a high percentage of textile fiber, I'm fairly certain it's still considered paper. And I'm absolutely certain it would fetch a good price at auction, given sufficient publicity.

You didn't want a serious response did you? That would be a different thread altoghther.

Nope, don't say the pledge, don't stand. I don't think children should, either. It's weird indoctrination attempt. You make them pledge something.... Nah. Schools should stop the practice. I don't think it helps and it's just plain silly.

I never said anything of the kind. In fact, I think that's downright repulsive, as well. To swear allegiance to the flag, not to the Republic but to the flag itself is repugnant. Hence my original question about whether you thought being forced to recite the pledge was problematic or not, and whether the wording "under God" made a difference or not. For me, the whole thing's disgusting, and the "under God" part even more so.

I'm not sure what you were expecting to prove by loading up on dictionary definitions. I know the meaning of the word allegiance, but thanks anyway. It always adds to the argument when someone belittles your intelligence.



Ah, well then why didn't you just say so in the first place unstead of passing the entire thing off as inconsequential and inoffensive?



Apparently you haven't been in a public school in the last decade. I, on the other hand, have a high school student attending public schools in Texas. FYI, the Texas House of Representatives passed a state law on May 31, 2003 requiring public high school students to cite the Pledge of Allegiance not only to the U.S. flag but to the Texas flag as well (which makes me wonder when they'll throw in a county and city Pledge of Allegiance to make it complete), followed by a moment of silence. The only way to avoid recitation is to have parents sign a written request, but how may students want to be singled out as the atheist amidst a horde of Christians? I will admit that in practice, very few teachers enforce the rule, but those who do can resort to disciplinary action if students don't comply.

My 15-year old son, who now simply refuses to stand or recite, has in the past (a couple of years ago, I think he said) been forced to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance against his will by a rather militant Christian teacher, and he of course complied under threat of punishment. He did not know then that he could have me sign a waiver to get him out of it, so he didn't mention it until recently. (In fact, I only found out about the waiver by doing some research on my own.) Since then, it hasn't been as much of an issue, although I'm more than willing to write and sign a note requesting that he not be forced to comply and to hand deliver copies to the Principal and any teacher complicit in this nonsense if he wants me to.

Anyway, here's a link about the Texas law for those of you who aren't up to date on the situation:BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Oh yeah, and as of last Friday, the words "under God" have been added to the Texas state Pledge of Allegiance, too:
House Votes to Add God to Texas Pledge

What the heck does it mean to pledge allegiance to a state anyway? What, are we swearing not to cross state borders or anything? Does swearing allegiance to Texas mean you can't vacation in Florida or New York? Would purchasing out of state goods be considered a betrayal? Is it illegal for me to send my kids to an out-of-state college? This whole Pledge of Allegiance nonsense is really getting out of hand here in Texas...

Not to mention that the Texas State Legislature also passed a law guaranteeing public school students the right "to offer public prayers at football games or graduation" and "hand out religious messages or hold religious meetings [on campus] during the school day." Yes, students in Texas who proselytize on campus are now protected by state law. I'd find this almost as offensive as the Pledge thing except that I can't wait until this turns around and bites them in the butt when some kid starts handing out Satanism literature.
Texas House Allows Religion in School

Do you seriously find all of this so incredibly harmless?

I guess that's where we differ. In my (admittedly irrelevant to anyone other than myself) opinion, pledging allegiance to real, concrete, extant entities (like the state or a flag) is far and away the more problematic part, as the state can take action to force you to comply with your words. God doesn't. In fact, the inclusion of God makes the whole oath less binding, since it introduces elments of absurdity into it. If it were also to include fealty to the Seelie Court, the flying spaghetti monster, and the Great Pumpkin, I think noone would even begin to take the pledge seriously. I realize that this is an atheist board, and therefore concerned with issues of religious encroachment, but I thought there were more important issues. As for using dictionary definitions, I do that because you asked me how I defined etiquette. So I defined it, not as I would define it, but as the word is actually defined, and then evaluated my thoughts and your question in relation to that. Were I a lexicographer, I would be a prescriptive one. I will confess annoyance to personal definitions. Words mean what they mean, the only way to engage in reasonable discussions is to agree on the meaning of words beforehand. Otherwise, you wind up like Xeno wiggling his fingers on the side of the road. I'm glad you included the wink, it was never my intent to belittle your intelligence. Quite the contrary. I wouldn't bother arguing with anyone who wasn't smart.



But see, that's just it. Since the pledge is a bit of inconsequential, non-literal, poetic fluff, I don't take it seriously enough to care about it. It's therefore inoffensive to me. Only things that matter, that can harm you, that you can compete with can be considered threats.



True. And never in Texas.



I'll admit to not understanding how this happened, other that thinking "It's Texas." I do notice that this is dated four years ago. Has this not been Challenged? It seems like a standard ACLU case. And they'd win.



Things must have changed since I was a high school student (back in the Reagan years and in another state). Then, conformity to authority was not well regarded. Bad boys got laid, good boys didn't.



In this case, I really don't think it was a question. Or rather, it was a rhetorical question, one not intended to elicit information, but designed to highlight what you think is a flaw in the argument by reductio ad absurdam. I.e., "Do you realize that your premise leads to the following consequence?" is technically a question (hence the question mark) but functionally a statement. What makes the "question" particularly egregious is that nowhere did I even begin to advocate the compulsory recitation of the pledge nor the concept that freedom is an illusion, so your question was doing some begging as well.




It's also bad etiquette to kick in someone's door in the middle of the night and to put them in prison for recreational drug use, but that's the government for you. I do have an honest question: At what point does the aversion to religion become more important that courtesy? Does it matter if it's in your own country, or will the extra burden of being a guest in another land make you more or less likely to swallow your beliefs? I'm thinking of the Japanese custom of saying itadakemasu and gochisousama deshita at meals. There's a strong element of religious thanks in the meaning, and they're universally used, even by non-believers, as a simple matter of courtesy. At a Catholic wedding, will you refuse to sit/stand/kneel with the congregation? Would you not even attend a church wedding? The graduation of a friends child from a religious school? Or is it all about government coersion? In that case, would you visit a Sharia-governed country?