News Why is reciting the pledge of allegiance in schools controversial?

[SOS2008]

But I don't believe this Pledge case was really about coercion.

Even without the words "under God' the Pledge or any pledge is coercion, and has always been controversial within religion. For example, I remember Jehovah Witness children who did not participate in the Pledge based on the commandments ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me." And in reference to the flag, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.) They were the minority who were made to feel a lesser citizen.

If this Court challenge is part of a movement to remove all assertions concerning "God" from all aspects of public life, because certain persons believe such assertions represent an adoption of, and perhaps in some instances, a COERCION towards Christianity - then say it so. Coercion is unlawful. ...What is at issue is whether these actually represent an expanded role of Church adoption in affairs of the State, or rather, merely raise the appearance of an "intent" to do so.

The intent is not to remove reference to God or any other element of religious practice from the "public square." This is fundamentalist hype. It is only to keep it separate from state, meaning out of publicly funded institutions such as schools. And yes, the Christian majority in this nation has tried to expand it's role in affairs of the State for years. As I have posted, the words "under God" were added to the pledge in the 1950s and 'In God We Trust" to currency in the late 1930s--not so long ago, certainly not in view of the passage of history.

Lastly, I must re-assert that this case will actually serve to reinvigorate the religious Right movement - to bring religious ideals and adoptions more into state - at a time when the largest Court in the land, the Supreme Court, is preparing to become dominated by religious Conservatives - who will have authority to carry out such an agenda. As such, it is critial that those with differing positions come together. Diplomacy is truly an art - and seems to be in short supply today.

As another member stated above, the constitution and laws of the land are not negotiable. School prayer was finally ended, and the religious right went bonkers. They are already pushing back harder with the teaching of creationism via ID in public schools. Are you suggesting that if we left school prayer in place, the fundamentalists would not be pushing the ID angle now?

Unfortunately, the direction of the Supreme Court is a sad concern. It is too bad that many people did not understand the impact of this while voting under duress about terrorism. It will likely be a divisive matter that will split our country further.

 

[Astronuc]

New evolution spat in schools goes to court

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (Reuters) -- A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian conservatives against educators and scientists in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Eleven parents of students at a Pennsylvania high school are suing over the school district's decision to include "intelligent design" -- an alternative to evolution that involves a God-like creator -- in the curriculum of ninth-grade biology classes.

The parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) say the policy of the Dover Area School District in south-central Pennsylvania violates the constitutional separation of church and state, which forbids teaching religion in public schools.

They also argue that intelligent design is unscientific and has no place in a science curriculum.

Intelligent design holds that nature is so complex it must have been the work of an God-like creator rather than the result of natural selection, as argued by Charles Darwin in his 1859 Theory of Evolution.

- http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/23/life.evolution.reut/index.html

 

[Moonbear]

It seems it's just time to do away with the pledge altogether. If a kid or his/her parents think it's important to say it daily, they can do so in front of the flag in their own front yard. Let's face it, the only real reason it's said in class anymore is that it's a routine that makes it easy for a teacher to quickly gather the students to order before beginning lessons. Do kids even know what it means? I think I made up half the words when I was in school. I think I said "invisible" instead of "indivisible," and sure didn't know what "indivisible" meant. It's a pointless exercise and since we're over 50 years past the Cold War fears that inspired pledges and oaths of allegiance, I think it's time we simply recognize it's something that can be done away with.

One thing that concerned me though was that I read that the most recent ruling forbids people from saying it in schools. That's too far to the other extreme. It should neither be compulsory nor forbidden. The teachers should not require it, but if a student or group of students wants to gather in the morning and recite it anyway, they still have the right to do so.

 

[Skyhunter]

It seems it's just time to do away with the pledge altogether. If a kid or his/her parents think it's important to say it daily, they can do so in front of the flag in their own front yard. Let's face it, the only real reason it's said in class anymore is that it's a routine that makes it easy for a teacher to quickly gather the students to order before beginning lessons. Do kids even know what it means? I think I made up half the words when I was in school. I think I said "invisible" instead of "indivisible," and sure didn't know what "indivisible" meant. It's a pointless exercise and since we're over 50 years past the Cold War fears that inspired pledges and oaths of allegiance, I think it's time we simply recognize it's something that can be done away with.

One thing that concerned me though was that I read that the most recent ruling forbids people from saying it in schools. That's too far to the other extreme. It should neither be compulsory nor forbidden. The teachers should not require it, but if a student or group of students wants to gather in the morning and recite it anyway, they still have the right to do so.

Nicely said Moonbear.

I gree with you completely.

 

[Astronuc]

Nicely said Moonbear.

I gree with you completely.

I'll second that!

As for -

What is the purpose of having children recite a pledge to begin with?

I am sure the school administration uses it to instill pride in (or patriotism for) one's country (or flag, as a symbol of the nation). Reciting the pledge is common at civic events, e.g. meetings of the local Chamber of Commerce, and in the Boy Scouts - part of 'good citizenship'. There is a similar purpose when the National Anthem is sung at a sports event - it's part of the indoctrination process (group think).

The goal is 'CONFORMITY'.

and this is a big problem for me.