Jayhawker Soule

Facism implies more that "really yucky".

doubtingt

Definitely does and I can't think of anything more facist than the state using an authoritarian
ritual to manipulate the beliefs and values of children.
Virtually every extreme right-wing regime has used this approach. Americans usually recoil with disgust when they see it in other nations, but as usual, we are too arrogant to recognize when we are guilty of the same.

Arrowman

I don't find it disturbing; in fact, I am pleased that the discussion here has remained focused on the real issue - the religious nature of the "Under God" part of the Pledge.

The issue of "patriotism" is a red herring from the Christian Right and both atheist and Christian supporters of Church-State Separation would do well to avoid it like the plague. It doesn't matter what your personal feelings are on the rest of the Pledge - keep 'em out of the CSS debate or you'll just give the opposition a free kick.

I think that's taking it a bit far. Most supporters of Pledge recital (and I'm not one of them) are just conservative types who think it's a "Good Thing". As others have pointed out, the Pledge can be taken in many ways and it doesn't have to be a jingoistic "My Country, Right or Wrong" pledge.

I don't support forced recitation of the Pledge (or its Australian equivalent) - not because I think it's "authoritarian" but because it's pointless. It's ceremonial patriotism which is as shallow and meaningless as the ceremonial deism of the "under God" words. (The latter, of course, is one of the reasons so many Christians support, or at least, don't oppose, the removal of those words.)

2tadpoles

How many kids realize that it's optional? Especially elementary school students?

We never said the pledge in junior-high or high school, but we said it every single day from K all the way to sixth grade. It never occurred to me (as a child) that I could opt out of the pledge. It certainly was never made known to us. And even if it had been, what little kid wants to be the ONLY one to take a stand?

Maybe things are different now, but I don't think so.

Of course, I find most things associated with institutionalized schooling to be fairly repugnant. The pledge is not alone in that respect.

Tangie

rebelnerd

Ditto here.

From all enemies, foreign and domestic. Having "under god" in the pledge clearly violates the 1st Ammendment. Those who would advocate it's maintained inclusion in any national pledge are getting dangerously close to domestic enemy territory IMHO. I also agree that having children recite this (the pledge) under compulsion (whether real or percieved) when they don't even understand what it means, is simply attempting to foster blind obedience in the state (and theism by it's inclusion in the pledge.)

Filo

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Filo Quiggens ]</p>

doubtingt

I think you're way off here and are missing the entire point of the Church state separation issue.
The fundamental issue is freedom of thought. The importance of the "wall of separation" lies in the fact that religious institutions are designed to and historically have used their influence to control thought. Thus, it is crucial that they not be allowed to use civil law and the formal powers of the state towards these ends. ANY use of government coercion, whether religiously rooted or not, to coerce opinion undermines individual reason is a violation of the most crucial constitutional principles.

If atheists care only about religious mind control and are not equally concerned with all authoritarian coercion then they are simply anti-religious and have no principled ground to stand on.

As for pledge supporters being "just conservatives", these unthreatening "conservatives" have consistently revealed their desire to control thought and speech from creationism in schools, to censorship of books and art, and their support for authoritarian policies and institutions. They think the pledge "is a good thing", because they place no value on freedom of conscience.

Secular Elation

How many kids realize that it's optional? Especially elementary school students?

So? The point is that, if they were informed (and they should), they would know it is optional.

We never said the pledge in junior-high or high school

I've had to do the pledge since kindergarden all the way to where I am now - a senior in high school. It has never stopped.

Hobbs

I always wondered about the flag part. That always seemed bizarre to me, even when I was an elementary school kid (though I was probably only one of a very few kids who bothered to think about the meaning of what I was being told to say. I stood, but in silence; I didn't join in the recitation; nobody bugged me about it). Unfortunately, though, as the flag-burning controversies show, far too many people are more loyal to the symbol than to the reality it symbolizes. Even as a kid, pledging to a flag seemed to me to be too close to "my country, right or wrong." "Right, whether my tribe goes along with it or not" always appealed to me more.

How about teaching kids about history, constitutional principles, etc (as was stated before, put education back in the schools), and then when they can understand what they are pledging to, offer them (not coerce, or lead a class in reciting, but offering an example of a synopsis of something they may want to pledge their allegiance to) a pledge that states something like:

"I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it establishes, a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people, with liberty and justice for all."


Then we can take the little commie bastards who refuse to recite the pledge and kick their worthless heathen butts to Cuba or Iran where they belong.

2tadpoles

I asked: "How many kids realize that it's optional? Especially elementary school students?"

Secular Elation replied: "So? The point is that, if they were informed (and they should), they would know it is optional."

What do you mean "so?" As the mother of a child who attended public school for nearly three years, I can say that many children are NOT informed about this. The teacher says "let's say the pledge" and the kids do it. That is how school works.

Going against what the teacher says gets you the label of "disruptive." No teacher ever told me that the pledge was optional, and no teacher ever told my husband or son that it is optional. That was my entire point.

When did you learn that the pledge is optional?

Secular Elation

What do you mean "so?"

"So" as in "so what?"

As the mother of a child who attended public school for nearly three years, I can say that many children are NOT informed about this. The teacher says "let's say the pledge" and the kids do it. That is how school works.

That is a problem. I would hope that the teachers would make effort to let it be known that no has must recite the pledge. But I suppose the teacher probably thinks it's best for them to say the pledge, so the teacher says nothing.

Going against what the teacher says gets you the label of "disruptive." No teacher ever told me that the pledge was optional, and no teacher ever told my husband or son that it is optional. That was my entire point.

Yes, it cannot be denied that those who dissent from the pledge are considered disruptive. I suppose dissenters will have to be brave.

[b]When did you learn that the pledge is optional?[b/]

Some time ago...but I can say that I had to find out myself that it was optional. No school official told me that was the case. It's a pity I had to dig out the information myself.

On a side note, I think a big reason why school teachers and officials do not inform the students the pledge is optional because doing so would sound like the school officials are encouraging students to decide whether they want to say the pledge or not. This somehow leads to more students taking initiative, I suppose.