Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Does anyone not say "under god" in the pledge at school, and if you dont does anybody notice or care.

By Astrobobocop (Astrobobocop) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 04:06 pm: Edit

I do, and yet I am an atheist. I mostly do it because that is how I learned it, back in the day in boy scouts. Of course, I'm atheist in the sense that I don't follow a religion. Instead, I'm debating with myself and others as to whether there is a God or not. Interesting discussion topic, keeps debates in my White Bread town exciting!

By Brownlovespink (Brownlovespink) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 04:12 pm: Edit

I don't say the pledge at all.

By Saint24 (Saint24) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit

Funny you should mention that. Our Latin class is first period and there are three of us who say the entire pledge, except for the "under God" part. I firmly believe that that phrase should not be in the pledge.

Astrobobocop, you sound like an agnostic to me. An atheist stands firmly that there is no God. An Agnostic is a person who "isn't sure" and doesn't know what is right.

By Julz711 (Julz711) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 06:30 pm: Edit

I don't say the pledge at all. Not only am I firmly against the "under God" clause, but I also don't understand why we need to reaffirm our unquestioning loyalty to our country every day. "Pledging allegiance" is a pretty serious thing when you think about it, and I don't think it's something to be taken lightly (and not something to be done when you're more than half asleep, as I am most mornings). When this is a country that I'm sure I want to pledge my undying allegiance to, I'll do it. And if that time comes, I will say the pledge because I want to, not because I've been brainwashed to do it unquestioningly since I was in kindergarten.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 06:34 pm: Edit

The only things that I pledge allegiance to are my religion, my family, and true friends.

By Haruko (Haruko) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 06:51 pm: Edit

I don't say the pledge (I'm also atheist, though this doesn't affect why), but I do stand up out of respect. There are a few things I find ridiculous about it (we have reduced it into an early morning routine for instance; that's sad.) I do recite the pledge sometimes on rare occassions.

It's a disgrace, however, that this (Californian right?) man is suing for money from the public schools. We barely have enough as it is. His wife speaks against him. I can respect other people's religions and open to learning more, but I don't think he has a case. I feel sorry for the daughter.

By Dragonreborn (Dragonreborn) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 07:04 pm: Edit

In my school...we don't say the pledge, we recite something else entirely different-with sign language.
But even if I have to do the pledge...with "under god" in the statement, I wouldn't give a moment of care. Like Haruko, I'm an atheist and I pledge to no one but for those I love..and what I believe in-myself.

By Quollock (Quollock) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Saint24

Agnostic means that you debate if there is any way of KNOWING if there is a God or not, not if they're not sure.

a (without)
gno (knowledge)
stic

Semantics Freak alert

By Steph0503 (Steph0503) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 07:35 pm: Edit

I'm an atheist, I don't say the pledge, but i put my right hand over my heart. A pledge of allegiance is something meaningless to say if you don't even believe the words. I also find it so amusing how people suddenly become sooo patriotic after 9/11. But I won't get into that.

By Artic (Artic) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 08:21 pm: Edit

I have my AP french class for homeroom and my teacher makes us say it in french. I think that completly ruins the point of the pledge so I don't even put my hand over my heart let alone say the pledge anymore.

By Sammgc68 (Sammgc68) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Juro fidelidad a la bandera de los Estados Unidos de America, y a la republica, que simboliza, una nacion, bajo Dios, indivisible, con libertad y justicia para todos.

By Mochika88 (Mochika88) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 09:03 pm: Edit

I never said it since I was in kindergardem, America's God is not my God

By Conker (Conker) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit

There's a difference between secularists and atheists/agnostics. Some people don't care about religion, while others are vehemently opposed to it. I am of the latter group, and although we don't say the pledge, I would refuse to say "under God" if we had to do it. I see it as a blatant advertisement for the Christian faith.

By Demonllama (Demonllama) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 10:23 pm: Edit

we don't say the pledge of allegiance at my school.

By Wrathofgod64 (Wrathofgod64) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 10:29 pm: Edit

how do the words advertise for the Christian faith. "under God" is different from saying "under Christ" or "under Jesus".

However i can understand if ur trying to say that the authors of the pledge probably had the christian god in mind when they added "under god". Other than that i dont see how it really advertises any particular religion.

By Justice (Justice) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 10:37 pm: Edit

Allah =/ god =/ Yahweh =/ Buddha =/ a lot of things. Its all about semantics. Suing doesn't make much sense, and it is kind of odd that they're going through this all over again since people were arguing over the same thing in the 60s. I have yet to hear a non-ad hominem and non-commemoration-based argument in favor of the "under God" clause.

By Lame (Lame) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 01:33 am: Edit

I neither say the pledge nor stand for it, and was verbally reprimanded for it by my calculus teacher, both in private and in front of the class, for doing so. Good thing teachers these days are unaware of students' rights and all.
Ah the ACLU, how I love thee.

By Welshie (Welshie) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 01:51 am: Edit

It was a Mormon that moved to have "under God" added into the pledge. Woo for Mormonism. To stay more on topic, we don't say the pledge in school but I'll say it (in it's completeness) at certain events, but, like others have mentioned, having to "pledge allegience" is sorta... well... weird and scary. BOO!

-Jesse, you're archetypical, proverbial, fantastical... mormon.

By Neo (Neo) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 11:33 am: Edit

There are some killer quotes in this thread. I like it.

Para mi, I say the pledge every morning because we're asked to please stand for it every morning, but it's more of a joke than anything else, because it's simply something we recite, not necessarily something I believe in.

Ecismyhome hit it right on the nose.

By Ishuku (Ishuku) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 12:48 pm: Edit

I remember when I first came here in 4th grade I was so utterly disgusted at, not the "under god" part, but the fact that we had to have such a frivolous and (for most people) meaningless ritual imposed on us.

As for now, I still stand up because since I live smack in the middle of the Bible Belt, it's unnecessary confrontation if I remain seated. When I was younger I would say all the parts except for "to the United States of America" (I'm not a citizen--I've always told myself that when and if I finally decide to get my citizenship I would start saying that part. It just seemed like a lie to the U.S. as a whole if I said it) and "under god," but recently I've taken to not saying the pledge at all.

Several of my friends also don't say the pledge or just leave out "under god." In my school it's not rare, but definetly not common. No one really talks about it.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 12:51 pm: Edit

This is an instance in which I would refer to the great comedian Dennis Miller. The ACLU does not have ACLUE- they'll fight against "under God" in the pledge of allegience and against nativity scenes in public, but they'll fight for the right of the drunk who stumbles into the scene and fondles one of the sheep.

Seriously, this country is being taken hostage by the radical minority PC police. People who are so concerned about their precious feelings and sue because, as we all know, if you say "under God" your head explodes. It's two fricken words, people, that the majority of the country supports- does it traumatize you that much to hear the word "God." I hate to use this argument, but "God" can be subjective if you want- make it Allah, YHWH, electro-magnetic force, the vaccume of space- and say that instead- no one will really care- or don't say it at all. But there are more important things to get stressed out over than 2 little words in a pledge that most people see as routine anyway. Not everything has to be settled in the courts.

Now, I leave you with a favorite (funny) quote of mine:

"God is Dead."- Nietzsche
*smite*
"Nietsche is Dead."- God

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 12:55 pm: Edit

*cheers Hunter1985*

*vehemently abhorrs the PC police*

By Astrobobocop (Astrobobocop) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 01:52 pm: Edit

I couldn't remember the word i was trying to think of, agnostic, thanks saint24.

By Musefinity (Musefinity) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 02:21 pm: Edit

I'm agnostic and I still say "under God" because it's too much of a bloody hassle not to. We have to say it one or two times a day at my school. My teacher is Christian and won't say it, however. It's not a big deal to me either way. I just hate when people get mad about not thinking it's appropriate to change the pledge to remove it, because it was CHANGED to put that "under God" bit in.

Quollock: Yeah, agnostic literally means "without knowledge" but it's come to also apply to people that aren't sure whether there's a god or not. It's basically the alternative to atheism anymore, atheism being a "theism" that says there totally is not a god. So yeah, he probably is agnostic.

ag·nos·tic
n.

1a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
1b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

By Musefinity (Musefinity) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 02:30 pm: Edit

oops.

By Nightflarer (Nightflarer) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 03:11 pm: Edit

Honestly, who cares if "under God" is in the pledge of allegiance. Saying it isn't going to hurt you in any matter just as not saying it wont hurt you. There are other, much more important things to worry about then a few words of the pledge.
Yeah. That's my two cents.
And yes, I do say the words even though I am not a very pious person.

By Bluealien01 (Bluealien01) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit

I thought they only did that in Elementary school.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

I usually make up something new each time to pledge my alleigance to and pledge it under. I often find myself allied to one Tuva, Orwellia, Esperantoj, Thongland, Der Homeland, Linux, Simcity, or Vichy France under Irving Berlin, Spaceman Spiff, Will Wright, Aldous Huxley, Philadelphia cream cheese, Janet Jackson's right boob, Neville Chamberlain, or Petain.

By Sticksandstones (Sticksandstones) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 03:51 pm: Edit

HAHAHAHAHAH
anyways, I'm Muslim but i usually just mumble the words, not really saying it. I dotn cuz im not a citizen, but our school has a rule that if you dont wanna say the pledge then u still have to stand and put your hands on your chest

By Everet (Everet) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

I don't say the pledge anymore and I just sit down respectfully. Sometimes when we have a substitute they say, "you have to stand up." I say no I don't need to because I'm expressing my freedom of speech and expression. Then I hand her the ACLU press release talking about our rights of not standing up for the flag. That shuts the substitute up. I'm the ACLU president at my high school so yeah...:P

By Rowan (Rowan) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 07:05 pm: Edit

A little background before I give my opinion: mostly agnostic, occasionally non-traditional pagan, have been reciting the pledge since kindergarten, attending a public school in a community that is easily 75% conservative Christian.

I honestly don't care. We (at least at my school) don't HAVE to say it. My homeroom teacher asks everyone to stand up and remove their hats, but no one is forced to say the pledge, much less those highly controversial pair of words.

I like the interpretation of the first amendment that supports the idea that we do not need to and should not persecute anyone who has a certain view -- in this case, the guy with the lawsuit is taking freedom of speech a little far. "Under God" was supposedly added in the midst of the Communist scare in the '50s as a means of patriotic support to the original ideals held by our forefathers (or, as the PC Police prefer, The Framers) who, like it or not, did believe in (a) God and arguably framed the Constitution around several important ideals prevalent in Christian teachings.

That aside, I don't feel the need to protest because a) I don't particularly care; and b) saying the pledge HAS become a pointless ritual. I support everyone's right to say or not say it as they choose. (Though I'd still like a little patriotism -- after all, you *could* live somewhere else.)

But enough of that.

Personally, I think the pledge loses its rhythm without "under God," but that's something else entirely.

-- ro
(who is amused and disturbed by being called a "freshperson" when she goes to college because it's politically incorrect to single out males)

By Ann11 (Ann11) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 07:11 pm: Edit

I am out of high school so saying the pledge really isn't an issue anymore. However, I would say it because it doesn't bother me. I happen to actually like what it stands for (and that is curently and before 9/11) The great thing about being in the USA is that we have the choice to say it or not say it. We also have the choice to challenge it and I am sure most will agree that in many other countries you and/or your family could be shot. We also can agree or disagree with it in forums such as this without fear.

So....carry on

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 09:44 pm: Edit

"did believe in (a) God and arguably framed the Constitution around several important ideals prevalent in Christian teachings. "

The first point is mainly but debatably true, the second is much more iffy. Although many of the forefathers were deists, they still believed in a God (although not an especially active one). Jefferson (although not as big a participant in the making of the Constitution as, say, Madison) probably bordered on atheism/agnosticism, however.

While there are references to Christianity in the constitution, it is frequently argued that the forefathers included those to appease the general American populace, who were very Christian on the whole. The Enlightenment ideas of deism and reductionism just weren't applicable to 97% of Americans at the time. If the Constitution had appeared entirely secular, it would have been far more difficult to get that highly-debated document passed.

However, I do believe that most (if not all) of the forefathers would be disgusted at the idea of having a Pledge at all (which was a 19th-century invention). Like Julz said earlier, pledging allegiance is an extremely serious thing when you think about it. Jefferson did not even intend for the United States to last much more than 20 years, as the Constitution was an imperfect document and would undoubtedly be replaced by better inventions as humanity continued its upward Enlightenment-bound spiral.

(Un?)fortunately, the Enlightenment ended about 10 years after Jefferson said that. Complacence, Nationalism, and romaniticism edged their way in and forced theoretical politics out of the mainstream of American life. We had another religious revival, and blindly pledging allegiance to a particular country incurred no protest.

By Rowan (Rowan) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Well said, Purgeofdoors. Thanks for the corrections.

By Mundanesundays (Mundanesundays) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit

I am generally opposed to rabid political correctness, and I don't personally take offense at the "under God" bit (although I am agnostic), however, I do cringe whenever I hear it - especially whenever I hear the principal of my school reciting it every day. It just seems weird to go to a public school where all mention of religion is completely taboo, and then having something so obviously Judeo-Christian (and Islamic...don't know if that's included in Judeo-Christian) be a part of our morning "ritual".

I think that it is ridiculous to keep the "under God" in the pledge, mainly because of its origin from the 50s communist scare when we had to prove the Christianity of our country. Just that history disgusts me, and I'd say take it out for that reason alone.

I feel like it really is not needed in the pledge, and I don't actually say the pledge, because it feels very creepy (I agree wholeheartedly with Julz711 on this one). However, I get really annoyed by the people like that dad who make SUCH a huge deal about it, when there are really more important things to be freaking out about. Plus, that dad strikes me as somewhat of an idiot, honestly. He really seems like one of those atheists that believes just as strongly in atheism and with just as much blind faith as fundamentalist Christians do.

By T2opine (T2opine) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 11:02 pm: Edit

I've always said the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety. I wouldn't say that I think "under God" SHOULD be in the Pledge, but I don't have a problem saying it. That being said, it wouldn't bother me if they had never put it in at all. Personally I don't think "under God" is unconstitutional, but that's just my opinion.

I know a lot of people who don't say the Pledge for personal or religious reasons, and no one really gives them a hard time. I think having people recite the Pledge every morning sort of takes away the meaning of it. In my class we really don't have anyone who really knows what they're saying in the Pledge. Even the teachers just rush through it.

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:35 am: Edit

I say the pledge mainly because its in the morning and im very sugestiable then. If someone told me to cluck like a chicken i would. Yeah for schools turning students into zombies.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 02:06 am: Edit

Do any of you even believe that America is a nation worthy of your allegiance (under God, or otherwise)? From the great majority of the above post, I would guess not. Why is that? Do you think you'd be better off living in another country, under another flag---perhaps one you might feel passionately enough about to pledge allegiance to? If so, what nation would that be?

By Welshie (Welshie) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 03:17 am: Edit

Watch where you tread there Valpal. I mentioned that having to "pledge allegiance" to anything a bit weird but that aside, I'd say USA is the country for me.

By Got2go (Got2go) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:52 pm: Edit

The future leaders of America on display. Should be fun to see what this country looks like in 20 years.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit

my school dist. stop saying the pledge a long time ago which surprises me cuz' the area that i live in is very conservative and mostly christian (yes there are conservative areas in northern california)

we had a discussion in my civics class the other day ago about the sacramento lawyer who is fighting to take out the under god part (judges are divided)

while most people in my class are repub. there were a few people that agreed that it should be taken out for these reasons:
-it offends them
-they are looking at the validity of having a religous ref. in a govt. saying.
-they feel that the pledge itself is not necessary

i my self believe in god, yet i don't think that that part of the pledge is necessary, i can understand that as we try to be more understanding of other cultures and the fact that they all don't believe in god that it is not 'american' to separate these people.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Welshie, although most likely unintentionally, you were a tad disrespectful. Valpal is not your peer or contemporary.

That said, I believe that she has a valid question.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 01:41 pm: Edit

?
Where is the disrespect, 'Candi'?
Valpal and Welshie, by being on the same internet forum at the same time, are online peers. By existing cotemporaneously, they are contemporaries.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 01:59 pm: Edit

I was taught that you respect your elders, regardless of being on an online forum or not.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Valpal, I think most of the anti-pledge posters on here are exactly that: anti-pledge, not anti-USA. I would choose to live in no country other than America; however, I find it a bit ridiculous to be forced to 'pledge my allegiance' to the country every morning. It goes against many of the principles upon which this country was founded... those same principles which make this country my #1 choice for living in.

On a side note, I have to agree with Jason here: I don't see any disrespect in Welshie's post. I might've worded it differently, but I don't think the younger members should treat Valpal any differently than other posters. She entered this discussion on her own will, and it throws off the dynamics of any honest debate to have to be deferential to a particular party due to traditional constraints.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Of course she entered the discussion of own will, but that's inconsequential. If young people don't learn respectful, deferential behavior now you will be sorely served in life. One can disagree respectfully.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 04:05 pm: Edit

I do not believe in pledging my allegiance to a country; as a dynamic entity, it is constantly evolving. The daily decisions of higher and lower courts, along with the federal and state governments, ensure that today's USA IS NOT the same as tomorrow's, or yesterday's. I reiterate: I give my allegiance to God, to my family, and to a select few friends.


"Watch where you tread there Valpal. I mentioned that having to "pledge allegiance" to anything a bit weird but that aside, I'd say USA is the country for me."
"I was taught that you respect your elders, regardless of being on an online forum or not."

-I still do not see where there is any disrespect. Though worded slightly confrontationally, the comment is open and tells us something about Jesse. In fact, Valpal's original post (that Jesse was responding to) is much harsher, and in fact, much more confrontational. Jesse showed great restraint when replying. No need to rebuke someone when they are not in flagrante delicto.


Edit: (Note: I don't often do edits, but I wrote the above, posted it, then noticed that Candi had written a response.)
"Of course she entered the discussion of [her] own will, but that's inconsequential. If young people don't learn respectful, deferential behavior now you will be sorely served in life. One can disagree respectfully. "
-"If young people"? You're making yourself sound like an old woman. You're 18 - come on, calm down One may be respectful and know one's place without being overtly deferential.
-Deference is something that must be measured out carefully. I agree that one must be careful, especially in today's popular culture of flash-advertising and hipness, to give proper respect to the elderly and to those older than yourself. However, one must also keep one's intellectual integrity sharp, and never compromise. If one always deferred to the elderly, my sister's feet would be bound, I would be a British slave, my best friend would be picking cotton on a plantation in the South, etc. etc. Change is good, and sometimes change may only come about when a younger generation realises that a difference may be made.
-Most importantly: Welshie is maybe a year younger than Valpal, two or three at most. I would count them in the same age group.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit

Neither of my kids have ever attended a school, public or private that required that they say the pledge of allegiance, much less add "under god".

You can be a patriot without having to be a robot

By Dswmo456 (Dswmo456) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 05:16 pm: Edit

we're all communists I tell you!

actually the morning announcements kid left it out one day just to see what would happen and he got suspended. Sucks.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 05:39 pm: Edit

"-Most importantly: Welshie is maybe a year younger than Valpal, two or three at most. I would count them in the same age group. "

Wait... From the way Candi was treating her, I expected Valpal to be at least 35 (or some degree of British nobility). If both Jason and Jesse's profile are correct, I have just been denounced for not showing proper respect to an "at most" 18-19 year old!

I'd like to hear what Valpal says about all of this.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 08:26 pm: Edit

Here's what Valpal has to say about all of this:
First off, I'm 47 (Yeah, and it really bites getting old--). Secondly, I was quite surprised by the overwhelming number of negative resposes concerning the Pledge of Allegiance. I was quite honestly taken aback, because, waaaay back in the dark ages, when I was a teen, most of us didn't feel so "put upon" to recite the pledge. It was just something we did (with the assumed purpose of reaffirming our pride and commitment to our homeland). But most of the time it was done reflexively and without much thought. Still, I doubt many of us would say that we felt as strongly "opposed" to performing this patriotic ritual as many of the above posters do. It made me question what has changed so drastically in America, that perhaps a majority of its young people now feel opposed to performing this simple patriotic ritual. It made me wonder if they oppose the pledge to the flag because they harbor distain for the nation the flag represents. All countries have such rituals, meant to promote pride and unity. In some countries, you certainly would not have the option of NOT performing them. But most of the time in America (and rightfully so) you Do have the right to opt out of these rituals---which is yet another reason why America is such a great place to live.

In my own case, dispite the fact that my ancesters arrived upon these shores under shameful circumstances. despite the fact that there have been many instances during my lifetime when I suffered the soul robbing consequences of overt racism, I am very proud, and feel very blessed to be an American citizen. And I am reminded of these things everytime I say The Pledge of Allegiance. My above post was predicated upon the perception that many young people seem a lot less "invested" in the ideals of America than those of past generations. Granted, I could certainly be wrong in that perception... Only you can tell me how you feel about being a citizen of this country. I DO understand that the mere act of pledging allegiance does not "prove" a person's patriotism, or lack thereof. I was just curious about the reasons for the current atmosphere of "pledge distain".

As for the "under God" part, I could take it or leave it. It is, in my estimation, a small thing. But I do still find value in the ritual, and hope most other Americans do also.

By Ishuku (Ishuku) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 11:52 pm: Edit

Valpal--

To answer the question about citizenship simply, all I can say is that I'm a Canadian and I never have and most probably never will have any desire to be naturalized.

By Neo (Neo) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:02 am: Edit

Valpal,

I think a large part of the disdain the students/posters here have expressed concerning the pledge might be due to the fact that the pledge is rather dehumanized in many public schools today. I mean, it's sort of a numb ritual, or a joke, or something to that effect when students do it everyday unthinkingly, without seeing rhyme or reason for it.

We just say the words because we're told to -- and that's not a very compelling motive. I believe the majority of American citizens would rather live here than in any other country, but the pledge doesn't have a connection to the country at such a level. Some posters don't feel comfortable repeating a 'pledge of allegiance' like robots, day after day, especially when they don't truly believe in it at that level. It depends.

But it doesn't mean we dont' love our country. It just means that we don't take the pledge seriously because it's become as basic as the multiplication tables we learned in grade school. Except that we're not forced/compelled/urged to recite our times tables every morning.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:07 am: Edit

Ishuku, was there anything in my post that gave you the impression that I included foreign nationals in my accessment of American kids' attitudes about The Pledge of Allegiance? I have no problem with your decision to never seek American naturalization. Obviously, as a Canadian, you have every reason to be proud. Are you opposed to expressing Canadian pride by way of the traditional rituals Canadians have of doing so?

By Ishuku (Ishuku) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:19 am: Edit

My main objection was just that point!

When I went to school in Canada, we learned to love and respect our country by discovering its benefits and beauty for ourselves. Never did we have anything like the pledge of allegiance imposed on us. The pledge is nothing but a (failed) attempt to brainwash children into mindless solidarity--The same kind of 1984ish "4 legs good, 2 legs bad" repetition drilled into kids' heads since elementary school.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:35 am: Edit

Neo, in my childhood, the pledge was probably even more ritualistically performed. We did it in "devotionals" every morning before school, along with---gasp!---prayer, desk-side callisthenics, and a rousing rendition of "Good Morning to You!" (Good mor-ning to YOU! Good mor-ning to YOU! We're all in our pla-ces with sun shiny faces---LOL---I can still hear it in my head). In public school, no less. And obviously, it turned me into an utter and complete robot. I shoulda' sued, I tell ya!

I suspect that one reason many of today's kids find the Pledge ritual meaningless, is because it has become "cool" to be as jaded as possible. Most kids find it much more acceptable to openly criticize America than to praise it. I suspect that "the Pledge as act of patriotism" (especially in certain parts of the country) are thought to be right up there with dorkiness and virginity and fundamentalist Christianity. It's just NOT COOL!

But just because something is ritualistically performed does not mean it is devoid of meaning. It really can be a matter of your attitude toward it.

By Ishuku (Ishuku) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:42 am: Edit

The last generation, the so-called generation X, was the jaded group (remember "Okay Cola"?). We, on the other hand, are generally optimistic, albeit more politically aware and cynical XD

1) Dorks are the new sexy. See also: Emo glasses and librarian porn.

2) It's not so much that virginity isn't "cool" as it is not a big deal. Being a virgin doesn't denote you to being a goody-goody with a pocket protecter, but it doesn't make you some awesome figure of pureness either. In fact, I overhear kids talking in school encouraging their friends not to "give away the v-card".

3) Aaaaand living in Alabama I can tell you that fundamentalist Christianity is still alive and kicking (and doing rather well) in today's youth.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:44 am: Edit

So, you never sing, "O Canada"? You offended by the Maple Leaf's omnipresence over the skies of Canada? Are you telling me you have NO national traditions of patriotism? ...Interesting...

By Tommgurrl5 (Tommgurrl5) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:45 am: Edit

I don't get the big deal of whether undergod is in the plege or not, you can choose to say it or not... Debating about it is stupid, and I'm not even christian or catholic

By Ishuku (Ishuku) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:50 am: Edit

We sang "O Canada" all right--at assemblies, on Canada Day, and other appropriate shows of patriotism. Not every. Single. Morning. I have nothing against the American national anthem. In fact I am maybe in the minority of students at my school who actually know all the words to it.

By Ishuku (Ishuku) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 01:01 am: Edit

Oh, and these are just my personal experiences, of course XP I don't know whether things are done differently in other schools or provinces.

The maple leaf is not a god. It is...well, a leaf.

I don't have problems with America. I'm not a citizen so I don't feel right "pledging allegiance" to a country to which I don't even legally belong.

I don't have problems with patriotism. It's a wonderful show of devotion to one's country, no matter what that country is. For example, I also attended school in China and once every week all the students wore special uniforms and gathered in the courtyard, where the flag was raised and we sang the anthem about how great China was. And I sang.

I don't have problems with christianity or religion in general. It's just a personal preference.

Hell, I don't have problems with the PLEDGE, as long as it's not mandatory (which it isn't). I don't know when this became an attack on my childhood or on the countries as a whole.

Were I American, I would say "to the United States of America." Were I of any faith at all, I would say "under God." However, I am neither--and not even of my own fault, as I would have to wait another few years even if I wanted to become a U.S. citizen. So what's the problem?

By Jadesark (Jadesark) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 02:25 pm: Edit

We don't have to say the pledge in the morning at my school, but we do say it at assemblies. I always leave out the "under god" because, for one, I'm an atheist, and two, I find it totally inappropriate that a public institution would declare our nation "under god". Someone in this thread said that those two words were in the original pledge, but that's incorrect. They were added in 1954 to seperate the us from the "godless communists", which doesn't quite make sense to me, but I can sort of understand why it happened. I think it's pretty obvious that "under God" should be taken out. And I also see nothing wrong with being "PC".

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 04:56 pm: Edit

Political correctness WILL be the death of the country. It leads to the general discouragement of institutions and traditions in favor of feelings and self-esteem. It leads to a generation of kids not ready for the real world, and takes away personal responsibility. For example, dodgeball is outlawed in many schools for "self-esteem" issues- but isn't life just one long 75 year span of getting hit in the balls by on thing or another. It's ridiculous to the point where now, instead of just dealing with minor inconveniences in our lives, we become offended and sue. PC is terrible.

By Mundanesundays (Mundanesundays) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 05:32 pm: Edit

Wow...our generation is taking some hard hits, and I'd like to stand up for it a little bit - at least for the majority of kids on this board, who are mostly intelligent and thoughtful.

I feel uncomfortable saying the pledge of allegiance because (besides the 'under god' part) it doesn't seem to leave much room for criticism. The words themselves aren't bad at all (besides the 'under god' part) - it's the creepy feeling I get from it. The pledge has, for me, a connotation of saying "America is great. America is great. America is great," even if that's not the actual meaning. I don't like mindlessly reciting things. If I feel patriotic about America, I'll express it in my own way, thank you.

I'd like to comment on the idea that "if you don't want to say the pledge, then you shouldn't live in America". Honestly, I think this is a little ridiculous, and along the lines of "if you critisize America, you shouldn't live here", and the accompanying argument "be glad you live in America, because you wouldn't be allowed to speak out against the government if you lived in most other countries."
My response, which is similar to that of others, I think:
I am very happy to live in America, mostly because of the ideals the country is based upon. Equality, freedoms of speech, thought, expression, and the pursuit of happiness....those are great principles. I am constantly grateful that I live in a country where I'm allowed to think for myself and critisize the government in a thoughtful way. Thinking critically does not make me, or anyone else, anti-America, or anti-American values. The country has a lot of flaws at the moment, as most countries do, but I think that striving towards those ideals is an extremely important goal, and we're never going to get there without criticism and change.

Please don't think that just because we speak out against the pledge, or against the government, we are terrible and unpatriotic. Just because I'm not wearing an American flag teeshirt and singing patriotic songs, does not mean I don't appreciate my country.

By Ndcountrygirl (Ndcountrygirl) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 09:59 pm: Edit

We live in America and have the privilege to choose whether or not we want to say the pledge. Lucky for all you people.

Adding on to the original topic of this thread, if people have a problem saying "under god" in the pledge, why does no one complain about "In God we trust" on every piece of money in the USA....

Shouldn't the atheists complain that it violates their rights to handle that money everyday? Just something I've always wondered about. Give me your thoughts.

By Encomium (Encomium) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 10:15 pm: Edit

I'm an athiest and I don't even stand during the pledge (i'm nice)

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 10:59 pm: Edit

I'm a kid, and I'm not in that majority you talked about, but I would still like to consider myself "intelligent and thoughtful." Despite what many colleges and public schools have brainwashed into kids, saying the pledge does not throw you into an Owellian world. I don't care if you don't say it, but I'm sick of people who think they are such deep thinkers for opposing anything the majority does. So, yeah, it's that "intelligent and thoughtful" comment I have a problem with.

But ah, the dillusions of the pseudo-intellectuals! Those who haven't lived and think they know everything (not that I'm getting on a pedastel, I group myself with this group sometimes, other times I just remember that I do know nothing). College kids who haven't paid taxes thinking they know everything about economic policy, high-schoolers who assume that anything the govt. does is automatically wrong, etc. Just something I find ammusing.

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 11:02 pm: Edit

-"For example, dodgeball is outlawed in many schools for 'self-esteem' issues"

I weap for my future. Whats next calling american indians, native american indians?

By Sfe (Sfe) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 10:13 am: Edit

Well I'll go further: I've always wondered why "patriotism" is considered such an unalloyed good thing anyway (and I'm in my fifties). As somebody has observed, ALL nations have their nationalistic slogans... and none of them are "We're number two."

I think "patriotism" can be a device used to encourage people to behave like unthinking sheep who believe they are somehow better or more worthy of human compassion than people in other countries. After all, it'd be hard to find more patriotic people than the Nazis were!

What matters to me are VALUES - not what country somebody lives in. Frankly, according to my values, I (a US citizen) feel more allegiance to a progressive, open-minded person from Uzbekistan than I do to a closed-minded bigot from say, Wyoming (picked at random - no offense intended). Why should I feel a binding loyalty to a random group of people who just happen to be living within the arbitrary invisible boundary of a given "country"?

I would venture to guess that most teenagers didn't CHOOSE their nationality, based upon a logical assessment of different countries' values, beliefs, etc. Even if you're an immigrant, your parents probably made the choice of where to live, based upon any number of factors - economic, language, etc. What does it really MEAN when a KKK member from Alabama and a descendant of slaves from Chicago pledge "allegiance" to the same country? I don't think they have the same values in mind.

I think the progress of human civilization could be viewed as a continuum where the definition of one's "tribe" is becoming ever larger. When we were hunter-gatherers our allegiance was only to a family kinship group. Over time larger groups became the basis on one's allegiance... feudal societies, nation-states, nations. The IDEAL, in my view, (not yet achievable I realize) would be a true "nation" of humans - where we support people whose values align with ours - regardless of country of origin.

By Mundanesundays (Mundanesundays) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 04:25 pm: Edit

>>I'm sick of people who think they are such deep thinkers for opposing anything the majority does. So, yeah, it's that "intelligent and thoughtful" comment I have a problem with.<<

...I never said that people who do say the pledge aren't intelligent and thoughtful, I said that most of the kids on this board are, including the ones who don't say the pledge. I wasn't trying to dis the people that do say the pledge...I was just defending those who don't.

Just as people who do say the pledge are by no means all mindless idiots, neither are those who don't.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 07:26 pm: Edit

"I'm sick of people who think they are such deep thinkers for opposing anything the majority does."

Thank you, Hunter.

I hate to come across as forward and offensive, but I hate liberal thinking. It seems to me that liberals only goal in life is to "flip flop" the world from the way it is now. Contrarians irk me, and I view liberals as contrarians.

Saying the pledge doesn’t cause any harm; it only does good. The recital of the pledge gives many a feeling that they have a special covenant with their country, which means they’re more likely to join the military and die for their country. This creates a sounder military, which can defend people’s freedoms more effectively.

If you don’t want to be influenced by the “brainwashing” of patriotism that the daily recital of the pledge promotes, then just show respect and say it, but just ignore the meaning behind the words. In the end, the entire “stupid pledge crap” leads to more effective defense of your freedoms, so it is good.

Oh, and as for the “under God” part of the pledge, it simply reinforces peoples patriotism by appealing to their sacred belief in the magic oven in the sky.

Sheeze, next thing you know liberals will be complaining about the word "blessings" in the preamble.

By Quollock (Quollock) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 08:15 pm: Edit

ROTFL

The pledge does not make people make patriotic (especially so they can join the military) Consider this:

The pledge was introduced in 1942. World War II! This pledge did not include "under god". A lot of people joined the military that were even draft-exempt. There was a low amount of draft dodgers. We at home got pumped up (Go Rosie)

During the Vietnam War there were, um, problems. Can you say draft dodgers? The anti-war protest was born, "Veterans Agaisnt the War". Keep in mind these people grew up in the 50's when "under God" was added.

See for yourself.

Sincerely,

A Flip Flopper

PS I like to say what I mean.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Just so you know, I referred to God as "the magic oven in the sky" to prove a point. I genuinely hope I offended some people with it.

Just as the concept of God is one very dear to peoples hearts, the pledge is very dear to my heart. Sure, removing "under God" is just a slight alteration, but calling God "retard" is just a slight alteration, too.

It pains me to see so many selfish individuals on this board. Instead of thinking in the best interests of society, you're thinking in your own best interests.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Well, what do you think the pledges intent was exactly?

I know the intent of adding "under God" was not to make people more patriotic, but I think it does, and I think that's a reason we should keep it.

And yes, I know that unpatriotism prevails in modern society, but not requiring the pledge just lowers patriotism one more knotch than it already is.

By Mundanesundays (Mundanesundays) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 09:59 pm: Edit

dear goodchocolate:

I think that America is in no way lacking in patriotism right now. Maybe it is in the traditional sense on this board, but have you ever gone out in the past two and a half years without seeing an american flag somewhere (on a bumper sticker, billboard, front lawn, etc etc)? Honestly, if some people choose not to say the pledge, I don't think that the country will be devoid of patriotism. And like I said, you can have patriotism without mindless recitations.

By Fsuguy (Fsuguy) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 11:39 pm: Edit

To the people refusing to say the pledge--is there any military history in your family? Do you consider yourselves patriotic?

By Mongoose (Mongoose) on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Hm. I noticed that this board has not been updated in over two months. However, I would really like to add something on the subjects of patriotism and the separation of church and state. Perhaps a previous poster might check this site in the near future or something, or perhaps recent activity on this thread might draw some attention back to it.

Anyway, on to my opinions on these issues.
First of all, I do not say "under God" while reciting the Pledge, and I earnestly question whether I believe in reciting the Pledge at all. I think "reciting" is an important word: as some of the other posters have noted, the government-supported (though not coerced, as I believe most of us have noted) daily recitation of the Pledge in public schools is intended to serve as a vehicle through which a sense of patriotism can be reinforced in the minds of each successive generation. Before we look into the morality of this concept to begin with, let's analyze the use of the phrase "under God" as a part of this recitation.

Each generation, through reciting the Pledge, is intended to develop an appreciation of God's grace to our nation, and an appreciation of the divine powers - however one wishes to describe them - that have enabled our nation to exist and prosper. Perhaps, depending on one's interpretation, "under God" also serves to reinforce a notion of national unity and indivisibility. I would like the readers of this post to note that I am giving my interpretation of the rationale for the existence of the phrase in the Pledge; I am strongly agnostic (i.e. I see no verifiable proof in both the nonexistence and the existence of a god, so I choose to make no leap of faith - considering the endless variety of beliefs that leap could constitute, none of which are any more provable to me - and thus neither believe nor disbelieve in God's existence) and do not believe that any divine winds have graced our particular nation, neither during its founding nor at the present time. My religious philosophy (which I could not hope to describe in full in a thread to which it is only indirectly related, so please just respectfully tolerate my beliefs and keep your responses limited to the actual discussion) is only applicable to this discussion in that the Pledge, through implying that faith in God is a national principle, conflicts with my beliefs and with the beliefs of many Americans who have chosen, for whatever reason, to question traditional faith-based schools of thought. If our form of democracy is one in which all religious beliefs - beliefs on which the government has no right to tread in any form, in respect to the democratic principle of allowing every voice an equal ground - are equally protected and accepted, than we have committed hypocrisy by attempting to teach (as government policy) faith in public schools, a belief that runs diametrically opposite to that of many rational Americans. Beyond that, I believe many theists - whom I honestly respect and in no way mean to discredit based on this issue - would have a moral argument against the use of the phrase "under God" in the pledge: why, exactly, is the United States under God? Why has the God of the entire human race crowned the United States as the nation to be protected for all eternity? Why does He keep the United States under His wing? One could argue that the freedoms enshrined (though with a variety of interpretations, apparently) in the foundations of our democratic government's foundations have earmarked our country for some Divine Providence. Fine and dandy. However, there is an undercurrent to this concept that I don't like. How does our being under God affect the actual living, breathing people of our nation, as opposed to the people of nations that might not be so fortunate? Shouldn't we receive an equal footing in that regard? Why would God bless specifically America, in other words? And how can we be possibly helped by maintaining the belief that God is always (or usually) on our side, and not occasionally on the other (or, since I believe there is a plurality on every issue, another)? Such arrogance keeps the general populace from seriously questioning the actions and principles of our nation and will only lead to our downfall. The government, in essence, should not attempt to enforce theism in any form in the hearts and minds of its people. Hopefully, one can gather from my statements that I am also against government enforcement of nontheism; government leaders can refer to their Koran, their Bible, their Vedic texts, their Bertrand Russell, their Voltaire, their C.S. Lewis, their what- or whomever all they want for guidance, but never should an attempt be made by our democratic government to show one path as a true or better one, as happens when theism is injected into a national Pledge of citizenship.
Some people, including ones on this thread, fail to see the existence of possibilities beyond a theistically-motivated government and an atheistic one. Secularism must be understood for what it is. Government is supposed to be representative of the people as a whole, which means no invasion of such personal intellectual territory as one's religion must ever take place.

As for the mottos such as "In God We Trust," etc., I have the same feelings. However, those are separate aspects of the same subject, and for now, we must concentrate on the issue at hand. "Under God" supporters who wish for rational debate must recognize that church-and-state separationists have to focus on one issue at a time, and this one holds some primary importance because it affects the rights of our children.

On a final note on "under God," I get disgusted every time someone brings up the idea that they are only two unimportant words. Obviously, if they were that unimportant, why would they be there in the first place, and why would you work so hard to keep them in there (often by making references to the supposed benefits of theism in government)? "Under God" means something to some people because it institutionalizes their feelings of the link between God/religion and the government; it means something to others because it conflicts with their religious beliefs and their political beliefs in the separation of church and state.

Second, recitation of the Pledge is believed to build patriotism. While I agree with many previous posters in that this recitation has devolved (though we must question how long and how often it ever has been a serious declaration) into mindless ceremony, I stop myself before claiming that this alone is reason to denounce the Pledge. Through a renewed emphasis on civics in secondary school (which must absolutely always mean completely open debate and acceptance of minority views), we can hope to invite exploration into the nature of the Pledge and to reinvigorate interest in the principles which are believed to serve as the basis for the Pledge. The questions we must ask are what exactly patriotism means, and whether it should be served through a Pledge, coerced or not.

First of all, I will describe my feelings on patriotism. As I have stated, I don't feel that America is guaranteed to always be la creme de la creme, the nation of nations, just because of its democratic foundation. We must acknowledge and support the possibility that a better system (perhaps just a progression of our own) can be eventually formed in another nation, a system from which we could we could benefit in some form. Mundanesundays views the (largely post-9/11) abundance of stars-and-stripes-related bumper stickers, etc. as a sign of strong patriotism. Most may agree, but I personally don't believe in the flag-waving form of patriotism displayed in every commercial market in America and plastered (well, at least they were plastered for a year or two after 9/11/01...) on half the cars in my community. To me, that is nothing but a dangerous, fad-like, anti-intellectual force. By anti-intellectual, do I mean flag-wavers are stupid? That's definitely not what I'm saying. Do I mean that what I describe as flag-waving is an emotion-driven force that exists based on an unquestioning, a priori recognition of America as the world's greatest country? Yes. I also am frustrated by people who try to end rational debates on patriotism by stating that people should just look for somewhere else to live. Look, our country can only improve - and you should hopefully be able to see its need for improvement by a careful look around - if we point out its problems and work as hard as we can to fix them. Though I personally refuse to label myself politically, I definitely do not reject the basic liberal principles; if we need change, if we need equality, if we need freedom, then we should respect those who are dedicated enough to work for them, instead of complacently stating that we should live with our problems. Though there may be emotion-driven liberals who wish to reverse the status quo for the heck of it, people who want change may sometimes have truly rational reasons and plans for it. I will call myself patriotic here, because I am dedicated to helping my country and its people by working to change it for what I believe is the better, while recognizing the advantages when they exist of other countries and while - unlike G.H.W. Bush - being willing to admit its mistakes. To me, that is patriotism.

Some claim that the Pledge should pose no ethical problems to anyone because its recitation isn't coerced. However, the Pledge is essentially the formal statement of citizenship, and it is an official declaration from our democratic government, and the ethics of its existence and suggested recitation must therefore be examined. Basically, I believe that no one should be forced to be patriotic to a country because he or she was born there. A person should not be expected to feel love for Pakistan, the USSR, Columbia, Canada, Armenia, Swaziland, or the USA simply because he or she is a native of the said country. The said country could practice policies that he or finds extremely immoral, and the person should be under no legal or social obligation (and yes, I realize that in many other countries someone WOULD be under a legal obligation) to identify with or support his or her government. Thus, should we attempt to lead people to devotion to their country via the Pledge of Allegiance? I believe such devotion should be through a personal decision made by rationally-thinking individuals, not through any pressure from elders, peers, or the government, as happens when one is expected to pledge their allegiance. Some people may not believe patriotism includes my determination to change and improve my country, some live in countries in which such change is improbable, and some people may resist the nationalist spirit of the Pledge for other reasons, and the beliefs of all of them should be respected, and therefore patriotism-by-birth should not be expected or encouraged from all.

On a last note, I would like to respond to a statement made by goodchocolate:
"It pains me to see so many selfish individuals on this board. Instead of thinking in the best interests of society, you're thinking in your own best interests."
If someone's "own best interests" mean that their freedom of religion is not encroached upon, then his best interests are everyone's best interests in our democratic, equality- and freedom-providing country. "Reverse discrimination" cannot be claimed when some desire the words "under God" to be removed from the Pledge. Some people desire a change in the Pledge because it conflicts with their equality and freedoms; if that change means removing an element of theistic superiority in our government, something which should have never been there to begin with, then so be it. Theism would in no way be limited by this change; it would be given the same equality in the non-government realm as agnosticism, atheism, deism, nontheism, etc.

Anyway, that's just what I wanted to say. Mature responses are welcome.

By Mongoose (Mongoose) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Um . . . just a note to anyone who actually does read this . . . I apologize for the verbosity and that post and the general tendency to ramble . . . noticing a few grammar mistakes and things . . . just one thing I saw (and there are probably others I missed when I scanned this) that I wanted to point out: the line about "the foundations of our democratic government's foundations" . . . um, yeah. That should be either "the foundation of our democratic government" or "our democratic government's foundations." Oh yeah - the thing about C.S. Lewis, Voltaire, Russell, etc. I in no way intended to show these philosophers (and a Christian apologist) or their writings as being parallel to the mentioned sacred texts, other than that these men and their philosophies serve to illustrate the variety of ideologies and philosophies that may influence those in power. These are influences, along with the sacred texts, that may affect the mindsets and actions of our representatives, but should not become part of our actual government and its official documents.

By Mongoose (Mongoose) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 06:13 pm: Edit

I know no one will read this, but I just visited CC for the first time in about a month and I noticed some other things that deserved correction or rephrasing in that post: "Columbia" should have been "Colombia" (unless, of course, someone here wishes to talk about cities/rivers/etc. in addition to countries); and yes, I realized when I wrote this that the U.S.S.R. is no longer a country (I just intended it to be another example, one that represents a variety of different aspects of nationalist pride). Also, in that other post, I meant the "verbosity of that post."

Well, that was fun. I'm off to consult my shrink about the OCD.