The Pledge of Allegiance in schools

socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by Crashbandicoot
http:///forum/post/2557688
I have to disagree with you crimzy . It is EVERYBODY's responsability to instal morals in our future generations as far as pride as a nation . We all need to step up to the plate and be rolemodels for the youth .

Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2557893
Its an interesting argument, but why does your desire to have the right to freely chose not to participate override my right to freely chose to participate. If we ban the pledge from schools, then you are treading on my right to chose to participate. As for requiring a student to kneel or pray, perhaps not, but by the same token do they have the right to tell students that they cannot pray? I understand your freedom of choice not to participate, but I also have the freedom of choice to participate.
 
skipperdz

skipperdz

Active Member
Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2555835
Still say it in some schools out here in Wyoming, but its a hit and miss thing. Sad to see things like that go away. Whether you agree with the way it is written or not, it is one of the things that helped make our country what it is today. JMO, but God Bless American and The Human Race!
i think you mean Bless America and the human race...dont want to upset some people here...
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2557893
Its an interesting argument, but why does your desire to have the right to freely chose not to participate override my right to freely chose to participate. If we ban the pledge from schools, then you are treading on my right to chose to participate. As for requiring a student to kneel or pray, perhaps not, but by the same token do they have the right to tell students that they cannot pray? I understand your freedom of choice not to participate, but I also have the freedom of choice to participate.
This argument is inaccurate because no one has suggested that the pledge be banned. There is no court or school official who would be justified in preventing students from saying the pledge on their own if they so choose. Just like a student is free to pray during recess without any problem. So let's not suggest that the schools are PREVENTING a student from participating. The only issue is whether the school can sanction, or even obligate students to say the pledge. Important distinction here.
 
acrylics

acrylics

Member
We said it every AM in school but I don't remember being compelled to do it, we just did. There were probably some mornings where some kid didn't say it but I don't remember there ever being an issue.
While I agree it is everyone's responsibility to instill morals in future generations, the sad fact is that it's not happening. Some parents don't seem to be up the task to parent well. If parents would *not* park their kids in front of the Playstation, *not* park their kids in front of the TV, *not* park their kids in front of the computer, and take a more active role in the rearing of their children, then maybe, just maybe, children could be able to look to them as role models. Until that happens on a grander scale, we will continue to whine about some superstar basketball players being bad role models and schools having to teach kids some sense of morality. Many parents sure aren't doing it, they don't seem to want the responsibility of raising a child. Perhaps this is due to (or at least blamed on) the 2 family income so parental supervision is not present or at least consistent, in such cases parents ought to *not* keep up with the Jones' and consider the responsibility they took on when they had that child.
/soapbox
As for Constitutionality; when the Constitution was written many states, municipalities, and schools did teach religion to children. Remember "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". *Congress* was not allowed to make laws with regard to religion but states, towns, etc., certainly could, were expected to, and often did. This was understood.
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2558837
As for Constitutionality; when the Constitution was written many states, municipalities, and schools did teach religion to children. Remember "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". *Congress* was not allowed to make laws with regard to religion but states, towns, etc., certainly could, were expected to, and often did. This was understood.
This is not the current state of the law. I pulled the case of ILLINOIS EX REL. McCOLLUM v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 71. This is a US Supreme Court case that was decided in 1948. This case highlights an attempt to bring several mainstream religions into the schools and court's reasoning in shooting down the connection of religion with a secular, public school.
Facts:
"In 1940 interested members of the Jewish, Roman Catholic, and a few of the Protestant faiths formed a voluntary association called the Champaign Council on Religious Education. They obtained permission from the Board of Education to offer classes in religious instruction to public school pupils in grades four to nine inclusive. Classes were made up of pupils whose parents signed printed cards requesting that their children be permitted to attend; 2 they were held weekly, thirty minutes for the lower grades, forty-five minutes for the higher. The council employed the religious teachers at no expense to the school authorities, but the instructors were subject to the approval and supervision of the superintendent of schools. 3 The classes were taught in three separate religious groups by Protestant teachers, 4 Catholic priests, and a Jewish rabbi, although for the past several years there have apparently been no classes instructed in the Jewish religion. Classes were conducted in the regular classrooms of the school building. Students who did not choose to take the religious instruction were not released from public school duties; they were required to leave their classrooms and go to some other place in the school building for pursuit of their secular studies. On the other hand, students who were released from secular study for the religious instructions were required to be present at the religious classes. Reports of their presence or absence were to be made to their secular teachers."
Court's Holding (in part):
"The operation of the State's compulsory education system thus assists and is integrated with the program of religious instruction carried on by separate religious sects. Pupils compelled by law to go to school for secular education are released in part from their legal duty upon the condition that they attend the religious classes. This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith. And it falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment (made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth) as we interpreted it in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1. There we said: HN1"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. 6 Neither can force or influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. 7 Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'" Id. at 15-16. The majority in the Everson case, and the minority as shown by quotations from the dissenting views in our notes 6 and 7, agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State."
This opinion was written by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and he's referencing Thomas Jefferson.
 
acrylics

acrylics

Member
I understand completely that this is not the current state of law, you'll reference "When the Constitution was written...". I pointed it out primarily to show that we did teach (or at least had the "right" to) this in schools for ~170 years in this country and we seemed to survive okay, we even prospered. Not arguing it either way and not offended either way. But one could argue that things haven't become any better since, from a "moral" point of view. ETA of course many things have become better such as blacks' rights, women's rights, etc., but these have little to do w/ religion being taught in schools IMO
I, for one am fairly tired of the PC nonsense. IMO it goes along with folks being "offended" by "Christmas vacation", wanting to change the name to "winter break", "Halloween" becoming "harvest festival". I guess what I'm getting at is that IMO it's okay for this country to have traditions, even if they are rooted in religion, and the "under God" line in the Pledge is no different, at least IMO. And I am *far* from a religious person in any formal sense. 'Course this may be going into a different tangent and for that I apologize but I think they are very similar.
I mean are we going to really re-write the first 2 paragraphs of the "Declaration of Independence" to reflect a more politically correct atmosphere? Similar principle IMO
Again, not arguing it either way other than traditions themselves do have a way of unifying a people and this is exactly the purpose of the Pledge :)
 
scopus tang

scopus tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2556743
The common theme here seems to be "what is the harm in reciting the pledge". And to that, I agree that it's really pretty innocent, even if you don't believe in its virtue. However, I am not sure what the harm is in eliminating the pledge from a school setting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but school is a place for children to learn math, science, history, english, foreign language, etc. Why can't the parents take on the responsibility of teaching national loyalty and/or religious deference . . . This argument is inaccurate because no one has suggested that the pledge be banned. There is no court or school official who would be justified in preventing students from saying the pledge on their own if they so choose. Just like a student is free to pray during recess without any problem. So let's not suggest that the schools are PREVENTING a student from participating. The only issue is whether the school can sanction, or even obligate students to say the pledge. Important distinction here.
Perhaps I interpreted wrong here, but in the school I teach in, if something is eliminated, thats pretty much the same as banning it. Additionally, as several people here have already stated, one of the values of the pledge is the unifying effect it has, as it is said together. If you eliminate that portion of it, and simply allow individuals who so chose to say it on their own or during recess, than you have devalued it significantly in my opinion. Saying the pledge is not the same as praying.
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Crashbandicoot
http:///forum/post/2559031
There is your answer right there .
Are you suggesting that the pledge of allegiance is not actually a "pledge" of "allegiance" but is actually nothing more than a history lesson? Grasping at straws here...
 
crashbandicoot

crashbandicoot

Active Member
OH poor crimzy . It is both and you know that . It is a pledge and it is a part of history . I am just using your own words against you .
 
m0nk

m0nk

Active Member
Originally Posted by Crashbandicoot
http:///forum/post/2559031
There is your answer right there .
Yeah, there's no merit to this argument. There is no direct and specific historical knowledge to be gained just by reciting the pledge.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Ok, I have question. would ANYONE have an issue if the pledge was recited as it was originally written?
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands -- One nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all"
Also how many people actually know that this pledge was written by a Christian Socialist in 1824?
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2559085
Ok, I have question. woulkd ANYONE have an issueif the pledge was recited as it was originally written?
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands -- One nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all"
Also how many people actually know that this pledge was written by a Christian Socialist in 1824?
Well, I don't think anyone really had a big problem with the pledge to begin with. However to answer your question, I think that in your example, the courts would have a much more difficult time eliminating the pledge. If it was purely secular then it becomes no more of an issue than displaying the flag would, or singing the national anthem.
 
crashbandicoot

crashbandicoot

Active Member
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I find it funny that you all wish to use the last part of the pledge to your own agenda yet don't give it any merit as a whole . I say we cut out from the One nation under god on . That seams to be what the liberals all want . NO god involved Sure as heck want to divide us as a nation take away liberty and just for all and just give those to the special interest groups .
 
m0nk

m0nk

Active Member
Originally Posted by Crashbandicoot
http:///forum/post/2559092
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I find it funny that you all wish to use the last part of the pledge to your own agenda yet don't give it any merit as a whole . I say we cut out from the One nation under god on . That seams to be what the liberals all want . NO god involved Sure as heck want to divide us as a nation take away liberty and just for all and just give those to the special interest groups .
Now that's a 2 way street, liberals aren't the only ones giving things to special interest groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top