© 2003-2006 David Moles
Chrononautic Log |
|
Main |
|
Secular, schmecular II11 o'clock, March 4, 2003From Philippe de Croy, via Rob, with regard to the recent Ninth Circuit decision that (government-mandated) recitation of the McCarthy-era “under God” clause of the Pledge of Allegiance by teachers and students violates students’ freedom of religion, an irony: if nobody cared about it, the Ninth Circuit’s decision would look worse, because that indifference would suggest that as a matter of public meaning the “under God” phrase is genuinely insignificant and doing no harm (or good). Conversely, though, the angrier that people get about the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, the better the ruling tends to look. Me, I’m unhappy about pledging allegiance to the flag, period. I’d find it much easier to get behind something like the congressional oath of office: I do solemly [swear or] affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge — okay, not “the duties of the office on which I am about to enter”; let’s say my duties as a citizen of the United States. (Optional: “So help me God.”) Now, the oath I had to sign in college in order to work for the UC, to support and defend the Constitution of California — is there somewhere I can publicly repudiate that? ‘Cause nobody should have to defend something that badly written. Correction: When I originally posted this I was under the impression that the Newdow case involved whether students could be forced to recite the pledge; that has been considered unconstitutional since 1943 and W. Va. State Board of Education v. Barnette. The decision in Newdow holds, rather: that (1) the 1954 Act [of Congress] adding the words “under God” to the Pledge and, (2) [the Elk Grove Unified School District]’s policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment]. Whether or not you recite it yourself. |
Comments |
|
Since I'm now working in an elementary school, I hear the Pledge every day. I mentally edit to my own liking: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the IDEALS for which it stands: liberty and justice for all. BTW, what's the difference between freedom and liberty? |
|
The point being that, if most teachers are not aware that saying the pledge is voluntary, the previous 1943 ruling has not been enforced. It would have been interesting to take a poll of teachers, say a few years ago, to discern if they considered the pledge "mandatory". I know it was always presented as mandatory to me. |
I wish I'd known about that 1943 W. Va. State Board of Education v. Barnette case back when I was in high school. Every Monday we had to stand up and recite the pledge, and when I tried to stay seated my teacher threatened my Music Theory grade.
Actually, I think she let me not say the pledge, but I had to stand up and put my hand over my heart. I wonder if that's allowed -- forcing students to stand during the pledge, whether or not they recite it?
Anyway, pretty much the whole class, (being the rebels, ooh, naughty that we were) put our hands *down* during the "under god" bit. The teacher let that go.