Can a Pledge of Allegiance ever be constitutional?

[Ihmhi]

Can a Pledge of Allegiance ever be constitutional?

Can America really standardize a Pledge of Allegiance? Excluding the military (in which the soldiers must say it to affirm their allegiance for tactical purposes), can they really make one all-encompassing pledge that can apply to everyone?

[Godless Wonder]

"They" can always do whatever "they" want, provided that "they" outnumber "us" sufficiently. I have always thought that the most un-American thing imaginable would be a compulsory pledge of allegiance.

In any case, the pledge of allegiance is stupid. You are pledging allegiance, to what? To our country? To "our way of life?" To the ideals for which this country stands? No. To the flag. To a piece of frickin' cloth. The pledge of allegiance itself is the extreme opposite of all that it means to be American, at least the way I learned it.

I have never understood why patriotic people get so wound up about the pledge of allegiance, or desecration of the flag. The flag is a symbol which means that it stands for something. The flag itself is not that something, it is a symbol representing that something. Desecrating the flag is thus a symbolic gesture, that is, a means of communicating, sending a message, that is, a means of "speaking", as in... freedom of speech. My point is, there is no point in protecting the symbol, the flag, by force of law. when such protection destroys the very thing the symbol stands for, (e.g. freedom of speech, for one) Enacting legislation, or constitutional ammendments to protect the flag would not merely be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it would be a case of throwing the baby out for the sake of the bathwater. Would you protect the (physical) flag while destroying the very (ideal) freedom for which it stands? Are you a simpleton? Let them burn the flag, and be glad we live where such acts of freedom are permissible.

The pledge of allegiance is similar. A coerced pledge is infinitely worse than no pledge at all. Even in the military. (You think some terrorist infiltrating the militiary will have any qualms about saying the pledge of allegiance? Think again.)

[Ihmhi]

Does anything our government does make sense? I just read today in The Star Ledger (the big newspaper in NJ) that that courthouse with the Ten Commandments in front is going to be keeping it. (I don't remember where it is.) Anyway, I recall one of the protestors there saying something stupid like "the only reason we have law is because God gave it to us" (I'll have a direct quote in a day or two). There was a counterprotest across the street consisting of 35 atheists. They said that it was unconstitutional for the Ten Commandments monument to be in front of the court. The part about the protest got about 10-12 paragraphs of space, the part about the atheist counterprotest got like three paragraphs. Good thing the Star Ledger doesn't use "Fair and Balanced" as its motto.

[Speedy-Lube]

Wasn't the Pledge written by a communist, and did not include "under god" orignally, until a congressional order that it be inserted?

[pariah]

I don't understand patriotism in the first place...it was always my thought that the government existed to serve me, not the other way around. Right???

Speedy lube, I'm not sure if it was written by a communist, but Eisenhower (Not him directly? I know it was under his term) had it changed to make the distinction between us and the communists.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Speedy-Lube
Wasn't the Pledge written by a communist, and did not include "under god" orignally, until a congressional order that it be inserted?

It was written by a socialist Baptist minister, before there were communists. It originally did not include "under God". The law establishing the Pledge was amended by Congress in the mid-50's (under Eisenhower).

[VonEvilstein]

Originally posted by Godless Wonder
In any case, the pledge of allegiance is stupid. You are pledging allegiance, to what? To our country? To "our way of life?" To the ideals for which this country stands? No. To the flag. To a piece of frickin' cloth.

Thankyou so very much! You've made my day. I've been wating for so long to read these sentiments, which I share, coming from an American (unless I assume too much based on your loaction...).
Pledging alliegiance to a piece of cloth is every bit as stupid as swearing fealty to a circle made of gold.

[Ihmhi]

The phrase "Under God" was added in 1957 during the Mccarthy era (in which they though Communist = godless, and that a Communist would refuse to pledge allegiance to any nation "under God"). Great. More atheist stereotypes.

[keitht]

Can America really standardize a Pledge of Allegiance? Excluding the military (in which the soldiers must say it to affirm their allegiance for tactical purposes), can they really make one all-encompassing pledge that can apply to everyone?

Just to clarify, the military doesn't require you to say THE pledge of allegiance. There is an oath, specifically to protect and defend the Constitution. You can swear or affirm and the god part is at the end, and can be dropped off at the desire of the person taking the oath. The oath is truly ceremonial. Thats usually when people get their pictures taken. The important (legal) part is when you sign the contract.

Keith

[StrictSeparationist]

Originally posted by Ihmhi
Does anything our government does make sense? I just read today in The Star Ledger (the big newspaper in NJ) that that courthouse with the Ten Commandments in front is going to be keeping it. (I don't remember where it is).

If you're talking about the state judicial building in Alabama (as it seems you are from your talk of the recent protests and counterprotests), then your source is a poor one. Whatever Moore may say, prominent politicians in Alabama are lining up on the side of rule of law. The governor, state attorney general, and all the other justices of the state supreme court have expressed their willingness, in a rather tentative way, to comply with the lawful order of the district court. I think the monument will be gone by the weekend, but not without a lot of complaining by Moore and his Christian fundamentalist chorus.

[Toto]

Ihmhi is, I suspect, talking about the Chester County Courthouse in Pennsylvania, which had a rather more inconspicuous plaque on a side door with the 10C. The 3rd Circuit decided that it was not blatant enough to violate the First Amendment (or something like that.)

More in this thread. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56663&highlight=philadelphia)

[Rational BAC]

Originally posted by Ihmhi
The phrase "Under God" was added in 1957 during the Mccarthy era (in which they though Communist = godless, and that a Communist would refuse to pledge allegiance to any nation "under God"). Great. More atheist stereotypes.

1957 does not sound right. Actually I know it is not right since I lived through the changeover and it was most definitely not 1957. I would say 1954, maybe 1955.

I remember I was a kid in an army base school in Japan when the teacher told us one morning "Sorry about this but you have to relearn the Pledge of Allegiance in a new way"--------None of us ever got the "new way" right after being accustomed to the old pledge daily for 5 years. -----

---We all stumbled and mumbled our way through it and never really got the hang of the "new way". I ended up sticking "under God" at the end of it since I always forgot where it was supposed to go. Actually it sounds better "stuck on" at the end than any other place anyway.

I left Japan in 1956 though so I know the changeover occurred before then.

[southernhybrid]

The pledge was ammended to include the words under god in 1954.

See here for details (http://www.heresyhouse.com/quiz/spoiler08.html)

Again during the height of the Cold War, when McCarthyism hysteria gripped the land, the National Reform Association and religious institutions saw that the time was ripe to make their move. In the typically hysterical language of the day, the Committee on the Judiciary published on May 10, 1954, that "...one of the greatest differences between the free world and the Communists, [is] a belief in God." It was urged that the Pledge of Allegiance be altered to recognize god. PS 623 (77th Cong., 56 Stat.) effectuated that end.

Count me in as one who thinks the flag worship thing is absurd. I've been protesting the pledge since the late 60s by refusing to stand or repeat the pledge in public gatherings. Even during my political activist days of the 60s, actual flag burnings were rare. They were simply expressions of free speech. It's only a piece of cloth and these days it's getting difficult to even determine what that symbol represents.

[Boatrocker]

Forcing anyone to pledge allegiance to anything is facist, and should be clearly unconstitutional. No oath has any meaning unless given voluntarily.

[StrictSeparationist]

Originally posted by Boatrocker
Forcing anyone to pledge allegiance to anything is facist, and should be clearly unconstitutional. No oath has any meaning unless given voluntarily.

And the Supreme Court agrees with you, at least so far as the Pledge of Alligeance is concerned. In the Barnette (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=319&invol=624&friend=oyez) case, which has been discussed in other threads about the Pledge, the Court held that forcing a student to say the Pledge violates the First Amendment.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by VonEvilstein
Pledging alliegiance to a piece of cloth is every bit as stupid as swearing fealty to a circle made of gold.

Well, but don't overlook the grammar; you're also pledging allegiance to the republic:

"and to the republic for which it stands..."

It seems to me that the idea is, one must pledge allegiance to some flag or other--that's the underlying assumption. That is, one must declare their ultimate allegiance to one country or another. So, allegiance to the flag is equivalent to allegiance with the country that bears it. I admit it's kind of an archaic concept, but I'm partial to it, myself.

Perhaps it would be better to say we were pledging allegiance with the flag, but to the republic...that might help solve some things for some folks. I agree no one should be forced to say it.

[pariah]

who else thinks that the government to should pledge allegiance to the people, and not the other way around...?

[Rhaedas]

Originally posted by keitht
Just to clarify, the military doesn't require you to say THE pledge of allegiance. There is an oath, specifically to protect and defend the Constitution. You can swear or affirm and the god part is at the end, and can be dropped off at the desire of the person taking the oath. The oath is truly ceremonial. Thats usually when people get their pictures taken. The important (legal) part is when you sign the contract.

Keith

And IMO the Constitution is much more important than the flag or allegience to the republic. While I agree that having some ceremonial tribute, especially a mandatory one, is ludicrious, that piece of paper is really what the country is supposed to be about, and have much more power than any flag.

Personally I've been meaning to look around for a replica 1776 flag to fly...for some reason it has more meaning to me than the standard one you can buy in Wal-mart, made in China.

[keitht]

Personally I've been meaning to look around for a replica 1776 flag to fly...for some reason it has more meaning to me than the standard one you can buy in Wal-mart, made in China.

You might try a teacher's supply store for that 1776 flag. Doubt there's much market for something like this, outside of a middle school social studies class.

Keith