Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I love this story. A group of kids at Boulder High School are protesting the school's policy of requiring classes to say the pledge of allegiance every day:
Waving signs and American flags, Boulder High School students this morning will stage the first of what could become many Pledge of Allegiance protests in the school courtyard.Members of the activist Student Worker club are inviting their peers to leave class every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. -- when the pledge is recited over the intercom -- and meet in the courtyard to say a revised version of the pledge that doesn't reference God.
Here's the alternative pledge they wrote:
I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all.
I like it. I'd much rather pledge allegiance to ideas than a piece of cloth. And I like their reasoning:
Members of the student group say they have three main gripes with the way the traditional pledge is read at the start of second-period classes: It takes away from school time; it's ignored or disrespected by mocking teens; and the phrase, "one nation, under God," violates the separation of church and state."Boulder High has a highly diverse population, not all of whom believe in God, or one God," Martens said. "We didn't think it was fair for the whole school to have to listen to it.
Naturally, Jay at STACLU has his panties all bunched up over it. Here's his take on their version of the pledge:
diversity: This refers to ethnic, racial, sexual orientation, etc.
Gee, ya think?
part of one planet: I think this one is two fold, but I'm not sure. I think its a salute to the tree huggers, but even more it seems to cut at the soverignty of our country.
Of course. Because any mention of the fact that the US is actually part of a world full of other people obviously undermines our sovereignty. (waiting for eyes to stop rolling)
"with liberty, freedom, choice": I think we all know what 'choice' they are referring to here. It most definitely isn't school choice.
Or perhaps the choice to not stand and mindlessly repeat an empty pledge but rather to declare one's commitment to a set of ideas rather than to an emotional symbol. I think we should be applauding these kids for actually thinking for themselves and not just falling prey to simplistic appeals to their emotions and to tribalism.
And of course, there are others throwing a fit about it. Some are even demanding that the kids be punished:
"The organized student boycott of the Pledge of Allegiance at Boulder High School yesterday was a ridiculous display of immaturity, ignorance and intolerance that should punished by the school," said the Right Rev. Council Nedd, the national chairman of In God We Trust USA..."The only thing offensive about this whole episode is that children in Boulder High School are not being taught to respect their fellow students who believe in God or to appreciate America's historical belief that our liberties come from a higher power and not from government," he said.
Well there ya go. If someone who doesn't believe in God is told to recite a pledge every morning declaring this a nation "under God", that's no problem. If one of them objects to that, they're just not respecting those who do believe in God. We get to force our views on everyone else and if they don't just keep their mouth shut and go along, they're not showing their proper respect to our authority. How magnanimous of you, massah.
Here's video of the students:
Comments
These kids are great! This kind of thing takes incredible courage.
clap clap clap clap clap clap....
...darth
Posted by: darth | October 1, 2007 9:40 AM
This student-led protest is exactly what needs to occur nationwide, preferably before the next US Supreme Court case on the pledge. I hope this gets a lot of publicity. The use of an alternate pledge, one which stresses ideas and removes the religious aspect, is extremely helpful.
While I hate the extremes to which "framing" can go, if ever there were an acceptable use of framing, proposing an alternate pledge would be an example of it. Of course, I dislike the idea of there being a pledge at all, but if there is going to be one, this new one isn't too bad.
Posted by: Karst | October 1, 2007 9:59 AM
In Colorado no less. I love it. I think these kids made my morning.
And that pledge is a great first start. Next we need to get rid of references to the flag and make it an oath to protect the Constitution and the human rights it upholds and it would be something worthy of repeating every morning.
Posted by: NonyNony | October 1, 2007 10:05 AM
I think I'm going to show this to our kids. One just entered middle school and the other 1st grade. Of course I'm "only" a step-dad to them, so I'll see how it goes with the other dad.
Posted by: daenku32 | October 1, 2007 10:14 AM
@NonyNony
This is Boulder, CO. which is often described as 'East Berkeley' (or variations of that theme). Its a college town and swings very much to the left complete with price controls (although they may of ended that I don't know).
Interestingly - when I lived their in the early 90s - the Promise Keeper movement was just starting and the founder was the former football coach for UC. The first two (three?) promise keeper gatherings were in Boulder. There is nothing more relaxing than drinking a Boulder Porter off the tap while watching groups of old guys trying to witness to the population of Boulder.
Posted by: yoshi | October 1, 2007 10:21 AM
The first objection is irrelevant: It's during Home Room and the kids aren't working anyway. The second objection is also irrelevant: Because others are disrespectful is not a good reason for anyone else to be disrespectful. The third objection is factually incorrect: Both the 9th Circuit and the Supremes have rules otherwise. Overall, though, it rates as pretty good analysis for the High School level.
Plus, don't they know removing God from schools leads directly to Columbine-type situations? Don't they have to take a history class?
See, it's easy to write for STACLU! Do they pay for copy?
Posted by: kehrsam | October 1, 2007 10:37 AM
Well, it's a step in the right direction, but I'd personally be protesting being forced to take part in any sort of "pledge of allegiance".
Posted by: Chuck C | October 1, 2007 10:39 AM
Chuck - it personally offends me that someone would categorically object to all forms of a pledge of allegiance to their nation, but I understand that your objection is to the "force" part of the question. After all, a forced recitation of such a pledge is worth less than the paper it is printed on.
Posted by: BobApril | October 1, 2007 11:04 AM
Ooh, and kersham also managed to include some quote-mining, too!
More complete quote:
Second period class != Homeroom
You may have a future with WorldNutDaily, kersham :)
Posted by: Monimonika | October 1, 2007 11:09 AM
Welcome to the information age where all the disinformation, straw men, and histronics of the religious right fall before the fact and meme dispersion of the internet.
End result?
American teenagers are becoming smarter than their fundie parents, and at an earlier and earlier age.
Posted by: Jason Failes | October 1, 2007 11:09 AM
D'oh! Misspelled kehrsam's name. Sorry :(
Posted by: Monimonika | October 1, 2007 11:19 AM
Not a problem with the name, Monimonika. I'm an identical twin and have gone through life called "Karl." If it's not that, people somehow remember "Kurt" as "Chris." Then there's the last name with its wandering H.
Oh, and good catch on the quote mining. I was wondering if I could get away with that.... Posters here are on the ball, I really ought to move to STACLU!
Posted by: kehrsam | October 1, 2007 11:27 AM
Nathan? Is that you?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 1, 2007 11:31 AM
There is nothing at all crepy about a whole room of chilren standing to attention while engaged in saying a pledge. Nothing creepy at all.
Now, THAT'S sarcasm!
Posted by: Donalbain | October 1, 2007 12:01 PM
Back in the 80's in southern New Mexico, many of us always said half the pledge in English, half in Spanish. No one ever cared.
Posted by: EnzoAntonius | October 1, 2007 12:44 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the event of group recitation of a rote pledge, regardless of the pledge's content, regardless of whether participation is forced or not, is antithetical to the concept of democracy. What's the point of it? Obviously, to instil loyalty. In a democracy, this is backwards. Government should be loyal to us, not vice versa.
One of my rights as a citizen of this country is the right to go someplace else and leave this one behind. It's an important right, not every country lets you do it!
Expecting children to mindlessly recite an oath they're too young to understand devalues the entire concept of pledging.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | October 1, 2007 1:47 PM
BobApril, I normally have a great deal of respect for your opinions, but I have to admit that I don't give a fig about offending you on this issue. I find offensive the implication that reciting a trite string of words is in any way a measure of one's love of country, patriotism, etc. I am not a lesser American because I refuse to offer a loyalty pledge any more than I am a lesser American because I don't jump around on one foot with my eyes crossed and my fingers in my ears.
The pledge as it's used in schools is an indoctrination tool: it is an attempt to impress on students the idea that they are to view themselves as vassals to their government, and because of its wording, that their goverment is an intermediary between them and God. I think that this encourages blind nationalism and the concept of a "Christian Nation", and is a bad thing to teach.
The revolution was, in part, about ensuring that no one in the US ever had to bend the knee to anyone or anything. I can see loyalty pledges in certain circumstances, such as military or government service, where an individual is in a position of public trust and power, but I feel that generally, pledging allegiance to the Government is contrary to the idea that our government is answerable to us: and I think that right now, the idea that we own the goverment, and not the other way around, is an idea in dire need of emphasis.
If we're going to have them recite something, how about the Preamble and the Bill of Rights? That, at least, would keep them thinking about what makes this nation exceptional.
Posted by: Chuck C | October 1, 2007 1:54 PM
"have them recite ... the Bill of Rights"
Interesting idea which suggests a question that should be asked of anyone supporting the posting of the 10Cs in public facilities, especially courthouses:
Why are you more concerned about posting the 10Cs, most of which would be unconstitutional or unenforcable if actually enacted as laws, than about posting the 10Bs?
Aside to kersham: sorry, but I believe you've been outvoted on the positioning of the "h", and this is, after all, a democracy, under God.
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | October 1, 2007 2:30 PM
I love what these kids are doing. Hopefully it spreads. I agree with what Chuck says. The pledge is simply unnecessary.
It sickens me that people are against this and think the students should be punished. It's ironic that they're mostly religious wingnuts. Oh wait, I mean the opposite of that: not ironic. Where do these people get off saying atheists are trying to make America totalitarian?
I saw O'Reilly cover this, and suffice to say the only part he got right was that they included "under god" 50 years ago. He said "These kids clearly don't understand the issues here." No Mr. O'Reilly, they understand them much better than most everyone in this country. Too bad you never will.
Posted by: soteos | October 1, 2007 4:32 PM
I'm surprised that no one suggested that the students could do what everyone else did from 1892 to 1954, namely recite the original pledge, which did not have the phrase "under God". Given America's success in winning WWII and recovering from the Depression, God must not have been too offended during the interim.
Posted by: dev | October 1, 2007 4:33 PM
The wingnuts have been making a big deal out of the student organization's name "Student Workers", accusing them of being wannabe communists.
As always, when the facts are not on their side, they find something completely irrelevant to attack.
Posted by: tacitus | October 1, 2007 4:46 PM
One of society's primary jobs is raising and socializing its children. Kids will always be taught rhymes, sayings, songs and repeat-after-me. Unfortunately I still remember "and if I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take". What a macabre way to end the day. I also remember the Lord's Prayer - I just checked - but I couldn't do it without the phrasing of the lovely melody Streisand uses.
It's futile to suggest not using rote in raising our children. We are responsible for the content and consciousness-raising around that. I remember a 6th-grader in my Alternative Religion class (Norway, State Church) telling me that the Christmas assemblies seemed to get more Christianized each year. (She often chose to attend, though exempt.) Objectively wrong, but I felt I'd done my part helping her to increased maturity and awareness.
This comment is too long already, so I'd best not get started on the recent victory, after 10 years of court cases, at Strasbourg of a group of parents fighting Christianity in the schools here. The fight's not over yet.
Posted by: nbm | October 1, 2007 6:11 PM
What's the point of it? Obviously, to instil loyalty. In a democracy, this is backwards.
There's nothing "backwards" about it. In order for a democracy to function, the overwhelming majority of the people must remain steadfastly loyal to the system, regardless of how they feel about the results of the last election or policy decision. It makes perfect sense to instill loyalty to that system in each succeeding generation. The only question is, whether or not this or that recited pledge is a reasonable means of doing so. I think it is, provided we all understand that it's not the only means, and that its effect, if any, is only part of a broader educational effort, and is only seen over a long period of time. As nbm said, rote-learning is an unavoidable part of the education of children, until they learn enough to start questioning and thinking for themselves.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 1, 2007 6:24 PM
Rote learning is useful and acceptable in precisely ONE situation. When learning a factual list of things that need to be remembered. So, you learn your times tables by heart, you learn the levels of biological taxonomy by heart (Silly Gerald forgot ostriches chase perverted kings), you learn the various nerves of the body by heart.
The idea of rote learning emotions and loyalty goes beyond creepy into a whole new realm of wrong.
Posted by: Donalbain | October 1, 2007 7:19 PM
And yet, that is the way the majority of people connect to their country. As Raging Bee states, the civil religion is a powerful glue that holds together an otherwise fractious body politic.Would it be preferable if we substituted the Constitution for the flag? No doubt. But that would increase the complexity as well: as Dr. Goebbels demonstrated, propaganda is most effective when kept simple.
I was a Congressional staffer during the Pledge and flag insanity of the 1988 election. I spoke to thousands of constituents (especially WWII vets) and believe me, the emotions generated were real and powerful. Did I feel intellectually superior to such maudlin pandering? Of course. But that is how the Guardians are supposed to feel, according to Plato.
As it happens, I rise for the Pledge, but do not recite it: My devotion is for God alone. But I have the utmost respect for those who continue the noble tradition. Twenty years has taught me that condescension -- for any reason -- is wrong.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 1, 2007 7:49 PM
The idea of rote learning emotions and loyalty goes beyond creepy into a whole new realm of wrong.
What's so "creepy" or "wrong" about -- to take just the example that comes to mind right now -- having kids memorize certain teachings of Jesus? That's how I and others of my generation learned our most basic morality at an early age. That's what enabled us to start practicing those basic rules even before we fully understood them.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 1, 2007 10:35 PM
I would guess you learned a great deal more from observing the adults in your life and doing as they said in relation to the above as being a more critical factor in your basic morality. Simply for the reason as stated you didn't understand what they where pumping into your pile of mush anyway.
Posted by: GH | October 1, 2007 11:40 PM
Raging Bee wrote:
This is an especially convincing argument if you consider what tremendously profound moral beings children are.
I mean, I know there's that whole Lord of the Flies thing, but once you put that out of your mind and utterly divorce yourself from your own childhood experiences, what you're saying actually does make a lot of sense.
Posted by: Leni | October 2, 2007 12:12 AM
Leni: I've alwys felt than any social theory that fails to account for the fact that children are, in the aggregate, evil litle bastards is fatally flawed.
I agree with the above comments who find the whole idea of a pleadge of alliegance very creepy. It may just be a culturual thing but I have always found the ostentatious displays of patriotism common in the US kind of odd.
If a see a New Zealand flag flying over the building, I assume it is a government building. If I see a house flying a New Zealand flag I am mildly taken aback, and I wonder why they would fly the flag.
Posted by: James | October 2, 2007 3:14 AM
I agree with Chuck, Donalbain, Michael and soteos. Reciting the pledge is totalitarian crap. I grew up in a communist country and we had similar stupid rituals, except that people had a healthier attitude toward them.
Constitutionally, however, the state is allowed to throw a bit of crap at you as long as you are allowed to refuse to catch it. The only unconstitutional part is "under God". (And kehrsam is factually wrong about the court decisions.)
Posted by: bullfighter | October 2, 2007 3:46 AM
What kind of patriots are these school administrators who ignore long-standing Supreme Court decisions? Under West Virginia v. Barnett hey can't force the kids to say the Pledge. Period. I refused to say it when I was in Junior High School and got the administration to back off by citing the Supreme Court decision. Knowing that they're going to lose a lawsuit usually clarifies the minds of school administrators rapidly.
Posted by: Bill Poser | October 2, 2007 6:09 AM
No, indeed. You're a lesser American because you (presumably) refuse to offer a loyalty pledge while jumping around on one foot with your eyes crossed and your fingers in your ears. You horrible, horrible person.
Posted by: MartinM | October 2, 2007 6:21 AM
In Norway, only very official buildings (not schools) flag daily. Everyone flies and carries the flag on Constitution Day. If one has a proper flag pole, it is bad form to let it stand naked on royal birthdays and certain holidays. Flagging or not on Labor Day, and to a lesser extent Women's Day, is a political statement. Especially in the north there are rules by the season as to what time of day one may fly the flag.
On most days of the year a private home flying the flag means either a birthday being celebrated or a funeral (half staff until the funeral is over). IMO, the most bizarre use of the Norwegian flag is that many families decorate their Christmas trees with whole strings of little flags. Is any other country's flag used in that way?
Posted by: nbm | October 2, 2007 7:18 AM
I'm extremely uncomfortable in general with the idea that the goal of public schools in any way is to teach children how to be good citizens. Having the government telling kids how they should feel toward their government is a conflict of interest from the start, and even parents who choose for their kids not to attend public schooling are nevertheless paying through taxation for the government to tell this to other children. For this reason I object to any sort of loyalty pledge in schools. Making-- or even asking-- kids swear an oath to anything as part of a school exercise is going past education and into indoctrination.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2007 8:27 AM
Chuck,
...but I have to admit that I don't give a fig about offending you on this issue.
Never expected you would. Nor should you - my offense is my issue, not yours. I must point out that failing to recite the Pledge, or stand for the Anthem, or rejecting other outward displays of patriotism does send a message to those around you, which may not be the message intended. Fair or not, that is the case. Were I to see someone in my local theater fail to stand for the Anthem (military theaters play it before the movie), I wouldn't say anything to them - it's certainly their right. But were I to then see the same person elsewhere, I'd most likely be less friendly toward them. That doesn't have to change your actions, but you should be ready for such reactions. Just like I tell my sons not to be surprised when people look at them funny because of the way they dress.
As far as the objections to rote-learning and indoctrination - I think people underestimate how much indoctrination happens in childhood, and how much of it is necessary. As James said, children start out as "evil little bastards" and require indoctrination to make them fit for polite society. Rather than arguing WHETHER to indoctrinate them, we should be arguing HOW to indoctrinate them. I think instilling patriotism in childhood, while also including critical thinking skills as early as they are able to handle them, is a fair balance. They should have the power that critical thinking provides to reject their training - but loyalty to their society and their government should probably be the "default setting."
Posted by: BobApril | October 2, 2007 8:53 AM
Bull wrote
I think everyone else figured out that the comment in question was a parody. Sorry about that. Among other things, I referred to the 9th Circuit Newdow case (incorrectly, as you note) but Colorado is not in the 9th Circuit. For the record, the 4th and 7th Circuits have ruled in favor of "under God" and the Supremes did so indirectly in their dismissal of Newdow for standing (see Rehnquist's concurrance, for instance).
Since the 9th Circuit chose not to consider Newdow en banc, the "under God" is in a sort of legal limbo there.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 2, 2007 8:58 AM
You dont learn morality by reciting something. You learn morality by observing the way that society around you operates. And, by having a ritual like the pledge, one of the things you are likely to learn is that unthinking recitations of loyalty are considered a good thing.
There is a reason that totalitarian systems have often engaged in mass rituals involving repetitive chanting. It shuts down higher thinking and makes you more open to suggestion.
Every single time I see American children perform the pledge, I shiver inside a little.
Posted by: Donalbain | October 2, 2007 9:38 AM
BobApril, the question is not really what "we" should be doing, but what we allow the schools to do. Perhaps indoctrinating kids about some things is a good thing under certain circumstances-- that doesn't mean that schools should be doing it (and I don't count making the kids be quiet and orderly as indoctrination).
Likewise, your comment about judging people who refuse to take part in public demonstrations of patriotism is beside the point. You as a private citizen at a voluntary event can judge people all you want, but when schools ask groups of students to stand up and say an oath, they're being normative. On a daily basis, they are creating an opportunity for students to judge each other as patriotic or unpatriotic. I don't see how that's any better than having all of the kids say the Lord's Prayer and the kids who refuse being judged as irreligious.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2007 9:38 AM
I would guess you learned a great deal more from observing the adults in your life and doing as they said in relation to the above as being a more critical factor in your basic morality.
Your guess is only partially correct. Yes, we observed and learned from the adults; but the adults still had to tell us the specific rules that guided their behavior. Also, we learned from each other, both in obeying the rules that were handed down to us, and in disobeying them.
I agree with the above comments who find the whole idea of a pleadge of alliegance very creepy. It may just be a culturual thing but I have always found the ostentatious displays of patriotism common in the US kind of odd.
First, the more people think of such pledges as "creepy," the more such pledges become the sole domain of creeps; and this is not something we should allow to happen. Creepy right-wingers have co-opted the pledge of allegiance, and decent Americans need to reclaim it for ourselves, just as Pagans are reclaiming terms like "Pagan" and "Witch." It's OUR republic too, OUR Constitution, OUR rights, and OUR core values, and we SHOULD pledge allegiance to the country that upholds OUR rights. And defend it against phony patriots.
Second, while I agree that America's cult of flag-courtesy and ostentatious patriotism has got WAY out of hand, I really do think that tasteful displays of patriotism are nothing to be worried or ashamed of. I certainly have no problem with seeing lots of American flags at anti-war and anti-Bush rallies.
If a see a New Zealand flag flying over the building, I assume it is a government building. If I see a house flying a New Zealand flag I am mildly taken aback, and I wonder why they would fly the flag.
Because they like their country and think they have something to be proud of?
IMO, the most bizarre use of the Norwegian flag is that many families decorate their Christmas trees with whole strings of little flags. Is any other country's flag used in that way?
That's done a lot in the US. I don't do it, because I firmly believe that the spirit(s) behind Christmasaturnakwanzaanakayulestice (did I leave anyone out?) should transcend, or at least be independent of, politics, hierarchy, nationality, ethnic identity, or state power.
I'm extremely uncomfortable in general with the idea that the goal of public schools in any way is to teach children how to be good citizens.
You're uncomfortable with teaching children how to behave in accordance with your society's core values? You're uncomfortable with teaching children how to deal with each other, and with adults, in a civilized and mutually beneficial manner? Failure to teach these things to kids constitutes, in my mind at least, criminal neglect and endangerment.
You dont learn morality by reciting something. You learn morality by observing the way that society around you operates.
You DO learn morality in part by memorizing the rules. Also, the kids can't just observe adult behavior; someone has to tell them the rules by which they're operating -- or by which they're supposed to operate -- so they'll see the pattern and have a better chance of understanding it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2007 10:22 AM
Raging Bee:
No. In the statement of mine that you quoted and to which you were replying, I specifically referred to "the goal of public schools." Being opposed to the schools doing something does not equate to being opposed to doing it in general.
As for your specific questions....yes, I'm somewhat uncomfortable with teaching children to behave in accordance with "society's core values." Depending on how you define "core," societies often have core values which are misguided at best or morally abhorrent at worst. No, I'm not uncomfortable with teaching kids how to get along with each other and adults. However, that's not how I define "being a good citizen." I define being a good citizen as behaving oneself appropriately and morally in relation to one's government...and as I said, I think the government is decidedly not the entity which should be delivering instruction on such-- much less to a captive audience.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2007 10:37 AM
bullfighter touched on an important point:
I grew up in a communist country and we had similar stupid rituals, except that people had a healthier attitude toward them.
In a totalitarian country, such rituals would indeed be pointless, as silence, unity, obedience and conformity are already enforced by unrestrained state power. In a republic, however, the centrifugal forces of free speech, debate and partisanship need to be counterbalanced by a certain spirit of loyalty and reverence, otherwise democracy would degrade into factionalism and chaos. Somewhere in the course of politics and policy, there has to be a voice in everyone's guts that says "We're still one people, we're still bound by the same laws and values, and all our squabbling and debating should be for the common good of all." And if having kids recite a pledge (that reminds them that they have obligations as well as rights) helps to instill such reverence, then that is good for the nation, and for a functioning democracy.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2007 10:45 AM
Being opposed to the schools doing something does not equate to being opposed to doing it in general.
It does equate when we're talking about something that schools, public and private, are explicitly created to do.
I define being a good citizen as behaving oneself appropriately and morally in relation to one's government...and as I said, I think the government is decidedly not the entity which should be delivering instruction on such-- much less to a captive audience.
Then who SHOULD be doing it? Exxon-Mobil? Halliburton? The Pope? The Mafia? Isn't this one of the things an ELECTED government should be doing, or at least overseeing?
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2007 10:52 AM
Ragingbee:
OK.. here is the question. DOES reciting the pledge make for "better citizens"? Is there any evidence relating the two factors? Are the citizens of the USA "better" than the citizens of New Zealand or the UK?
Posted by: Donalbain | October 2, 2007 11:06 AM
Raging Bee said:
Really? I thought that public and private schools were explicitly created to educate children. You're making a tautology, effectively saying "They're supposed to teach citizenship because they're supposed to teach citizenship!"
Umm, how about the kids' parents? I'm baffled that this apparently didn't occur to you. If an ELECTED government has the job of instructing kids about government, then it can do so perfectly well without telling them how they should think about said government. You can teach kids about the constitution and how it was created, and the amendments to it, and the structure of government and how it functions without telling them what they should think about all of it-- much less that they should pledge their allegiance to it....just as you can teach them comparative religion without telling them what to think about God. It's the difference between providing the tools and telling students what to build with them.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2007 11:09 AM
I don't buy it. Study after study has shown that an individuals religious leanings matter little if at all towards their lifestyle and 'moral' choices. Hence I think you where raised by good people and thats what you picked up unless of course you are the exception to the rule.
Maybe, but watching and patterning behaviour is still the way most kids learn behaviour along with correction from parents and society.
Aren't you the one who has railed against Richard Dawkins for stating that teaching kids about a fictional hell is child abuse and now your saying the above? It seems to me a child who doesn't recite the pledge for reasons they can readily explain is an informed citizen. Now a school who teaches children to obey the laws is just using common sense but really most kids get this wayyyy before the school enters the fray. Schools can do an excellent job of reinforcing it however so I think we agree.
The only danger comes from the cretins who don't see the value in such thinkers.
Posted by: GH | October 2, 2007 11:17 AM
Donalbain: you could just as easily ask the same questions about each and every thing parents and teachers do to educate their kids. If you consider each and every action in isolation, none of them will look particularly effective. Having kids recite the pledge is only a minor part of a greater ongoing educational effort, just like every individual day in a school year, and I have no pretensions that it's any more than that.
Really? I thought that public and private schools were explicitly created to educate children.
Yes, and among the things children need to learn are the laws they will be expected to obey, how to function in the extremely complex society they will inherit from us, how to get along with each other as equals in that society, and the values and rights they are expected to uphold, for their own benefit as well as the government's. There's nothing at all "tautologous" about this; it's simple common sense.
Umm, how about the kids' parents? I'm baffled that this apparently didn't occur to you.
It did. But it is still the government's duty to monitor kids' education, and see that they are indeed getting educated according to certain minimal standards, which the adult community has not only the right, but the duty, to articulate and enforce. (I don't hear you complaining when governments set policies that explicitly rule out teaching creationism as "science.") If parents do the job all by themselves, fine; but if they don't, or can't, then someone else has to see to the kids' needs. And a lot of parents simply don't have the time or expertise to teach their kids EVERYTHING they need to know; that's why schools exist in the first place.
Hence I think you where raised by good people and thats what you picked up unless of course you are the exception to the rule.
Yes, and I'm explaining what worked for me, and what seems to work for other kids in other circumstances.
Aren't you the one who has railed against Richard Dawkins for stating that teaching kids about a fictional hell is child abuse and now your saying the above?
Those are two completely separate issues, and you know it.
It seems to me a child who doesn't recite the pledge for reasons they can readily explain is an informed citizen.
I agree. And when a child gets to that stage, his/her teachers can, and should, take it as an opportunity to further his education by answering his questions, explaining what the pledge means, and encouraging discussion of the issues.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2007 11:44 AM
Only in that one really does seem to cause kids harm while not memorizing the pledge does not.
Posted by: GH | October 2, 2007 11:53 AM
Raging Bee said:
I tried to make clear in my comment that I don't consider being taught about what the law entails, the structure of government, etc. to be instruction on being a good citizen. You don't have to tell students what the law is and then add that they should obey the law-- you explain how the criminal justice system works. I don't know what "values" you're talking about instilling here, but you don't seem to be considering that the values promoted by the government at any one time may well be contradictory or even out and out wrong. Students should not be told that how they should feel about the laws for this very reason. They are entitled to think that medical marijuana should be legal, for example. They are entitled to disagree about the function of the electoral college. They are entitled to have differing views about abortion or the significance of the second amendment, and quite possibly they will be engaged in considering such issues in debate class.
The claim of "common sense," by the way, is not a defense against my pointing out that your argument is tautological. If you say that teaching students to be good citizens is a job for the public schools and I disagree, then "Yes it is" doesn't constitute a counter-argument. Neither, for that matter, does "It's common sense."
I didn't say otherwise. I think actually said very explicitly what I consider to fall under the category of citizenship, and this is not it.
See above. Nowhere have I said or implied that public schools should not have educational standards.
I don't think they are, actually. If teaching hellfire isn't child abuse but refraining from indoctrinating about citizenship is, then you're going to need to explain why.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2007 12:08 PM
Raging Bee:
You don't know what you are talking about, and although you may think you are addressing my point, you are not. First, I didn't say I grew up in a totalitarian country. Not all communist regimes were totalitarian, and if you don't understand the difference in meaning between "autoritarian" and "totalitarian", you shouldn't use either word. The state power was excessive, but certainly not "unrestrained" and, sadly, these days, the excessive state power in the US is approaching those levels, so the distinction you are making is arbitrary and exists only in your head.BTW, all communist states were (and are, in the cases of the surviving fossiles) republics. A "republic" (like "democracy") is just another Humpty-Dumpty word that means whatever the user wants it to mean. It contains no information.
That's all bullshit. Who says those forces are centrifugal? They allow people to express their differences in an orderly way. In the long run, that could be the most reliable source of cohesion. Loyalty to whom/what? Reverence for whom/what? Those are empty words without context. Loyalty to principles of human rights, justice and tolerance is worlds apart from loyalty to the President and Commander-in-Chief. (And even rights, justice and tolerance mean very different things to different people, so I've hardly captured the whole range.) More bullshit. One people? Ein Volk? What the hell does that mean? We are 300 million people. If we are "one people", why not apply that globally? What makes this 300 million "one", but the other 6 billion "another"? Yes, we have the same laws (more or less - a lot of laws are state and local), but same values? Obviously, we don't have that, and we never had it. And there is rarely an important issue that can be resolved for the "common good of all" - the phrase is usually a sign of demagoguery or at least lack of thinking.Posted by: bullfighter | October 2, 2007 2:11 PM
I see a few people saying that school isn't being disrupted because it's home room. I don't know about these kids' school in particular, but my schools didn't have home room. All of are classes were regular classes. In fact, my middle school did announcements over a closed tv circuit so that teachers could decide if they wanted their class interrupted or not.
These kids could very well be having their class time interrupted by the pledge. If it's anything like my high school was, class is in session for 10 or 15 minutes before announcements even come on.
Posted by: Ashley | October 2, 2007 2:12 PM
If teaching hellfire isn't child abuse but refraining from indoctrinating about citizenship is, then you're going to need to explain why.
No, YOU need to explain how these two issues are at all related, and why you threw the former into a discussion about the latter. One involves religious doctrine, the other involves the obligations of the state toward the children in its jurisdiction.
Children will grow up to become citizens; therefore they NEED to learn about what that means, and what their obligations will be. If they grow up without learning these things, they will be at a severe disadvantage, and will be harmed through no fault of their own. Therefore, refusing to teach them these things constitutes neglect, if not endangerment and/or depraved indifference.
You don't have to tell students what the law is and then add that they should obey the law-- you explain how the criminal justice system works.
Not quite. When they're very young, you tell them what rules they are supposed to obey (whether they like it or not), and punish them when they break the rules. Then, when they're more mature and able to handle the issues with more depth, you can start explaining how the criminal justice system works.
I don't know what "values" you're talking about instilling here, but you don't seem to be considering that the values promoted by the government at any one time may well be contradictory or even out and out wrong.
How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? Here it is one more time: "among the things children need to learn are the laws they will be expected to obey, how to function in the extremely complex society they will inherit from us, how to get along with each other as equals in that society, and the values and rights they are expected to uphold, for their own benefit as well as the government's."
Students should not be told that how they should feel about the laws for this very reason.
I disagree: students should be taught respect for each other, for themselves, for the institutions that keep them free and their society functioning, and for the basic rights they will have to share with others, and from which they will benefit when they become adults. (Note that "respect" does not mean "mindless obedience.")
They are entitled to think that medical marijuana should be legal, for example. They are entitled to disagree about the function of the electoral college. They are entitled to have differing views about abortion or the significance of the second amendment, and quite possibly they will be engaged in considering such issues in debate class.
Where did I say otherwise? When they're old enough, and knowledgeable enough, to start questioning the laws, then by all means, let the questioning begin. But before they can question the laws, they must learn what the laws are; and in any case, they must learn respect for THE LAW in general (as opposed to mindless obedience to particular laws), and for the Constitution, and the rights it expresses. Furthermore, they must be taught how to behave respectfully toward one another, so that the debates in which they later engage will remain civil, sensible and productive.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2007 2:14 PM
BTW, all communist states were (and are, in the cases of the surviving fossiles) republics. A "republic" (like "democracy") is just another Humpty-Dumpty word that means whatever the user wants it to mean. It contains no information.
bullfighter, was Pravda one of your previous employers? That's the dumbest thing I've heard from you yet.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2007 2:21 PM
I object to the phrase "part of one planet." What if we admit the Moon (or at least part of it) as the 51st state?
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger | October 2, 2007 3:39 PM
Very good paragraph.
What on earth then does reciting the pledge have to do with any of this?
Likewise just as an analogy if a child is forced/indotrinated by adults(who should know better) into believing hell is real are you not then also offering depraved indifference? Are you not possibly endangering the welfare of the childs mind.
Students can learn about a societies laws and rituals without the pledge. In fact most do. I am in schools everyday, I can tell you first hand most are not learning anything from this activity.
Posted by: GH | October 2, 2007 4:00 PM
The pledge does not need to be changed. These childen need a better understanding of what our founding fathers had in mind. Get a real cause!
Quit being so liberal unless it's one's goal to undermine this country!
Do the right thing, if you can figure it out - don't be a parasite
Posted by: MADDOG | October 2, 2007 4:33 PM
What on earth then does reciting the pledge have to do with any of this?
Rote-learning and recitation has some effectiveness in teaching simple concepts -- or the simple basics of complicated concepts -- to young children. Of course, there are other ways to teach kids the same concepts, but that does not make a certain method invalid. As with any educational tool, some kids will benefit more than others.
AS for whether it's really worth the class time, I will tend to defer to the voters and educators on that. As long as the kids are somehow taught that they are part of a society, they benefit from that society, and they have obligations to that society commensurate with the benefits, I won't complain if they don't have to say the pledge of allegiance.
And getting back to this particular pledge issue, I'd say these particular kids at least benefitted from the opportunity to question and discuss the pledge and its meaning. If the pledge got them thinking about these things, then it's not all bad. (Too bad certain adults seem unable to derive a similar benefit from the discussion.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2007 4:34 PM
MADDOG: I believe the kids who are questioning the pledge are thereby trying to get the very understanding you say they need. You got a problem with that?
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2007 5:00 PM
Why don't we just ditch the "under God" bit? It was only tacked on during the 1950s, when atheism (and other things) were viewed as Communist. Times have changed...
Posted by: John | October 2, 2007 5:32 PM
Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
Ha! It'd still be true since the moon isn't a planet. =P
Mars? Well, then we might have a problem.
Posted by: Leni | October 2, 2007 6:29 PM
John wrote:
Why don't we just ditch the "under God" bit? It was only tacked on during the 1950s, when atheism (and other things) were viewed as Communist. Times have changed...
No doubt. It was a stupid thing to add in the first place- we should just get rid of it.
But then children would become incompetent, bad, amoral citizens. Maybe we should leave it the way it is just to be on the safe side.
Posted by: Leni | October 2, 2007 6:34 PM
What if we admit the Moon (or at least part of it) as the 51st state?
Then we'd have to change the wording to something like "...one nation, as many planets as we can conquer, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all species we annexed or may annex."
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2007 11:26 PM
"I'd much rather pledge allegiance to ideas than a piece of cloth."
Old Glory represents no ideas, Ed? "...and to the Republic for which it stands." All that crazy stuff your teenage mutant ninja heroes have absolutely no appreciation for.
You seriously "like" their utterly prosaic "alternative?" I would think that words and phrases like "diversity," "one planet," "choice" (no doubt fetus-slaying speak) and the redundancy, the redundancy, the redundancy would strike someone of your intellectual heft as a little trite, a little shallow.
These kids are nothing more than mindless (Student Worker club -- I'm sure most of these rich little neo-pinkos have never held a job), spoiled brats Ed, not free speech martyrs. No student is required to say the pledge. This is a stunt, nothing more. They will get support from fellow students -- mostly because teens look for any reason to ditch any time they can.
On a larger issue, can one actually argue that our founders did not presuppose a God who had an active hand in the affairs of man? Our DOI, we all know, speaks of a "God who is there." A yawning watch-winder would not endow people, or A people, with anything, let alone UNalienable rights. Even our Constitution alludes to God -- from whom would the "BLESSING of liberty" come? Point is, the very founding of our country was based on the proposition that there exists a higher, decidedly supernatuaral, force that accounts for our liberty, a liberty no man or government can take away because of the nature by which all men, CREATED equal, are blessed.
If these kids don't believe in God, fine, let them be silent during the pledge, or even let them walk out with their petty grievances. But let's recognize that the "ideals" these kids hold are not those of the founders, ALL of whom presupposed an active God (you don't get "Providence" from a federal employee-type deity and you can't be an "Author" of anything, let alone the "Author of the Universe" without a little extra TLC) who they most definitely believed was The Reason man is man and man is free.
Posted by: Chet Lemon | October 3, 2007 12:23 AM
Raging Bee, you're muddling up which quotes came from which people and what exactly is meant by teaching citizenship. I'm not the person who brought the child abuse issue up. I do, however, think that if you're going to vociferously deny that teaching hellfire is child abuse but not teaching citizenship is, you have to explain yourself.
And again, I've tried to make very clear the difference between teaching kids to be good citizens and teaching them to get along with each other and their teachers. They're not the same. Rules in a classroom and the law are not the same.
Great, then teach them that at home. The idea that any institutions are keeping us free, and to what degree, is up for debate, and students should never be given an impression to the contrary. Reasonable people can-- and do-- disagree on this. There are reasonable people who are communists, socialists, anarchists, etc. The U.S. government is not a static entity which has been continuously worthy of respect in all areas. This is why simply telling kids to respect the government-- much less swear allegiance to it-- is something government schools have no business doing. If the government is so great, tell them the "is" rather than the "should be," and let them make their own decisions.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 3, 2007 3:20 AM
Gretchen -
If the government is so great, tell them the "is" rather than the "should be," and let them make their own decisions.
Amen.
I'm an idealist, fairly extreme at times. When I was young, my schools managed to make me an uber-patriot, because America's such a great place. Certainly better than any alternative. Any alternative, was unthinkable. This is because the ideal, was taught as though it was reality and no one else could begin to measure up to us Americans.
Then reality struck. In turns I turned to libertarian thought, Marxism and finally, democratic socialism. I was so blown away by the reality of what actually went on, that I quickly tried my best to move to the outer fringes of society, jaded as I was by the reality I had discovered. I decided that everything I had been taught about my country, was just a ray of sunshine, rammed up my ass. I couldn't (at the time) wrap my head around the notion that there is much good cut with a lot of bad.
I love my country again. I am damn glad to be an American. I hate where we are right now, but hold steadfast to the belief that we can actually move inexorably closer to the ideal I was taught. But I am all of this, in spite of rote, bullshit, fealty oaths, not because of it. Indeed, because of rote patriotism, I very nearly decided to hell with it.
Rote is mindless. It is not learning, any more than loading a program into a computer, teaches the computer anything. Rote is nothing more than automata.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 3, 2007 5:13 AM
Give me a break, just one more attempt at removing God from the pledge. Just shows the fall of America from God's grace once again. Any student who apparently dosent KNOW that this Country was founded on FAITH and GOD hasnt had a very good History Teacher.... OHHHH thats right they arent allowed to teach that in history,,,, thats why they are so ignorant to what this country was founded on! My mistake!
Posted by: Rebecca | October 3, 2007 8:27 AM
Rebbeca,
Prior to the 1950s, when God was added to the pledge, do you think that the pledge wasn't doing its 'job?'
Posted by: Josh | October 3, 2007 8:36 AM
Sorry...didn't mean to spell your screen-name incorrectly.
Posted by: Josh | October 3, 2007 8:38 AM
It is wonderful to see the kids in this country taking a stand in support of what they feel to be a show of improved patriotism. The claim of separation of church and state is a joke in this country and in my opinion it is a claim that needs to be lived up to.
Unfortunately, I don't agree with the wording that these kids chose. While a agree -wholeheartedly- with the freedoms and constitutional rights that are granted to citizens of this country, this wording here sounded more like a pledge to individual rights than to the country as a whole. Also, weaker government is one thing. This pledge, at least to me, seemed to weaken the stature of the country which I am not at all in favor of. Finally, kill the peace sign on the flag.
How about: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, with liberty and diversity of thought, with equal justice for all.
Posted by: Jeff Hagen | October 3, 2007 10:04 AM
Right on! I would LOVE to be a part of something like this, but I'm in College now and we don't have a pledge... >>; </