"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."The NASD has updated a host of its policies including Opening Exercises. The new policy states:
The district shall provide opening exercises that include a salute to the flag and/or recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem.In the next sentence it makes participation in the same optional for staff and students:
Students or staff may decline to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or National Anthem and to salute the flag on the basis of personal belief or religious conviction.Why? Constitutional rights of the student must be maintained.
The arguments I've seen related to the Pledge tend to boil down to religious beliefs (1st Amendment) or civil rights (14th Amendment). In short, the words "under God" are read by some to mandates a specific God on the person making the pledge and therefore it can't be made due to counter or conflicting religious beliefs, or this country provides me the civil right not to do it, so I'm not.
I'm never going to argue before the Supreme Court, but let's consider this from a different and I believe more appropriate perspective.
I'd suggest the pledge to the flag is made to acknowledge that you support the nation it represents.
Let's consider the words as they apply to the United States of America:
- The fifty states act together on the world stage - "one nation"
- This one nation was founded and remains infused with Christian principles - "under God"
- The people, regardless of differences, are united as citizens who uphold the ideals (Declaration of Independence) and government (Constitution and its Amendments) of the nation - "indivisible"
- They do this in a nation that provides freedom as well as justice to all peoples - "with liberty and justice for all"
A secessionist might object to affirming we are one nation, but the reality of a state seceding from the union today would be quite a stretch. Yes the Soviet Union dissolved, but it was founded and constructed in a much different manner than the US. I'd say there is nothing to be opposed to by a student or faculty member in today's schools on these grounds.
From this perspective, the individual taking the pledge is acknowledging that our nation was heavily influenced by Christian Principles during its founding, many of which continue on today. It does not require allegiance to a specific religion, nor does it declare a national religion. As such, it does not conflict with religious beliefs, it only affirms a historical fact.
Indivisible speaks to our unique history of being a nation without a singular ethnicity. We are the 'melting pot' and we are unified based on the ideals of our nation. These tenets are what bind us together regardless of our religion or background. Again, unless one is against the form of government, distinguished from those individuals governing, I don't see this affirmation running counter to religious or personal beliefs.
"Liberty and Justice for All," again, I can hardly see this statement being opposed on religious or personal beliefs.
Those who do refuse to pledge are dividing themselves from those who do. At the same time they are asking those who pledge to extend the benefits of the government to them despite their rejection of it. The 'for all' requires that those who pledge and support this nation look out for those living here who do not. This is probably the best argument for not requiring the pledge.
Then again, I'm specifically thinking about school in this case. To that end we should educate students to understand over time the fuller meaning and significance of these 31 words, prior to letting them decide they don't want to participate.
The NASD School Board is clearly updating its policy as a matter of recommendation, but it is a shame that we have allowed ourselves to give so much freedom without requiring greater understanding or responsibility.
9 comments:
I believe the school board policy is only reflecting what has been stated in federal court decisions for over 40 (50?) years. The pledge is in direct contradiction to the teachings of some religious sects.
It is sad to see that teachers are also free to abstain. I would hope they would at least respectfully stand during it.
Wayne
Wayne,
I think my bigger point is that the people who are against the pledge have defined what it means in a way that best supports their position and by doing so have gotten many (though not all) courts to agree with them.
I think we need to reconsider the meaning and the purpose, because I believe it has been distorted. This is my attempt.
Do you think the kids in the reveived Soviet Union are being given an option? Actually they are probably quite proud to say their pledge and sing their anthem. We, on the other hand, continue to move down the road to a fascist state.
Ross,
I believe this case has already gone to the Supreme Court in 1943 - West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and has been ruled in favor of religious freedom and freedom of conscious.
Jehovah Witnesses have been sitting it out even before "under God" was added. And it's just not them, others prefer to let their "yay be yay and their nay be nay" and abstain from all pledges and oaths.
I understand your point, but you will not convince these folk. My point was not to blame the school board (Lord knows there's enough other stuff to blame them for) for following these rulings. If a teacher tried to enforce a recitation of the pledge would you want the expense of a losing case?
This is the sad state our country is in today. People have sat by and watched this great country of ours rot from the inside out.
I find it to be disrespectful and un-american to at least get off your ass in the morning and for 1 minute salute the flag of the country you live in. You dont need to pledge, but get up and have the courtesy to salute.
Its usually the illegal immigrants, the welfare that dont want to get jobs, etc. that this country so overly supports for nothing that are the ones complaining about how bad it is here. If you have a problem with the flag, country, or pledge -- by all means, please leave..
I'll tell you something too Ross, if you remember after 9/11, i remember driving around town , and i could count on one hand the number of people who DIDNT have a USA flag flying in there front yards or some type of support for this country. Its pretty sad that we had to have something that horrific happen, to remind people where we are and who we are.
Wayne,
Again, the point of the post was not to criticize the district, I said outright they are following guidance given based on legal environment.
The point is that the people who are against taking the pledge have defined what it means in a way that allows them to win court cases, and I simply wanted to re-examine what it does mean when one pledges.
I don't expect it to change, which is unfortunate.
The case you mention, from 1943 overruled a 1940 case that did require the pledge and the grounds in the latter were that it forced a "compulsory unification of opinion" (read it on wikipedia).
There were also several cases in 2000s, which probably most resulted in changing the policy. These were initially brought by an atheist who was against "under God" as it promoted a God. Also found on wikipedia, same post as above.
It is an interpretation. We will read into the pledge what we want for our own purposes. I am simply asking people to give some consideration to what they think it means and to consider a slightly different perspective.
To Ryan, I agree it is a shame how many people rose to the flag in a time of need and then seem to so quickly forget, and I'm speaking of everywhere, not only or specifically here in Nazareth.
Well said. I believe all of this is representative of what our children hear at home and in the media. With three students in the district, it is clear that a liberalized educational policy is killing our foundations. Freedom of speech or religion only matters if you support the country and flag that defends it. To hell w/these courts and lawyers who twist the words of our founders. Our board is only worried about legal ramifications. Have the backbone to stand up for what is right.
I see one problem with this. I fully understand our amendments, however, giving the ok on the right to abstain may put us into another category. Those students feeling as though they do not have to take history because they feel it goes against ther religious beliefs. When do we decide to make a cut off point. I agree we should have our rights to religious freedom and speach but I can just see this possibly going to far. I am sorry but if you live in this country you should learn about the history of this country and sometimes that involves the pledge as well as the flag! Sorry if anyone thinks I am off line.
Post a Comment