Should students be forced to pledge allegiance?

Biscuit

Philosopher
Biscuit
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
6,929
Two separate bills have been introduced into the Arizona state legislature that would require students recite the pledge of allegiance daily and the other would require a oath to support the constitution in order to graduate from high school.

I think this is an appalling turn of events. You do not create more patriotism by forcing people to be patriotic. That's how you create resentment. I can't think of anything less American than these bills.

link

It makes me wonder if the tea party rep that introduced the pledge of allegiance bill even knows the history of that pledge? I am tempted to write him and ask if he does.

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.
Click to expand...

link

I really wish these guys would focus on the issues of state. One of the reasons I love America is because I don't have to.
 
Just occurred to me that the oath to protect the constitution would require black students to endorse being 3/5ths of the white student next to them. Well maybe that's a bit much but it's still a stupid idea.
 
Biscuit said:
Just occurred to me that the oath to protect the constitution would require black students to endorse being 3/5ths of the white student next to them. Well maybe that's a bit much but it's still a stupid idea.
Click to expand...
Why, are there still black slaves in AZ? It was only slaves that counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.
 
under God

In general, no they should not. However, specifically because of the "under God" addition, heck no. The phrase "under God" was added later. It breaks the flow and meaning of the original pledge. "One nation indivisible..." is better writing.
 
Biscuit said:
Just occurred to me that the oath to protect the constitution would require black students to endorse being 3/5ths of the white student next to them. Well maybe that's a bit much but it's still a stupid idea.
Click to expand...

Oh, for crying out loud. First, the 3/5ths compromise has been repealed, and therefore saying that blacks are endorsing it by swearing to protect the constitution is like saying drinkers would be endorsing prohibition. Second, the good side in the compromise were the folks saying slaves (free blacks were counted wholly) should not count as persons at all; the whole purpose was to reduce the political power of slave states. And third, many blacks have already sworn an oath to defend and protect the constitution, including governmental officials, judges, police and members of the military. Obama himself just swore such an oath.
 
I retract my second post. I didn't think it through. Apologies.

Please merge if there is another thread and again I apologize for not seeing that.

I wrote an email to the state rep and will let you know if I get a response. This came about because my atheist friend called me last night in a fit about the under god part. I agree that would have to be removed but I think the notion of forcing students to say something in order to graduate high school or every day in class in unacceptable. What about someone here on a green gard or someone with a work visa brings their kids with them?

Schools in AZ are required to offer kids a chance to say the pledge or pray or reflect every day but no one is forced to do any of those things.
 
IMO enforcing respect for the country is not a legitimate state interest*, so laws like these are an intrusion on personal liberties.

I don't think it's a big leap from the holding in Texas v. Johnson to the idea that freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak, and short of a legitimate state interest that outweighs that first amendment right (incitement to commit illegal acts, "fighting words", maliciously shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.), state attempts to enforce respect (for the flag, for the country or whatever) by curtailing free speech rights should be regarded as unconstitutional.

*ETA: Or at least not one that outweighs individual freedoms.
 
Last edited:
Biscuit said:
You do not create more patriotism by forcing people to be patriotic. That's how you create resentment. I can't think of anything less American than these bills.
Click to expand...
And even if you could create more patriotism (rather than resentment) this way, it would be wrong.

[ETA: And in fact, I think it actually does "work". I think for every kid this sort of thing would cause resentment in, there are probably 10 or more kids who grow up to be USA nationalists to one degree or another.]

Remember how distasteful reaction in North Korea to the death of their beloved King Jong Il was to us? It was not that the reactions were faked or staged (though many here said that). It was in fact that the people really had been indoctrinated to love their dictator.

I think this is about the worst sort of state denial of individual liberty.

There's a couple of Terry Pratchett quotes that I can't find right now about how much worse the whips that enslave people are when those whips exist only in the minds of the enslaved.

One of the reasons I love America is because I don't have to.
Click to expand...
Ditto, and well said!
 
Last edited:
Biscuit said:
Two separate bills have been introduced into the Arizona state legislature that would require students recite the pledge of allegiance daily and the other would require a oath to support the constitution in order to graduate from high school.

I think this is an appalling turn of events. You do not create more patriotism by forcing people to appear to be patriotic. That's how you create resentment. I can't think of anything less American than these bills.

.
Click to expand...

ftfy and fully agree.....
 
fuelair said:
<snip>You do not create more patriotism by forcing people to appear to be patriotic. That's how you create resentment.<snip>
Click to expand...
ftfy and fully agree.....
Click to expand...

Again, I don't agree it's not possible, but I agree that it runs contrary to the fundamental ideology of the Constitution.



In fact, if it weren't possible, it wouldn't be important to point out that it's wrong.
 
I find the whole thing a little frightening and very fascinating. I love learning how other Americans view America - apparently there are some that fervently believe that doing something unconstitutional is the best way to show respect for the Constitution.


ETA: also the punishment is as absurd as the law. It is as if they are saying, because you don't love the country as much as I do, I am going to make it difficult for you to find a job or go to college. WTF?
 
Last edited:
The oath is rendered meaningless because it is mandatory.

Obviously it is not a huge deal to repeat the words emptily (I do it at church all the time :p ), but it is still despicable.
 
Almost a full page of silliness on a subject that is rendered moot by its very existence. Only Tsukasa Buddha seems to understand this.
 
Travis said:
Are there no Jehovah's Witnesses in Arizona?
Click to expand...

Funny you would say that. Back when I was in elementary and junior high school you were required to say the pledge of allegiance. But there was a Jehovah's Witness student who was exempted. I haven't thought of Douglas in 40 years, thank you.

To the threads point IMO it is wrong to require saying the pledge.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
The oath is rendered meaningless because it is mandatory.

Obviously it is not a huge deal to repeat the words emptily (I do it at church all the time :p ), but it is still despicable.
Click to expand...

Meaningless to a adult, but for a first grader, it's a different experience and kind of creepy, IMO.

I'm not sure I want to teach my kid to repeat words emptily, either, if they fundamentally disagree with the words. I'd do it if pressed into a legal corner, but I'd resent it deeply.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
The oath is rendered meaningless because it is mandatory.

Obviously it is not a huge deal to repeat the words emptily (I do it at church all the time :p ), but it is still despicable.
Click to expand...

And if the state were the one forcing you to repeat words in church (emptily or otherwise), it would be unconstitutional.

Chuck Guiteau said:
Almost a full page of silliness on a subject that is rendered moot by its very existence. Only Tsukasa Buddha seems to understand this.
Click to expand...

The issue is not whether such legally mandated recitations (either the oath or the Pledge of Allegiance) would have any meaning.

The problem is that laws requiring such things are unconstitutional since they conflict with First Amendment rights.

The fact that the words might be meaningless doesn't make the issue of a proposed law requiring their recitation moot.

ETA: The fact that demons don't exist doesn't mean the question of whether or not someone can force you to take part in an exorcism is moot. We're not here discussing some supernatural harm an atheist might incur by using the word God. Rather it's a matter of civil rights and the authority of the state.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom