Children are Forced to Recite the Pledge

[eilute]

(This post might not accurately reflect all public schools. I will make the assertion, though, that it accurately reflects the ones I attended.)

The pledge of allegiance was an issue a couple of years ago due to a court case. The issue regarded the legality of the phrase "one nation under god." I don't believe any legal resolution was ever reached, however, it seemed that there was an unwritten general consensus that stated that anyone who objected to the phrase could then omit it. My argument in this post is that children in public schools do not recite the pledge voluntarily.

The world of a child is run by the adult world. When young children, ages six and seven, go to school they are given instructions all day. They are told to hang up their coats, raise their hands so that they can be called on to speak. They told when to eat, and they are told to engage in numerous educational activities. Some of these activities involve the pledge of allegiance. If a child resists doing what they are told, disciplinary action could result.

When six year olds start first grade they do not know the pledge of allegiance. They do not even know what the pledge of allegiance is. The teacher has to teach it to them. It is really part of a teachers job.

Like everything else in a child's school day, learning the pledge is not a voluntary effort. The school has the expectation that they learn it. What's more, the pledge is recited daily over the schools intercom system, and it is expected that children stand up and recite the pledge at this time. This daily recitation generally continues for the next twelve years.

To conclude this long-winded post I will restate my argument:

Children are forced to recite the pledge.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It worked well for 50+ years.

Why the concern?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: eilute
(This post might not accurately reflect all public schools. I will make the assertion, though, that it accurately reflects the ones I attended.)

The pledge of allegiance was an issue a couple of years ago due to a court case. The issue regarded the legality of the phrase "one nation under god." I don't believe any legal resolution was ever reached, however, it seemed that there was an unwritten general consensus that stated that anyone who objected to the phrase could then omit it. My argument in this post is that children in public schools do not recite the pledge voluntarily.

The world of a child is run by the adult world. When young children, ages six and seven, go to school they are given instructions all day. They are told to hang up their coats, raise their hands so that they can be called on to speak. They told when to eat, and they are told to engage in numerous educational activities. Some of these activities involve the pledge of allegiance. If a child resists doing what they are told, disciplinary action could result.

When six year olds start first grade they do not know the pledge of allegiance. They do not even know what the pledge of allegiance is. The teacher has to teach it to them. It is really part of a teachers job.

Like everything else in a child's school day, learning the pledge is not a voluntary effort. The school has the expectation that they learn it. What's more, the pledge is recited daily over the schools intercom system, and it is expected that children stand up and recite the pledge at this time. This daily recitation generally continues for the next twelve years.

To conclude this long-winded post I will restate my argument:

Children are forced to recite the pledge.

Well it's best to assimilate them into the Collective while they are young.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It worked well for 50+ years.

Why the concern?

It worked well for what? You do realize the Pledge was technically a lie every time in crossed someone's lips?

Even the original was sketchy although Francis Bellamy's heart was in the right place.

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The updated version was recited billions of times while people went out of their way to deny basic rights to many Americans.

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.

Arguably, it's become even more irrelevant under Turd43.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: eilute
(This post might not accurately reflect all public schools. I will make the assertion, though, that it accurately reflects the ones I attended.)

The pledge of allegiance was an issue a couple of years ago due to a court case. The issue regarded the legality of the phrase "one nation under god." I don't believe any legal resolution was ever reached, however, it seemed that there was an unwritten general consensus that stated that anyone who objected to the phrase could then omit it. My argument in this post is that children in public schools do not recite the pledge voluntarily.

The world of a child is run by the adult world. When young children, ages six and seven, go to school they are given instructions all day. They are told to hang up their coats, raise their hands so that they can be called on to speak. They told when to eat, and they are told to engage in numerous educational activities. Some of these activities involve the pledge of allegiance. If a child resists doing what they are told, disciplinary action could result.

When six year olds start first grade they do not know the pledge of allegiance. They do not even know what the pledge of allegiance is. The teacher has to teach it to them. It is really part of a teachers job.

Like everything else in a child's school day, learning the pledge is not a voluntary effort. The school has the expectation that they learn it. What's more, the pledge is recited daily over the schools intercom system, and it is expected that children stand up and recite the pledge at this time. This daily recitation generally continues for the next twelve years.

To conclude this long-winded post I will restate my argument:

Children are forced to recite the pledge.

I"ll start by saying that I don't care one way or the other about the pledge. I think pride in your country is one thing, but I don't believe that is conditional upon the recitation of the pledge.

However, you're post said that disciplinary action *could* be taken. If I saw or heard of disciplinary action being taken on someone for not reciting the pledge, I would be outraged. However, until that happens, I see no problem with it. It's voluntary, they're not required to say it.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It worked well for 50+ years.

Why the concern?

Separate drinking fountains for blacks worked for 50 years, why the concern? Somethings are just wrong, it's called progress when you correct them. The pledge is outdated concept and has zero value other than making politicians feel patriotic. Grade school isn't the military.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Is a forced pledge a pledge at all? Without the pride and patriotism behind it, it's a recitation, nothing more. It's meaningless unless you mean it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Is a forced pledge a pledge at all? Without the pride and patriotism behind it, it's a recitation, nothing more. It's meaningless unless you mean it.

That's true. I don't think most kids think much about it one way or the other (though I guess there's the argument that it has a subliminal effect). In any event, I don't see how kids are harmed by saying "under God," or by reading the pledge without it. I'm not religious, and was particularly skeptical of religion as a child, but honestly I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing.

 

[Todd33]

Does anyone pledge an allegiance to a flag and mean it?

 

[thraashman]

I remember in my senior year in high school one day they did the pledge at a different time than normal so it got recited while I was in a different classroom. And as usual, I did not stand (personal objection to the "under God" phrase). The teacher told me to stand, I explained my personal objections to the pledge and why I would not stand. He kicked me out of his classroom for it.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Does anyone pledge an allegiance to a flag and mean it?

YES! you're damn right some of us mean it!

 

[slatr]

To conclude this long-winded post I will restate my argument:

Children are forced to recite the pledge
***********
Isn't it terrible! Their parents should take some responsibilty here and move out of the country.

Loyalty is a virtue Eilute. No one forces those children or their parents to live here.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: thraashman
I remember in my senior year in high school one day they did the pledge at a different time than normal so it got recited while I was in a different classroom. And as usual, I did not stand (personal objection to the "under God" phrase). The teacher told me to stand, I explained my personal objections to the pledge and why I would not stand. He kicked me out of his classroom for it.

In all fairness, you put him in a difficult place. I was always a rebellious kid, and even as a small child rejected religion as silly, but you were creating a disruption, and there was nothing to prevent you from standing but not saying that portion of the Pledge. On the other hand, I find it a little odd you were still reciting the Pledge in high school - I don't think we did it after 6th grade - and it should have been predictable to the faculty that someone would take issue with it by that age.

 

[Isla]

Originally posted by: eilute
(This post might not accurately reflect all public schools. I will make the assertion, though, that it accurately reflects the ones I attended.)

The pledge of allegiance was an issue a couple of years ago due to a court case. The issue regarded the legality of the phrase "one nation under god." I don't believe any legal resolution was ever reached, however, it seemed that there was an unwritten general consensus that stated that anyone who objected to the phrase could then omit it. My argument in this post is that children in public schools do not recite the pledge voluntarily.

The world of a child is run by the adult world. When young children, ages six and seven, go to school they are given instructions all day. They are told to hang up their coats, raise their hands so that they can be called on to speak. They told when to eat, and they are told to engage in numerous educational activities. Some of these activities involve the pledge of allegiance. If a child resists doing what they are told, disciplinary action could result.

When six year olds start first grade they do not know the pledge of allegiance. They do not even know what the pledge of allegiance is. The teacher has to teach it to them. It is really part of a teachers job.

Like everything else in a child's school day, learning the pledge is not a voluntary effort. The school has the expectation that they learn it. What's more, the pledge is recited daily over the schools intercom system, and it is expected that children stand up and recite the pledge at this time. This daily recitation generally continues for the next twelve years.

To conclude this long-winded post I will restate my argument:

Children are forced to recite the pledge.

Yes, and if you were in my classroom during time for the pledge, I would expect you to at least stop and be quiet for a moment while we went through the routine. That would be showing respect. That's the point. Starting the day with a gesture of respect. It's a routine procedure and has a very small part in the whole day. More than anything else, it's a cue. Young children feel a lot more secure when they know what to expect and what they are supposed to do next... every morning, they come into my classroom, and it's the same routine for the most part. And if I should forget something, they let me know right away! We always have a morning meeting afterward, to discuss what will happen each day.

I don't care if the pledge means anything or not... but I do care that I am able to arrange my student's day in such a way that they know what to expect and they know what is appropriate behavior for each activity. If you want to come up with a better 'mantra' that will be accepted nationwide (because children do move and having something familiar in their new schools does help them adjust) then by all means try to get it adopted.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It worked well for 50+ years.

The Pledge of Allegience has been around for over 100 years, and it worked much better before 1954 when they stuffed somebody's god (not mine) into the equation. Aside from injecting religious bias into a secular statement of loyalty to a secular nation, it really blew the cadance of the prose to smithereens. :frown:

Here's a history of the Pledge of Allegience:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the popular children's magazine Youth's Companion by socialist author and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on September 7, 1892. The owners of Youth's Companion were selling flags to schools, and approached Bellamy to write the Pledge for their advertising campaign. It was marketed as a way to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus arriving in the Americas and was first published on the following day.

Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. It was seen by some Brightonians as a call for national unity and wholeness after the divisive Civil War. Bellamy had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity but decided they were too controversial since many people still opposed equal rights for women and African Americans.

After a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison, the Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892 during Columbus Day observances. The form adopted inserted the word "to" before "the Republic", a minor matter of grammar.

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference called for the words my Flag to be changed to the Flag of the United States of America. The reason given was to ensure that immigrants knew to which flag reference was being made. The United States Congress officially recognized the Pledge on June 22, 1942.

In 1954, after a campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus, Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan sponsored a bill to amend the pledge to include the words under God, to distinguish the U.S. from the officially atheist Soviet Union, and to remove the appearance of flag and nation worship. The phrase "nation, under God" previously appeared in Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. On June 8, 1954, Congress adopted this change.

Why the concern?

I'm very concerned about such forced indoctrination of kids into a particular religious belief, regardless of the beliefs and choices of their parents. Allowing children to remain silent is not enough. The peer pressure to conform can easily overwhelm a child's undeveloped ability to make such decisions.

The current administration is a great example of how wrong things can go when rational thought is replaced by blind faith in dogma. :|

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It worked well for 50+ years.

Why the concern?

My concern would be training minds that are incapable of critical thinking. These minds would be unable to distinguish a sound bite from a logical argument, and they might someday elect a vacuous megalomanical stuffed shirt to high public office.

 

[Isla]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It worked well for 50+ years.

Why the concern?

My concern would be training minds that are incapable of critical thinking. These minds would be unable to distinguish a sound bite from a logical argument, and they might someday elect a vacuous megalomanical stuffed shirt to high public office.

In which case, you should get to know your children's teachers. It isn't just the teacher and your child... it's a Parent-Teacher team that educates most successfully.

I want all the children I work with to learn how to learn, and to remain open to possibilities. I want them to question authority! I read "The Emperor's New Clothes" to them for precisely that reason, and after I read the story, we talked about how once people thought the world was flat, and you could be killed for disagreeing with that belief.

I am sure that a lot of parents would not want me teaching their children if they want their children to just believe what they believe.....

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Isla

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It worked well for 50+ years.

Why the concern?

My concern would be training minds that are incapable of critical thinking. These minds would be unable to distinguish a sound bite from a logical argument, and they might someday elect a vacuous megalomanical stuffed shirt to high public office.

In which case, you should get to know your children's teachers. It isn't just the teacher and your child... it's a Parent-Teacher team that educates most successfully.

I want all the children I work with to learn how to learn, and to remain open to possibilities. I want them to question authority! I read "The Emperor's New Clothes" to them for precisely that reason, and after I read the story, we talked about how once people thought the world was round, and you could be killed for disagreeing with that belief.

I am sure that a lot of parents would not want me teaching their children if they want their children to just believe what they believe.....

Well, I don't have any children, but if I did I would still teach them that the world is round.

 

[slatr]

Critical thinking is not mutually exclusive to loyalty to one's country.

 

[Isla]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Isla

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It worked well for 50+ years.

Why the concern?

My concern would be training minds that are incapable of critical thinking. These minds would be unable to distinguish a sound bite from a logical argument, and they might someday elect a vacuous megalomanical stuffed shirt to high public office.

In which case, you should get to know your children's teachers. It isn't just the teacher and your child... it's a Parent-Teacher team that educates most successfully.

I want all the children I work with to learn how to learn, and to remain open to possibilities. I want them to question authority! I read "The Emperor's New Clothes" to them for precisely that reason, and after I read the story, we talked about how once people thought the world was round, and you could be killed for disagreeing with that belief.

I am sure that a lot of parents would not want me teaching their children if they want their children to just believe what they believe.....

Well, I don't have any children, but if I did I would still teach them that the world is round.

LOL, I meant flat. Duh... I'm trying to make lunch and post at the same time. (Spring break!)

I hope you didn't miss my point because of the typo.

I teach my students to respect each other (including their differences) and not to just accept that because someone says something is true, that it really is.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Does anyone pledge an allegiance to a flag and mean it?

Well you do have a lot of sports fanatics who profess allegiance to "their team's" colors and a lot of religious fanatics who profess allegiance to their religion's symbols.

 

[techs]

Reminds me of the "loyalty oat" that members of the military had to sign in the 1950's. It was supposed to weed out Communists.
As if a Commie would have any problem signing a loyalty oath when his ideology said any actions are justified to bring on Communism.
The only people who got in trouble were the people who believed that the oath was nonsense and violated their civil rights.
Being forced to recite the Pledge is abut as useful as being forced to sign a loyalty oath.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: eilute
(This post might not accurately reflect all public schools. I will make the assertion, though, that it accurately reflects the ones I attended.)

The pledge of allegiance was an issue a couple of years ago due to a court case. The issue regarded the legality of the phrase "one nation under god." I don't believe any legal resolution was ever reached, however, it seemed that there was an unwritten general consensus that stated that anyone who objected to the phrase could then omit it. My argument in this post is that children in public schools do not recite the pledge voluntarily.

The world of a child is run by the adult world. When young children, ages six and seven, go to school they are given instructions all day. They are told to hang up their coats, raise their hands so that they can be called on to speak. They told when to eat, and they are told to engage in numerous educational activities. Some of these activities involve the pledge of allegiance. If a child resists doing what they are told, disciplinary action could result.

When six year olds start first grade they do not know the pledge of allegiance. They do not even know what the pledge of allegiance is. The teacher has to teach it to them. It is really part of a teachers job.

Like everything else in a child's school day, learning the pledge is not a voluntary effort. The school has the expectation that they learn it. What's more, the pledge is recited daily over the schools intercom system, and it is expected that children stand up and recite the pledge at this time. This daily recitation generally continues for the next twelve years.

To conclude this long-winded post I will restate my argument:

Children are forced to recite the pledge.

This has been argued to death, with most of the valid arguments belonging to returning the pledge to its original state or abandoning it altogether. The most valid arguments I've heard to the contrary are; cost to change, and the natural evolution of the nation.

Definitely not all schools require it, in fact many don't even do it. I've never been at a school that braodcasts it over the intercom (though I've heard of it being done other places). That being said I'm sure it's done in some form more often than not at the elementary level at least.

You are somewhat correct in your argument. It isn't a primary force which provides the force however, but a secondary one. That being the natural tendencies of groupthink, peer pressure, and socialization. It IS illegal to overtly force someone to say it (although it's done anyway), but even those who would otherwise choose not to participate do so out of fear or apathy.

BTW, the finding in the case you're discussing (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow) was that the father (Newdow) had insufficient grounds to file the case as he wasn't the primary care provider of the child (being divorced with primary custody going to the mother). The new case he filed was on behalf of other parents (who are the primary custodians) and therefore has legal grounds. That's the decision I'm waiting for. I've corresponded with Newdow briefly, providing my own experiences should he wish to utilize them.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It worked well for 50+ years.

Why the concern?

Because it didn't work well for 50 years for everybody. You just say that because it didn't directly cause you any problems. Slavery never caused me any problems personally, but that doesn't mean it was right to own blacks. When something is an infringement of rights, or a danger (physical or psychological) to someone, it should be corrected.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Isla

Originally posted by: eilute
(This post might not accurately reflect all public schools. I will make the assertion, though, that it accurately reflects the ones I attended.)

The pledge of allegiance was an issue a couple of years ago due to a court case. The issue regarded the legality of the phrase "one nation under god." I don't believe any legal resolution was ever reached, however, it seemed that there was an unwritten general consensus that stated that anyone who objected to the phrase could then omit it. My argument in this post is that children in public schools do not recite the pledge voluntarily.

The world of a child is run by the adult world. When young children, ages six and seven, go to school they are given instructions all day. They are told to hang up their coats, raise their hands so that they can be called on to speak. They told when to eat, and they are told to engage in numerous educational activities. Some of these activities involve the pledge of allegiance. If a child resists doing what they are told, disciplinary action could result.

When six year olds start first grade they do not know the pledge of allegiance. They do not even know what the pledge of allegiance is. The teacher has to teach it to them. It is really part of a teachers job.

Like everything else in a child's school day, learning the pledge is not a voluntary effort. The school has the expectation that they learn it. What's more, the pledge is recited daily over the schools intercom system, and it is expected that children stand up and recite the pledge at this time. This daily recitation generally continues for the next twelve years.

To conclude this long-winded post I will restate my argument:

Children are forced to recite the pledge.

Yes, and if you were in my classroom during time for the pledge, I would expect you to at least stop and be quiet for a moment while we went through the routine. That would be showing respect. That's the point. Starting the day with a gesture of respect. It's a routine procedure and has a very small part in the whole day. More than anything else, it's a cue. Young children feel a lot more secure when they know what to expect and what they are supposed to do next... every morning, they come into my classroom, and it's the same routine for the most part. And if I should forget something, they let me know right away! We always have a morning meeting afterward, to discuss what will happen each day.

I don't care if the pledge means anything or not... but I do care that I am able to arrange my student's day in such a way that they know what to expect and they know what is appropriate behavior for each activity. If you want to come up with a better 'mantra' that will be accepted nationwide (because children do move and having something familiar in their new schools does help them adjust) then by all means try to get it adopted.

Routine and tradition are HORRIBLE arguments for doing something. I can defeat those every time, as can anyone with 5 minutes of debate or argument experience. If you want a routine then say 'good morning class, today is going to be a great day,' and have them say it too. There's your morning routine with positivie effect (positive reinforcement and self-actualizing being a proven method).

You don't have the right to place your routine over the well being of the children. The pledge IS an indoctrination. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't understand the term or the process.

Voluntary participation is an inadequate response due to the reasons I've previously stated clearly with supporting evidence (peer pressure, groupthink, socialization, etc). Still, I'd be willing to accept it as voluntary with MINOR modifications rendering it non-discriminatory.