acroyear: (blank-eating grin)
[personal profile] acroyear
"We're looking at whether 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional and should be banned in public schools. We've noticed currency has "In God We Trust" on it. Therefore we're considering banning all lunch money at schools."

-- source: a political cartoon I saw in the paper. I'll better credit it if i see the source online.

Date: 2004-02-25 12:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] katrinb.livejournal.com
Hmph. No one forces you to take an oath to a deity of the government's choice every time you spend money.
No, "under God" shouldn't be _banned_ - but it shouldn't be presented as the "official" version either, any more than "under Gods", "under no God," or "under Goddess" should be. Leave the kids to invoke their deity/ies of choice if they want to, and don't tell them that one choice is more sanctioned and approved than another.

Date: 2004-02-25 01:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cozit.livejournal.com
The really sad thing is just how many people have no clue that the Pledge of Allegiance has been around a **long** time... but that the 'Under God' phrase has only been there for... well, IIRC not as long as my parents have been alive.. (I want to say late 1940s or in the 50s, but can't remember as I haven't looked it up for a while)

So gee whiz folks, what in the world is so horrid about going back to the old wording?

Of course, now I'm wondering when the "In God We Trust" showed up on the money, coin and paper....

Date: 2004-02-25 01:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com
yeah, but when something is said in unison as a group, then not saying the same thing others are saying (or the other way 'round) will make one stick out.

suppose only 2 kids say "under god" when that part of the pledge comes up. boy are THEY gonna going to be singled out. "Hey, Jesus-boy" is something I heard a number of times as a teasing call when a child of very active church-goers walked among the wrong group of kids. It was only the start, what was said and done got worse from there.

yeah, it sucks that school life is driven by such a strong emphasis on conformity, and that its gotten worse, not better, since the late 60s and certainly in the last 10 years since we left school. Its bad enough the degree to which peer-pressure forces conformity without the school environment and requirements themselves contributing to the problem.

and hell, look at the current president and the members of his cabinet to see the results of such rediculous conformity in action. the buddy-buddy network going on over there is FAR worse than the piddly stuff that the reps accused Clinton of having...

Date: 2004-02-25 01:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com
check out elf's archives, though you may have to dig a bit. the work is from the 1890s, by a baptist minister. under god was added in 1952, during the peak of mccarthyism and the desire to have anything and everything added to keep americans patriotic and loyal and having available all the tools to pick out non-conformists in order to suspect them of anything...

...gee, that last sentence sounds WAY too familiar...

Date: 2004-02-25 02:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] katrinb.livejournal.com
Suppose only one kid says "under Goddess" when the rest are saying "under God"? They'll be singled out too. Believe me, I got the "Are you a good witch or a bad witch?" often enough myself. Peer pressure isn't always directed against Christians (at least y'all are in the majority...)
The thing is, if religion is left out of it entirely, then no kids need to _deny_ their religion to conform to the "official" version. If they merely choose not to talk about religion in that particular moment, they won't stand out at all. If they want to talk about it, fine, but that makes it their active choice to speak up and be singled out or not. But being told that in order to conform to the "official" version, sanctioned by the schools and the teacher and other authority figures, you have to _actively_ affirm someone else's religion and _actively_ deny your own beliefs is something completely different. I agree, peer pressure sucks. But it's there, and it shouldn't be used to force someone to take an oath that goes contrary to their religious faith.
Why does religion belong in an oath of allegiance to our country at all? You don't have to be a member of any particular religion, or even of any religion at all, to be an American - no matter what the religious right tells you. Affirming a male monotheistic God is not relevant to affirming your citizenship and loyalty to America.
One could bring up the question of whether it's right to force/pressure children to swear their loyalty in schools at all, both in the sense that loyalty should not be forced and in the sense that most schoolkids are too young to take oaths like that with full awareness and judgement...

Date: 2004-02-25 02:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com
we're on the same side here, so don't get mad at me ;-)

while you're at it, why have an oath of loyalty to the U.S., when a considerable number of kids in the class are immigrants or here for diplomatic reasons, some of whose parents have not yet made any final decisions on u.s. citizenship (or are against it 'cause they have no reason to go that route), either for themselves, or for thier kids. its one of the reasons, i was told, that most fairfax county schools stopped reciting it altogether.

in my schools in florida (orange park was majorly u.s. navy bred with 5 bases within 15 miles) it was mandatory, as it was in my school in chula vista, ca (where again, the immigrant issue might have made something of it, had they organized).

i will say that in hindsight, i really didn't know what i was saying when i recited it.

Date: 2004-02-25 03:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] katrinb.livejournal.com
Oh, I'm not mad, and I apologize if I sounded so. I get intense about some things, but I assure you, I'm still on an intellectual-discussion level here...
Your points about immigrants and diplomats are valid - which is another problem with indiscriminate forced loyalty oaths.
And I didn't know or care either, I just said it because that was what we did. Which makes the whole exercise rather pointless. Personally, I don't think anyone ought to be asked to swear an oath of allegiance until they're 18.

Date: 2004-02-26 12:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cozit.livejournal.com
*g* I was close at least. thanks.

Now all I have to do is remember to look up the coinage/currency thing...

Profile

acroyear: (Default)
Joe's Ancient Jottings

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
56789 1011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 28th, 2026 01:33 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios