Latest from the Supreme Court
Feb. 25th, 2004 02:41 pm"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.
-- source: a political cartoon I saw in the paper. I'll better credit it if i see the source online.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 12:56 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 01:32 pm (UTC)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....
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 01:34 pm (UTC)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...
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 01:37 pm (UTC)...gee, that last sentence sounds WAY too familiar...
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 02:03 pm (UTC)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...
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 02:13 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 03:58 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-26 12:12 pm (UTC)Now all I have to do is remember to look up the coinage/currency thing...