Wednesday, September 21, 2005
DON'T JUST REMOVE GOD--REMOVE THE ENTIRE PLEDGE
Atheist Gary Krasner, at The American Daily, a website devoted to political and social commentary, is happy that the Supreme Court took the "in God" clause out of the Pledge of Allegiance, but he wants to go even further. He believes a free country has no right to impose a Pledge of Allegiance on its citizens.
I suppose I couldn't be more at odds with my fellow conservatives than I am regarding the Pledge of Allegiance case. Not only do I oppose the practice of compelling children to recite a pledge (of any kind), I also oppose the "under God" inclusion. I'll discuss both aspects separately, beginning with the efficacy of a pledge.
A caveat: This will not be a scholarly dissertation. I'm not a scholar, and a lot has already been written anyway on the Establishment clause with respect to the pledge. Anyway, in due time, I suppose we'll all have the opportunity to read Justice Thomas' scholarly support for the religious pledge, and Justice Ginsberg's scholarly opposition to it.
All I hope to do here is expose my fellow conservatives with a healthy dose of common sense.
WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF A PLEDGE?
Children must never be required to recite a pledge of allegiance—even to a Constitutional government. Perhaps especially to a Constitutional government.
First, Children must understand that a pledge or promise is like a solemn contract; an issue of importance that must be adhered to. We certainly don't want them to deem pledges as routine daily utterings. They must understand pledges to be special, and sincere declarations that come from their own conscience.
Children are also too young to understand what a pledge of allegiance means in a tangible sense. Even for many adults, it may seem confusing. For one thing, a loyalty oath presents an apparent contradiction in a nation in which the right to dissent is one of it's main precepts. Declaring independence from England presented a dilemma for many in the Continental Congress, after having been forced to swear their allegiance to King George. An organized pledge of allegiance seems necessary under authoritarian governments. It seems out of place in a free nation.
Children are presented with enough puzzling contradictions about our way of life. We shouldn't add to it. The only pledges we should extract from our 7 year-olds are not to steal, lie, and to brush their teeth after they eat. We can expect more from them later on.
Regarding the aspect of coercion, most adults (and even US Senators) are sufficiently articulate to explain to their peers why they might remain silent during a pledge. But children don't understand the political and religious nuances of this debate. All they understand (usually from overhearing remarks from their parents or political commentators in the media) is that those classmates who refuse to recite the pledge are unpatriotic, or otherwise bad people.
In schools today, ostracism and bullying has reached such a scale that it's contributing to dropout rates, serious violent incidents and sometimes school shootings. We should not foster such conditions. In primary school, perhaps it's best to emphasize what all children have in common, and to teach it—not force them to recite it. (Justice Scalia has drawn a higher threshold for 'coercion' in his previous opinions on church-state cases. For that reason, I'm hoping he recuses himself again when Newdow comes before the court.)
The thing that should be taught is their valuable inheritance, and how and why our form of government, together with our religious and racial tolerance, stands supreme among nations. Teaching the 'hows' and 'whys' are precisely what schools should be about, rather than forcing children each day to utter lines by rote, whose import (to them) must invariably decline with each recital. Besides, patriotism, like other noble callings, is best taught by example.
Continue reading...
