Do you think it is wrong for schools to have students say the Pledge of Alligence when not everyone believes in one god or even in a god?
2007-08-26 13:38:27 · 18 answers · asked by Dusty DayDreams 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No-one should be compelled to pledge blind allegiance to the state, regardless of whether god is mentioned. It's a disgusting practice to impose on children in a nation that claims to be free.
2007-08-26 13:44:30 · answer #1 · answered by wondermus 5 · 13⤊ 0⤋
I don't care about the "One nation under God" part so much as having the entire school stand and pledge alligence every morning. I don't remember ever realizing what those words meant when I was a kid, and here i was "pledging" myself to it. It just seems a bit too "Hitler Youth" if you ask me.
2007-08-26 20:44:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
The original pledge: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivdisible, with liberty and justice for all." It was written by a clergyman by the name of Francis Bellamy.
The phrase "of the United States of America" was added in the 1920s, if I remember correctly, to remove ambiguity as to whose flag the person was pledging allegiance to. Bellamy was NOT happy about that change.
"Under god" was added in the 1950s, as was mentioned, at the height of the red scare and at the behest of the Knights of Columbus. Bellamy had long since died, but his daughter thought her father would be quite upset at this as well.
So let's take out the "under god" and return it to some semblance of its original form, could we?
2007-08-26 22:43:47 · answer #3 · answered by VeggieTart -- Let's Go Caps! 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Considering that "under god" was added under McCarthyism in the mid-twentieth century, I think it is wrong to force kids to adhere to any religious belief in a public school. If they'd like to say it on their own, they are certainly free to do so.
It's an innocuous phrase, and Evangelicals would shout "discrimination" if it were removed, but the point is that today's pledge is a deviation from the original.
2007-08-26 20:44:28 · answer #4 · answered by Dalarus 7 · 11⤊ 0⤋
I think it's stupid that that particular phrase is in the Pledge, but that's a pretty small issue for our nation to deal with at the moment. I do think, though, that we should return to the original version of the pledge (sans theism).
2007-08-26 20:45:26 · answer #5 · answered by N 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I dont really care most kids arent even saying it or paying attention to the person that is so if its going to be put out of school it will probably be because no one is listening
this is what happens in my high school so that is where i got my opinion, im not sure if other schools have more students that care
2007-08-26 20:45:11 · answer #6 · answered by JFK fan--(Hug Brigade) 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, just superstitious prattle and ignorant, childish behaviour.
Also, I am not an Atheist, that label denotes the presence of something or someone actually being there.
I prefer to be called a realist!
2007-08-26 20:45:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pledge? No.
The under god part inserted in the McCarthy era? Yes, that is wrong.
2007-08-26 20:43:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
It's wrong to force anyone to say something like that regardless of whether it has 'under some non-existent god' in it or not.
2007-08-26 20:46:42 · answer #9 · answered by bestonnet_00 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I can get over "under god", that's baby stuff. I can't get over trying to teach Christianity in school, or having Christian "morals" define our laws...
I would prefer it not be in their though...it's not necessary to pledge allegiance to your country...
2007-08-26 20:45:03 · answer #10 · answered by . 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋