March 24, 2004

• We don't do anything even remotely similar in Britain. The idea of a pledge of allegience seems quite strange to me. Quaint, almost.
• I hated that thing as a kid. Especially the under god part, which I usually didn't say (atheist). Pleding allegiance to a flag in a country governed by law is nothing more than a silly bit of symbolism.
• Sure don't do it here in Canada either. The whole idea seems totally foreign to me.... It all seems very old fashioned to me.
• Isn't such inculcation part of the national character in GB, though? ISTR the phrase "For God and Country" and similar. Whatever effect such pledges or oaths have on you would probably be comparable to the effects of the pledge. But yeah, even as a kid -- a yank kid, I thought it was dumb.
• I hear they do it in Iran.
• ISTR the phrase "For God and Country" and similar. I think its "For Queen and Country", actually. We did have religious assemblies, with prayer, in school in the mornings, when I was at primary school, though. I don't know if they still do that.
• They used to do it in Iraq, too.
• Now, Banning's lawyers contend that if Newdow succeeds in stopping the recitation of the pledge in public schools, he gets to "impose his own agenda and particular sensibility on everyone else." That would really suck if one group got to impose their agenda and sensibilities on everyone else. This godless freak must be stopped before the Angel of Death comes looking for our firstborn sons. ***invests in lamb's blood futures***
• citizens of other countries should stand when our pledge is said! and make sure you get the breath pauses in the correct places. heh.
• Isn't it just the "under God" part of the Pledge that's (probably not) going to be struck down? Public schools would still be able to do their pseudo-fascist ritual, just not in the name of a particular deity.
• related question: is patriotism also only an american, um, virtue?
• The Thing Blunkett, of course, is trying to introduce pleges like this for foreign types wanting to gain British citizenship (odd that, having to confirm your status as a subject in order to become a citizen). Currently it's only voluntary for them, but oooooh, just you wait. The Blunkett is not easily appeased. Various jobs entail pledging some kind of oath to Her Maj (MP, soldier, Prince of Wales, etc.), but it's not really a part of most people's lives. While education is required to have a 'religious element', this is all frantically multi-cultural and non-denominational, so with the exception of faith schools (which naturally Tony wants more of) we never really get round to commiting ourselves to any particular god.
• I remember in my school we did tha kind of thing. Well, we had some sort of ceremony on monday mornings where before classes started we set up the flag on the courtyard and sang the national anthem. It's obligatory for all schools here, I suppose. We also have a pledge but we only recite it on a special day (the flag day) of the year. Mexico has laws pertaining the respect of national symbols. It's a crime to use the flag, shield, or athemn on unnoficial events, songs or art, even on praises. Don't even think on burning a flag here.
• When I was a little kid, I remember not only having to do the pledge of allegiance every morning, but also we had to sing- "My Country 'Tis of Thee"- which is kind of odd, as it's just "God Save the Queen" with different words. The school must have decided that the national anthem was too hard for us. Since I did part of my schooling in France and Venezuela, I have a basis for comparison- I don't recall the school in France doing anything in that regard. (Besides, La Marseillaise is just too damn hard to sing.) In Venezuela, however, the entire school lined up by grade every morning to sing the national anthem. *Every morning.* And if the director felt that our singing lacked enthusiasm, we'd have to do it again.
• While education is required to have a 'religious element', this is all frantically multi-cultural and non-denominational, so with the exception of faith schools (which naturally Tony wants more of) we never really get round to commiting ourselves to any particular god. Its an irony I always like - in Britain, despite its national church, divine ruler, and openly religious Christian education, we seem to have a take it or leave it approach to religion. We don't do God, as everyones favourite civil servant once said. America, on the other hand... (Ha - that article I linked, which I'd never read before, basically says the exact same thing as me: And here is the real irony. Far from making Britain a more religious place, this seems to have made it less so.)
• Pleding allegiance to a flag in a country governed by law is nothing more than a silly bit of symbolism. Your reckless disregard for the power and worth of symbols and symbolism strikes me as rather thoughtless. Just remember, you're not just pledging allegiance to the flag, but ALSO to the republic for which it stands. I know in today's no-nation-but-the-world unspoken dream, it may seem quaint, but the pledge DOES mean something, regardless of how its viewed by people of a different stripe. bah: the Constitution's old fashioned too. So are a lot of good things. That would really suck if one group got to impose their agenda and sensibilities on everyone else. Nine out of ten Americans support keeping the phrase "under God", since most view that as being a reference to a generalized God, which might apply to any religion (vs. Newdow's misguided idea that it's a Judeo-Christian God that's referenced in the Pledge). I'm just sayin'. dirigibleman: What exactly about this ritual is "pseudo-fascist"? Please to explain. Also see above regarding the perception of which God is being referenced in the Pledge.
• This is a silly question but... is the Pledge of Allegiance legally binding? I mean, if you pledge fealty to the U.S.ofA., can you be held to that in some way?
• My British elementary school was C of E (Church of England), and therefore we'd have daily assemblies where we would pray, but never about the country. As far as I can remember, they were mostly about personal strength. We never sang the national anthem either. My British high school was completely devoid of any mention of God at all, even in assemblies. The school, apparently, was one of many that broke the law by having no 'religious element', as mentioned above by flashboy. There were some consequences, but as far as I can remember, they weren't monetary. In Canada it was a surprise, in my Canadian middle school to know that everyone from Grade 1 to 6 had to sing the national anthem, and from 7 to 8, you had to stand but no-one sang. When I first encountered this, I thought it was terribly fascist! The Canadian national anthem does have a mention of God: "God keep our land glorious and free!" However it's phrasing makes it more of a question than a stated fact, although it's still objectionable.
• I think (though I may be wrong) that it's a treasonable offence to deface the queen's image or use it inappropriately - the example I remember was that it is apparently thus illegal to stick a stamp on a letter upside down ... dunno if anybody told the chap who produced the sleeve for 'God save The Queen'
• I've heard the same thing about stamps here in the States. Can anyone confirm it? certainsome1: No, I don't believe the Pledge counts as a binding one, as say, a courtroom swear does.
• coincidence corner: my iPod's on random play at the moment - the first new song up after my previous post: 'God Save The Queen' Spooky
• I bet you've only got two songs on your ipod, though, dickdotcom...
• Joe (Red Scare) McCarthy didn't put "under God" into the pledge of allegiance because he was a good Christian. He wanted to use God and the flag as a shield so he could attack others. His pal was Roy Cohn, a gay basher who was gay. Some perspective on the history of the pledge should be noted for the record.
• niccolo - that must have been *ages* ago. i remember we stopped doing it when i entered junior high, and that was back in the jurassic (1973). which is pretty weird when you consider that the song wasn't even officially our nat'l anthem until seven years later (june 27, 1980) also there was never a law or rule saying that the anthem should or should not be played at any given place for any given purpose. it's always been left up to the people to decide for themselves.
• yes its history should indeed be noted, thnx for pointing that out sully.
• So my freshman year in high school, I decide I don't want to say the pledge. I think it's silly. So the rest of the class stands, and I just sit at the back of the room. My "Earth Science" teacher comes FLYING to my desk, forehead bulging with veins and face red like a tomato. He grabs me by my shirt and drags me into his office and starts screaming in my face "I am LIVID with rage! How DARE you disrespect this country and my flag?" and so on, so forth. I don't remember the whole diatribe, but I remember those first few sentences vividly. I told him I love my country, but I think it's cultish that we all stand up and pledge to a piece of cloth. So off to the principal's office I go, and a compromise is struck. I am to stand, but I'm not required to recite the pledge. Coercive?
• Disclosure: In retrospect, I totally see that I was being a snot nose little prick about the whole issue. Aren't all 13 year olds?
• face red like a tomato [...] "I am LIVID with rage!" Not only coercive, but illiterate. Good thing he wasn't an English teacher. /pedantfilter
• arm, that's what i find so ironic about the whole pledge/patriotism/hurray for america!!! cult in this country. america is SUPPOSED to be about personal freedom. individual choice. kids who refuse to say the pledge are actually living out a truly american ideal -- it is their own decision to do so. but some folks, right-wingers especially, label them as "unamerican." huh?

• bah: the Constitution's old fashioned too. So are a lot of good things. Nine out of ten Americans support keeping the phrase "under God", since most view that as being a reference to a generalized God, which might apply to any religion (vs. Newdow's misguided idea that it's a Judeo-Christian God that's referenced in the Pledge). I'm just sayin'.

  Defending and assaulting the consitution, all in the same post... There are people who do not, in fact, believe in God. Some of us find the idea of being forced to swear allegience to random mythologies more that a trifle offensive. (And they may feel that, but it ignores the facts around the introduction of the pledge itself).
• I choose not to say the pledge in my classroom (I'm a high school teacher), and invariably, students ask why. I tell them, very simply, that I pledge my allegiance not to flags *or* the republics for which they stand; but rather to ideals like democracy, truth, justice, and human rights. Since our government regularly chooses its own interests over these higher ideals (as is the case with all governments), I do not swear my loyalty to this republic, or any other. This can be hard to explain, of course. Sometimes I wish I had a popular religious tenet I could use as a short version (my own polytheistic faith isn't any easier to break down for 9th graders)..
• but some folks, right-wingers especially, label them as "unamerican." huh? It's a good way to put the Democrats on the defensive without Republicans having to state what they're for. Case in point, SideDish. A fellow Beltway journalist wrote about how conservatives have dumped the Vietnam vets as a wedge issue.

  "John Kerry's campaign seems to be summed up this way: I went to Vietnam, yadda, yadda, yadda, I want to be president." Yadda, yadda, yadda.

  I know nothing about Terry Holt. I don't know whether he ever served in the military, or whether he was even old enough to have served in Vietnam. But I thought it was a very revealing quote -- a kind of political Freudian slip, so to speak. Because it revealed the degree to which the Republicans no longer feel it necessary to pander to (or even show much respect for) those who served in Vietnam.

• I recall elementary school growing up, and how we would have assemblies where all would stand and sing "O Canada" and then "God save the Queen". Fast forward a couple years to grade 6 and no more "God save the Queen" but still standing in the classroom to listen to "O Canada" over the PA system. Then in High School, nada! No mention of a national anthem or any sort of patriotism or allegiance to anyone.
• Nine out of ten Americans support keeping the phrase "under God", since most view that as being a reference to a generalized God, which might apply to any religion (vs. Newdow's misguided idea that it's a Judeo-Christian God that's referenced in the Pledge). Nine out of ten Americans support keeping "under God" because it's their god being referenced. Some of those Americans try to claim that it's a generalized god (which still ignores atheist, agnostics, and polytheist and nontheist religions) to try an make it sound legit, but they are the ones who are misguided (at best; misleading at worst).

  "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty — a patriotic oath and a public prayer." --Dwight Eisenhower, on signing the act that put "under God" into the Pledge

  A public prayer. The phrase "under God" is not only explicitly religious, but explicitly Christian. Nine out of ten Americans are wrong. What exactly about this ritual is "pseudo-fascist"? The part where agents of the government force little kids to say it every day before school long before they are capable of understanding what they are saying. Yes, I know, technically it's voluntary. Tell that to all my teachers over the years.
• scartol, i'm curious, have you ever been criticized or attacked by parents or the school district for your stand?
• D-man, teachers ("agents of the government") force little kids to do all kinds of things that they don't understand. It's part of socializing the little brats. I'm agnostic, and I literally don't give a damn about the existing language of the Pledge. Seems harmless and generic to me. I'd be a lot twitchier if I were pledging my allegience to the Virgin Mary, Jesus the C, or Krsna. I spent most of my school years in Birmingham, Alabama, where we didn't say the Pledge in high school, though I remember saying it as a very young child in Atlanta, Georgia and Houston, Texas. I'm quite a bit older than armaghetto, too. Make of that what you will. Maybe this is just the Dixie equivalent of the progression that squeak observed.
• We did the pledge in New Jersey. By the time we got to highschool the teachers could barely get us to standup. We were suppose to recite, but no one could be bothered. I think the pledge is makes kids highly uninterested in their government.
• As another side note I recall swearing allegiance to the Queen when I enlisted in the Canadian military and thought at that time that it was a bit strange swearing allegiange to a "Figurehead". That said, after quite a few years out of the military and some big life changes I find myself deeply patriotic for this funny country we call Canada, and in many ways hope for a time where people can overlook religous/political/racial/hormonal/mental/everyother conceivable difference and just be activly part of where they live, accepting the rightfully elected governments and speaking out against those they disagree with (in civilized ways.) way to go scartol for standing up ..er.. sitting down ..er.. staying silent for what you believe in.
• Nine out of ten Americans support keeping the phrase "under God" It's always shocking to see how few Americans understand that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.
• I consider myself highly patriotic, but frankly, I think the pledge is silly, and as some have pointed out, slightly fascist. If I thought that semi-enforced pledging of allegience to something that represents America was a good idea (which I don't), I would say we should pledge allegience to the Constitution. The flag's fine and all, but the Constitution really is what makes America great (or at least as great as it is). And that would mean everybody pledges, not just kids. Why should kids have to do it when grown-ups don't. The only reason that makes any sense to me is that its a method of indoctrination. Nine out of ten Americans support keeping the phrase "under God", since most view that as being a reference to a generalized God, which might apply to any religion. I bet if you ask most people who are not judeochristians, they'll tell you they don't feel that way. I, for example, don't think that when we say "under God", we really mean "under Buddha", or even "under some-nondenominational-being-of-whom-Buddha-is-an-example". And besides, Buddha wouldn't want anyone "under" him anyway. The whole idea that the word "God" suffices for everyone's religious (or non-religious) beliefs is ignorant of all of us who don't worship "God" (the majority of humans, if not of Americans).
• For the record, I stopped saying the pledge in elementary school when everyone else did, because I thought it was silly. I wasn't forced to say it, nor was I made to feel stupid for abstaining. Maybe I lived in Perfect Town, USA, but it seems to me that there is nothing that says saying the Pledge is mandatory. I, for one, was content to let the Pledge be said by those who liked to say it, and just leave it at that. Then again, I think of myself as a highly tolerant individual, despite what stereotypical demographics I might fall into because of my personal beliefs... It's always shocking to see how few Americans understand that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. It's always shocking to see how few Americans understand that freedom of religion doesn't hamper freedom from religion. Unless you make a big deal of it (/Newdowfilter). Defending and assaulting the consitution, all in the same post... Not sure what you mean, but okay... There are people who do not, in fact, believe in God. Some of us find the idea of being forced to swear allegience to random mythologies more that a trifle offensive. rodgerd, sorry if you were ever forced to say something you didn't believe in. I for one, have never heard of forced Pledge recitations.
• f8xmulder, the force is implicit.
• We used to say the pledge every day in my school (including high school) but I went to a church school in the South US so that may be part of it. It was never a huge part of my daily life, but a rather rote experience. hey goetter, small world! you heard of Briarwood? Fast-foward to about a month ago: I attended a Kerry rally and they asked us to say the pledge. A huge crowd of Americans saying the pledge together was surprisingly meaningful and I got a little emotional at the time. I can't explain why to this day. It was nothing like those days in grade school when we said the pledge like good little repeating robots.
• My son is 6 years old and a first grader in public school in Massachusetts. They have "morning exercise" which consist of reciting the pledge of allegence and singing some song which he calls "I love America" (don't know if this is its actual name). He thinks morning exercise is stupid and boring, and that he is being forced into participating (although I doubt anyone actually held a gun to his head; they just told him he has to do it, and he's a good boy, so he does-- close enough to coersion for my taste)
• It's always shocking to see how few Americans understand that freedom of religion doesn't hamper freedom from religion. Unless you make a big deal of it. f8xmulder, I understand that there are no guns being held to heads during the pledge (at least not yet) but imagine if it was 'Under Allah' or 'In Buddha We Trust'. Would that bother you?
• f8xmulder, I understand that there are no guns being held to heads during the pledge (at least not yet) but imagine if it was 'Under Allah' or 'In Buddha We Trust'. Would that bother you? Or better yet, how about "under Satan", would that be ok?
• As I've stated before, I think that the God part is generalized. If God, Satan, Allah, Krishna, or Kali is your God, then let it be. I tell you what. I'll relinquish the 'under God' part of the Pledge if every non-Christian stops taking Jesus' name in vain whenever they feel like it.
• Hey Mickey [no no no not that song noooo!!], I think they're all called "Briarwood." Lessee -- Fernbank Elementary in Atlanta, then another in Atlanta, then the terrible terrible Inez Carroll in Houston, then what I remember as the decent Sammonds in Houston, then Crestline in Birmingham where I finally came to a stop. All this in grades 1-3, whew. Was Briarwood in Houston? It has a kind of Texas ring--
• niccolo - that must have been *ages* ago. i remember we stopped doing it when i entered junior high, and that was back in the jurassic (1973). It was 6 years ago in Ottawa. Maybe the school decided to be unusual...
• Sorry, goetter - should have been a little more specific! Briarwood is in Bham, used to be on Highway 280 with a pretty decent-sized Presbyterian church attached.
• As I've stated before, I think that the God part is generalized. If God, Satan, Allah, Krishna, or Kali is your God, then let it be. So, f8x, if they changed the pledge of allegence to "Under Krishna", that would really be ok with you because all those names are just diffent names for the divine? And you'd say to yourself everytime you heard the pledge, "when they say Krishna, they really mean generic divine being, so, yeah, I agree with that, and I feel comfortable saying Under Krishna, even though I really believe my God is a lot different from Krishna"? Cause that's what you're asking from me.
• As I've stated before, I think that the God part is generalized. If God, Satan, Allah, Krishna, or Kali is your God, then let it be. 'Under God' is as wrong to an Athiest as 'Under Allah' is to a Christian. God is only a general term for people who believe in a God. Wait, I meant 'a Bright'. We're supposed to call ourselves 'Brights' now. I tell you what. I'll relinquish the 'under God' part of the Pledge if every non-Christian stops taking Jesus' name in vain whenever they feel like it. Throw in 'In God We Trust' and 'So help me God' and you can even have Christmas and Easter back. Deal? =)
• They did the anthem every morning at my middle school and high school in Ontario, and as far as I know they still do, my little sister just graduated. We all stood up, but we certainly didn't sing. Mostly it was a pain, as if you were late for class you had to stop in the halls and wait respectfully, or you got in shit. What was odd for me is that I lived in Montreal until I was 12, and heck, I didn't even know the English words to O Canada. My only context for the anthem was hockey games. The first day of Grade Seven was a very nasty shock. You want me to do what, now? But I'm no patriot, I love my country but I really do believe that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. And I don't think forced pledges or anthems are the way to engender better citizenship. Especially not ones that include religion where religion ought not to be. I usually deal with that in O Canada by singing the French verse instead at the "god" point. :)
• As I've stated before, I think that the God part is generalized. You know, that really rings hollow when a Christian says it, especially given the circumstances surrounding its insertion into the Pledge. And it still ignores atheists, agnostics, and polytheists. I'll relinquish the 'under God' part of the Pledge if every non-Christian stops taking Jesus' name in vain whenever they feel like it. There's no government oath that compels the oath-taker to take Jesus' name in vain. Do I think this is a big deal? Not really. I think it's more a symptom of a deeper anti-secular bias in American society (see: anti-gay marriage ammendment), but I don't exactly lose sleep over the fact that kids have to say "under God" in the morning (I'm more concerned with them having to recite a loyalty oath at all), or that my money has "In God we trust" all over it. However, since the subject has been broach, and since it's up for review by the Supreme Court, I think they should do the right thing, tell the executive branch that they can't play sides in the "whose religion (or lack of) is better" debate, and strike "under God" from the Pledge of Allegience. If f8xmulder wants to keep pledging under God, he's more than welcome, but I see no reason why the official government Pledge of Allegience should require a person to acknowledge the Christian God (or any god).
• Would anyone feel ok if it was "under Bryan Adams"? It may cut like a knife, but would it feel so right?
• krebs cycle: I wouldn't mind it, but I don't speak for a majority of people. I wouldn't mind it for several reasons, not the least of which is that it would be laughable to the point of absurdity. So if someone wants to say "One nation, under Krishna" then by all means. And 100 million people will look at them as if they're nuts. See, the problem is people who read "under God", they automatically assume it must mean the monotheistic, Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. Where's it say that, exactly? Who's to say that the God mentioned in the pledge is the God of Christianity? This certainly isn't a Christian nation, so why would it be a Christian God? God, in this sense, is very vague, and can refer to any God. For the atheists out there who want to say the Pledge (please stand up), is ignoring the "under God" part so difficult? Who would have thought a little two word phrase would dig under people's skin? Grow a backbone and just stay silent for that part. Keep Christmas and Easter. As Dickens wrote, "I do not make merry myself..." There's no government oath that compels the oath-taker to take Jesus' name in vain. Likewise, there's no oath compelling people to say the Pledge, much less the "under God" portion.
• I think we should be one nation under a groove, Sully. Mickey, I was north of you on 280. Crestline was in the "poor" (ie non-country-club) part of Mountain Brook.
• dirigibleman: What I say rings hollow (coming from a Christian as it does) because you're used to the brand of Christian who wants nothing more than to see this country "taken back" in the name of Jesus - it's a load of crap is what that is. This nation was never Christian, though it was founded upon moral principles derived, in part, from Christian and Jewish traditions. I am merely applying the rule that secularism would apply to any other case. At any rate, I still argue that the phrase "under God" violates no constitutional provision. It does not establish a religion, it does not violate religious freedom (either for or of). It simply exists, as part of ceremony and ritual, to heighten the morality of a democratic republic. God, in this sense, might even be taken to mean The People (as in We the People), though I admit that's a stretch. Nevertheless, I think that the basis of Newdow's case is one built upon misapplied supposition and wilful ignorance of the facts, both of the Pledge and of the Constitution. When the Pledge of Allegiance is forced upon someone, then you let me know, and I'll stand with you. Until then, cry me a river.
• It might be that it is not my tradition, but what has always struck me about Pledges of Allegiance vs anthems is the oath part. Singing a song, however patriotic, is just singing a song (and many of them very pretty), but a pledge of allegiance commits you to something. When soldiers and MPs pledge allegiance to the Queen, they are mean it - or at least they should. (The Queen, or the Gov-Gen in her stead, is not just a figureheads - she really is the commander-in-chief. It makes sense in our constitution - Parliament and the Monarchy are suposed to protect us from the possible tyranny of the other. Very 18th cen, but it works) I take oaths very seriously (I almost agree with the Quakers), so the thought of being told to take an oath without having time to think about it is very disturbing to me. also, it probably doesn't help that one of my first exposures to the American practice was in The Children's Story by James Clavell. t r a c y: Singing of Oh Canada continued in Toronto elementary schools at least into the 1980's, when I was there. We also sang in French starting in grade three, or at least in vague approximation thereof (not that I remember). Though if there is ever an issue raised about the God bits of the English, perhaps we should just switch to a close translation of the French. My theory one why singing of anthems and saying of pledges peters out in highschool? Sheer teenage stubborness and apathy. I remember those years - and standing for forever in the hallway when I was late (a lot) - well :)

• "If we were to add the words 'under the church,' that would be dangerous. ... It must be 'under God' to include the great Jewish community and the people of the Moslem faith and the myriad of denominations of Christians in the land. ... What then of the honest atheist? ... He cannot deny the Christian revelation and logically live by the Christian ethic, and if he denies the Christian ethic, he falls short of the American ideal of life." -Rev. George Docherty, whose sermon convinced Eisenhower to support "under God" in the Pledge

  How is this not a state establishment of religion? How is this not a violation of the judicial precedent of the seperation of church and state? These words were very clearly intended to establish government-sponsored religion (gotta stick it to those godless commies). Even if "God" doesn't refer to "God" (*wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*), it's an establishment of religion. The government's official pledge of allegiance says that you must believe in God. That's an establishment of religion. For the atheists out there who want to say the Pledge (please stand up), is ignoring the "under God" part so difficult? Who would have thought a little two word phrase would dig under people's skin? Grow a backbone and just stay silent for that part. Let's turn it around: Why should those two words be in there? They're just two little words. They weren't even part of the original Pledge. Our troops fought two world wars without having to pledge allegience under God. What is the big deal if they're removed? You can always say them anyway. Grow a backbone, indeed.
• wow that's bizarre nicollo and jb... altho' nicollo living in the nation's capital does make it less odd i suppose. i attended 4 diff schools for junior high and high school in vancouver and toronto circa '73 - '79 (damn grade 13!) and none of those (downtown) schools did the anthem. it was purely a 60's thing in my experience, when i was in grade school, in montreal and winnipeg (both private and public schools). polling friends and family this evening their schools also abandoned the anthem circa early to mid 70's or, in the case of my god-daughter and the other teens we know, they just never had it at all, grade school or otherwise. but all our experiences definitely fit with the gov't's position that it be left up to the particular community, organisation, or individual. i guess some schools have just hung on to the old traditions. having been made to ponder the issue, i can't see anything particularly wrong with it outside of the single, and rather understated, god reference*...at least singing gets the oxygen flowing, which is a good thing for a sleepy mind & body first thing in the morn, heh. *the phrasing is actually pretty funny... more like a polite request than anything else. god, if you do indeed exist, and we're not going to argue the point because we're too polite, could you possibly smile down upon us, if that wouldn't be too much trouble. thanks very much, eh...? :-D
• Would anyone feel ok if it was "under Bryan Adams"? It may cut like a knife, but would it feel so right? I think we should be one nation under a groove bwah! i vote for under a groove.
• As I've stated before, I think that the God part is generalized. You know, that really rings hollow when a Christian says it, especially given the circumstances surrounding its insertion into the Pledge. And it still ignores atheists, agnostics, and polytheists. Beats me. Most Christian Churches around me look like Religious Command Centers built by General Steel, and are more interesting in advertising things such as day-care, religious themed vacations or *cough* Christian Singles nights than religion. The fact that a lot of my religious coworkers have only a vague notion of what's expected of them by the church only reinforces this idea -- these places might as well be labelled "Inoffensive social mixers" as church services.
• "Inoffensive social mixers" as church services Or, fellowship. If you believe God is all mighty and you're to focus on Him. Why would you pledge allegiance to a country? Even with the inserted "under God". Also the pledge is a new "thing" in The USA. Most grandparents and some parents did not have it while in school.
• Japan's teachers are in uproar over a directive forcing them to pay respect to the 'militarist' national anthem and flag. Last October, the Tokyo metropolitan board of education issued a lengthy directive requiring teachers at hundreds of state primary, middle and high schools in the capital to stand and sing "Kimigayo", eyes front, fixed on the national flag. The edict was a minor victory in a battle of wills that has tainted official school events for years. To many teachers, the anthem and the "hinomaru" flag are reminders of an era of unbridled militarism and have no place in today's Japan, where sovereignty resides with the people, not the emperor.
• dng: It's not really the anthem or flag waving that is scary in the Japanese case, but the idea that someone is cares about the levels of enthusiasm. "The object of their ire is the 1947 Fundamental Law of Education, which, they claim, places priority on children's individuality to the detriment of their love of country. The answer, they say, lies in patriotic and religious instruction, with children graded on their enthusiasm." This would reward not simply nationalism, but ultra nationalism - and that just makes me shudder. It's never good.