Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry


I just want to say that the media is insane. Every time they say that "the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional" I want to call them up and correct them. It is not, in and of itself, unconstitutional. What *is* unconstitutional is forcing people to say "under God." That whole separation of church and state thing, you know. The entire idea that this country is founded on.

I have no problem with people saying it with the phrase "under God." If it makes you happy, go for it. But what about the Buddhists? Or the Krishnas? Or anyone who has a non-Christian/Jewish/Islamic view of the world? Government shouldn't be using the phrase "under God" for any reason. Private parties? Sure. Group meetings? Fine. Just not in my government thankyouverymuch.

  • 1
Nobody can be forced to say anything - that's been illegal for a very long time. I believe what they are saying is unconstitutional is for a government representative (i.e., a teacher) to endorse it and/or lead a class in saying it. Students in said class could still refrain from saying it originally, but now they're saying teachers can't say it, lead classes in it, and students can't lead other students in saying it.

For me, this falls in line with "Christmas/Easter Break." The school can't call it that (at least here in WA), they now call it Winter/Spring Break. Fine. I'm happy that it's more religiously tolerant. It was a pain to get used to, but now it's no big deal for either the teachers or the students. But the private sector still calls it Christmas/Easter break. So with that precedent, I can't imagone that the practical impact would have any effect upon the populace other than to make a state-run organization religion-neutral.

Really, how many times does a kid need to be told to pledge allegiance to something they really don't comprehend? I think the pledge has much more impact upon adults, particularly new citizens.

  • 1