Should Students Be Told They Have a Right to Not Say the Pledge?
The sad fact is that so many people just don't know much about constitutional rights: students don't know their own rights and teachers don't know the rights of students. Then there are some who don't care what students' constitutional rights are — they don't believe that those rights should exist and are willing to engage in illegal behavior to undermine them. That's what I think we're seeing now in the opposition of the Christian Right to even informing students about their rights.
They lost the first round in New Mexico last month, when state Education Secretary Veronica Garcia ruled not to change state policy — which requires that the Pledge be recited daily — to inform students of their right to opt out.
"The department believes that the existing rule and practice in schools respects the rights of all students," Garcia said a statement. "Any issues related to rights of students will be handled at the local school district level," the statement read.
New Mexico ACLU Director Peter Simonson protested the ruling, telling the Associated Press, "I think it's a cop-out not to affirmatively state that students have a First Amendment right not to participate in the Pledge." Simonson declined to elaborate when contacted by FOXNews.com.
In Florida, ACLU attorney Randall Marshall successfully argued a case before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in defense of high school student, Cameron Frazier, who abstained from reciting the Pledge because of “personal political beliefs” and, according to the lawsuit, was “singled out and humiliated” by his teacher.
“We made the case that students must be informed that they are not required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance,” Marshall told FOXNews.com.
"It’s not a challenge to the content of the Pledge. Only that students be informed that they are not required to recite it."
Source: Fox News (via: Atheist Ethicist)
A very important question is raised by all of this: what possible motivation would anyone have for not informing a person about their constitutional rights? Is there any reasonable basis for this and creating a situation where people are ignorant of their rights, possibly doing things that they don't want to do but falsely thinking that they have to?
I don't think so — that is to say, I don't think that there is any reasonable basis for wanting such a situation to continue. I think that a person can only have selfish, sinister, or immoral motives for denying people knowledge of their constitutional rights. It's vital to keep firmly in mind that there are lawsuits over this issue every year, so the violation of students' constitutional rights is an ongoing problem; denying them knowledge of their rights is a way of perpetuating and even exacerbating that problem.
“There has been a recurring effort by the ACLU and others to try to stop the Pledge of Allegiance from being said. The fact of the matter is that the American people like the Pledge of Allegiance, they like it the way it is,” Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum, told FOXNews.com.
“The teachers are government employees, their paychecks are paid by the taxpayers, and the American people support the Pledge. I’m with the American people,” Schlafly said.
The majority of Americans do, in fact, overwhelmingly support the Pledge of Allegiance in its current form. A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll from November of 2005 showed that 90 percent of Americans approve of the oath. Only 7 percent of people polled said they would change the language of the Pledge, while three percent of Americans were undecided.
Notice how Phyllis Schlafly doesn't actually address the issue: does she or does she not support informing students of their constitutional rights? Saying that she "supports the Pledge is as predictable as it is irrelevant. The only interesting things Schalfly said is that she is "with the American people." Or maybe it would be more accurate to note what she did not say: that she is "with the American Constitution." If Schalfly isn't with the Constitution and doesn't support protecting students' constitutional rights, then what good is she?
The “under god” malarky was not added until the 1950s and it was done so after pressure from religious wacknuts. It is astounding that hardly any Americans know this, and believe those words were always there. All schools should be required to teach immediately from preschool and up, that those words were added in 1954 during the McCarthyist paranoia about dem commies takin jebus away, and that those words changed the pledge from secular to religious, and were not there from the start. The ignorance about this is astounding.
That’s not the only interesting thing that she did not say: she also failed to say what she meant by claiming she is “with the American people.” She seems to think that the people of the US are monolithic in agreement with her. Maybe she believes that those that do not agree with her are not actual, or “real”, Americans.
What good is Phyllis Schlafly? Their only good is that of an example of greed, and avarice, and the inhumanity of man towards their follows.
Maybe Schlafly answered the question that she was asked. She does support what is written in the Constitution.
This recital of the pledge of allegiance every day by the schoolchildren seems like a particularly curious ritual to a foreigner.
When someone becomes a citizen, he has to take the pledge just once and it is supposed to be good for the rest of his life. A similar assumption is made when a witness takes the oath in a court of law. The schoolchildren, on the other hand, have to recite it every day, the pledge they took only the previous day presumably being either forgotten or having expired in 24 hours,
It is also not clear whether the children even understand what they are reciting and, if not, then what good is it?
Interestingly enough no such demand is made on the college students, perhaps being more mentally mature and therefore beyond redemption by that time.
Flying the flag everywhere as a token for patriotism is also another equally curious practice. The British are famous for their patriotism and yet the only place in England I ever saw the Union Jack displayed was at the Buckingham Palace and, that too, only to signify that the Queen was in residence. Now, they did fly their flag all over their empire to declare their status as the rulers and occupiers but flying it over their own homeland is apparently deemed quite meaningless by them.
I’d like to add that in the last couple years, the state of Texas actually _added_ the words “under god” to the state pledge. So, they had a pledge that represented the kids as members of the American community, then added divisive language–and what is their point? To appease the Christian portion of their constituency. I just about can guarantee you it wasn’t a Jewish, Muslim or Hindu lobby that got that text inserted. What do you think?
I am an American who does not like the ‘under God’ phrase in the pledge. I am always proud to recite the pledge to my country and flag. If you are standing near me, you will clearly hear ‘one nation,(silence),with liberty and justice for all.
Barbara, I do what you do. When I was in public school in the 1970s and early 1980s, I would pause and not recite the “under god” part of the pledge, either. Nobody ever noticed.
Of course students should be informed. You can’t exercise a right you don’t know you have. It amazes me that anyone whose paid with tax dollars thinks it’s okay to ignore the U.S. Constitution when it doesn’t support their personal agenda.
I can’t recall how old I was when I suddenly realized what I was saying, but I stopped reciting the entire pledge. I did it covertly because I knew no one would support my decision, but I believe no one should have to pledge “allegiance” to anything. To me it’s just indoctrination.
My grand-daughter says the pledge, substituting “under the flying sphaghetti monster” in place of the offensive and illegal “under god”. Needless to say, I am soooooo proud of her!
This is really weird! I have been reading comments on a few forums about the pledge of allegiance and I have noticed a few things that I feel I should comment on.
Firstly, in reference the comment by DaveInLV, British people are not even close to being patriotic. There may be a few patriots here and there, but your average Brit is most certainly not. What you will find is that Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland will reject the very concept of ‘Britain’ and claim not to be British. They tend to be patriotic towards their own country, but not Britain. English people are more accepting of Britain as a term, but are still not what you would call patriotic. These are all, of course, generalisations. There is always an exception (myself for example) to the rule.
Personally, I find the whole idea of a pledge of allegiance very strange. I suppose it is different for me, but I would not say it for a number of reasons. The fact that I am not American would obviously be high up on that list, but also the fact that a Nation is likely, at some point, to do something I do not agree with and would not want to be a part of, would mean that I could not pledge allegiance to it.