Pledge in classroom

[waxmephilosophical]

**This is not intended to be a political discussion!**
On the subject of preventing the recital of the pledge in the classroom because it mentions God, does anyone feel that this could lead to very bad things for literature in the classroom? Shakespeare, Chaucer, countless numbers of the great authors mention God in their works. Exactly how far will they go? Eventually, literature will be censored for religious statements if they push this garbage far enough. (And this is not to undermine the atrocity of not allowing a child to assert that we are indeed one nation under God...that's a disgusting and abominable twisting of the constitution...but that's politics, won't get into that Admin!) What do y'all think?

[Shea]

I agree. The issue with the pledge is ridiculous. People get so nit picky about things that really don't matter. If that line of the pledge bothers someone, then they just shouldn't say it. I guess you can't please everyone all the time.

I once read an article about someone who wanted to take Charles Dicken's, A Christmas Story out of schools because of religious connotations. Please! The only thing remotely religious about it is the holiday itself. But if a person thinks that a story which teaches children the morals of charity and goodwill is bad then I certainly feel sorry for them.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Pledge in the Classroom? This IS America... it is stupid to say that we shouldn't be able to pledge allegience to the U.S.A. because it mentions God... I have a hard time seeing how that is offensive. If you know your rights and actually read the bill of rights and constitution... you will know that all the "freedom of religion" means is that the GOvernment cannot start a "State Religion" (like they did in England... I probably used the wrong terminology... but I think you catch my drift) The Government cannot persicute you for practicing or not practicing a certain religion... Please note that it is not "freedom from religion". It is perfectly constitutional for someone to walk up to you and start pestering you... wanting you to join their religion... even on public property. It also does not mean that there should be no mention of God or Allah (or the statue I carved in my back yard last week) in a gov. owned building or property. People who say that the Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitiutional... should read the Constitution...

and I should take some spelling lessons.

[waxmephilosophical]

I read that article too, Shea. I honestly don't see how they can get away with passing statutes like that. I completely understand telling someone you have the right to not say the pledge, or even to leave out the words 'under God' if you feel inclined to do so. It strikes me as ludicrous, though, to tell someone they may not utter those words in a classroom. What happened to free speech? They (atheists) claim that it offends them to hear those words...I say that's bull. It offends me to be told what I can and can't say. It really worries me how they could butcher literary works in the future to omit parts about God, or prevent the reading of some works altogether. The govt. seriously needs to get a grip on this! :x By the way, does anyone know if any such bans exist already? Are there any particular books that cannot be read aloud or assigned in the classroom?

[MarsMonster]

whoa i have never heard anything as fal;kdjfal;kdjfa as that.
i would love to see that ban happen. :) wow! congratulations to those who thought of it!

[Shea]

For the love of literature, Marsmonster, how can you be serious?!! Are you really in favor of literature censorship?

And by the way, to all, I just realized that I goofed on the title to Dicken's work, it's "A Christmas Carol" I got mixed up with the title to that movie. :oops:

[waxmephilosophical]

Leaving all religious issues aside, MarsMonster (and believe me, that is hard for me to do), the topic was censorship of literature. If someone told the schools that they couldn't teach literature with any other kind of reference, I'd be just as opposed. It's important for people to make up their own minds about these kinds of topics, not be told what they can and can't read and what they should or shouldn't believe. You obviously don't believe in God...so what if someone forced you to pledge allegiance to God? All I want is the right to say whatever I want, just as I'm sure you do. So what if a Christian headed up the literature censorship? Would you be happy about it then? Don't let your personal preferences get in the way; the point is that they're stripping important rights and freedoms.

[Shea]

Well said! :D

[dennismurphy]

First: regarding the constitution- there is no "pledge" in the constitution. enforcing the use of it in any shape is clearly ridiculous- No free nation needs a "loyalty" oath. Second: if you understand the history of it, the pledge was originally a generic "world peace" type of statement that was subverted to create patriotism- with the words 'under god' added by Eisenhower to set us apart from those godless communists. So the word under god were clearly a POLITICAL mechanism to implement a state religious concept into civic life- clearly violating your "freedom FROM religion' statement.

As to literature- there have been- unfortunately- a few instances where a student was told to NOT use a book or write a story that had religious themes or statements. I do find this stupid adherence to separation assinine. However, by far, there has been MORE attempts to censor books and impede education by those from the religious RIGHT intruding religion into the classroom, than by those of the left trying to eliminate it.

[Shea]

However, by far, there has been MORE attempts to censor books and impede education by those from the religious RIGHT intruding religion into the classroom, than by those of the left trying to eliminate it.

I see this too and it also is ridiculous. No one should attack the literature that educates us. If people want to shelter their kids, that's their own problem. Me, I'm for parent guidance! You can't hide your kids from everything, so the best thing to do is just to talk to them, answer questions and don't shirk an issue off.

By the way, I don't have any kids yet, but this is what my mom did for me. I spent most of my life learning from her mistakes because she would tell me about them and I could see their consequences. As a result, I tend to make the decisions in my life that my mom tells me that she wishes she had made.

I think I got off the subject, but anyway, thanks Mom! :D

[imthefoolonthehill]

Dennis: If you don't want to say the pledge, that is fine with me. However, to ban it from being said in classrooms IS unconstitutional. I honestly don't care about offending the athiests. No one ever worries about offending the Christians. Why shouldn't we all get offended once in a while? Besides, how does that violate my "freedom from religion" statement? Adding God does not impose any religion on anyone-nor does it set a national religion. As I see it, one of the ways the world is divided is by theist and atheist. To people who do not believe in God or gods, how can the words under God be offensive?

[M.C. Bennett]

the words 'under god' added by Eisenhower

That means that the words "under god" weren't a part of the pledge until the 1950s. Rather than banning the pledge in the classroom, it would make better sense to return it to its original form by removing the so-called "offensive" wording.

The pledge itself should still be said as an affirmation of the faith young people should have in their country and the support they should give it. It doesn't have to be the subject of a political debate on restrictions of freedom - religious or otherwise!

[RoseBud]

Ok, I'll bite. Let's see if I can keep my religious views out of this, and stick to the implications for literary freedom.

I don't quilte like the idea of forcing children to say things contrary to conscience. But when I remember back to my childhood, I realize you can;'t force a child to recite in a group, because any child who doesn't feel like it just mouths the words or passes notes or makes faces to get some other kid to crack up or... Children are very inventive of ways to weasle out of anything the teacher wants done.

I don't see anything wrong with having a national pledge of allegiance. Any nation worth anything has one, as you would know if you ever tried to become a citizen in a different place than where you were born. What we are talking about is really voluntary, because children are not that easily forced.

I also fail to see anything in the addition of "under God" that contravenes the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Pray tell, *which* denomination lays singluar claim to that expression? If you THINK about what is meant by "an establishment of religion", you will realize that the pledge, in either form, does not respect any particular one more than others. Jews, Christians, and Moslems, believe in a deity of some sort, and most of the other gneric groupings of religions profess the existence of deities.

I have to wonder why atheists and agnostics should get so perturbed about a mention of deity. I cannot think of any other group who get so upset about someone mentioning something they profess to disbelieve or doubt. I don't believe the moon is made of green cheese, and you won't catch me getting distraught because someone alluded to that myth! I find it much more gratifying to smile knowingly!

Then there is the excessive worry about what harm it might do to children. As I mentioned, it is hard to force children to believe something, or even to recite something exaclty as it is written. Parents have more influcne than teachers, if they start to use it while the children are young. I have met children who can enunciate their parents views pretty well. If the chance that your child will hear other children recite "one nation under God" is the worst of your worries, you should count your blessings, whether you attribute them to a superior intelligence or to blind chance. Or, you can if you chose take your child out of school and do a better job at home. I know for a fact home education is legal in all fifty states. (Yes, I checked!)

So, in light of the political and legal implications, what can we conclude about the freedoms to study literature? I think our biggest problem is Political Correctness. The notion that we should ignore good books etc, the basis that they are the work of "dead white males" is patently racist, sexist, and ageist. If you've got something better, or at least as good, written by a living black female, bring it on! Same for dead oriental males, dying Hispanic females, newborn Native American whatever. If you have something worth reading, share it. Otherwise, simmer down and let's discuss some time-tested writing that has resonated with people in many cultures. And if you are tired of all the dead white males, try to write something better yourself.

Just one more thing -- take note, when I say "better or as good," I don't mean more recent, or more fraught with inchoate emotion. I want to find ways to express emotions and ideas so people of various backgrounds can understand, and the dead white males are mighty good at that. Newer isn't necessarily better than older. Don't judge a book by the skin color or sex of the author! Judge by the quality of the content!

[american_bad_angel1407]

my opinion is that if people have a problem with religion...then our forefathers died fighting for nothing...freedom of religion is why America is America!! If other's religion bothers another American..then they should just butt out and keep their mouth closed!! (No offense meant to ANYONE!!) I believe that religion is one of the biggest reasons that the constitution was wrote..and in the constitution, doesn't it say something about "Freedom Of Religion?" and if we have freedom of religion, then why aren't we practicing it? Just because we're in school doesn't mean that we should stop believing in what we believe in.
A_B_A

[waxmephilosophical]

Exactly. People only want freedom when it applies to those with the same beliefs as themselves. Are people really that darn sensitive that my beliefs offend them? I don't think so...they're just selfish.

[chrisvosje]

Linking religion and nation is a political act that implies some feeling of superiority.

But the question was about the consequences for literature. Religion has long been not just the dominant, but practically the only ideology, and since ideology is part of the literary work, it cannot be ruled out. Neither can the ideology of the reader.
Readers should be granted the freedom to choose their own point of view. Schools should offer information, food for thought, the possibility to make a personal judgment. You can only do so by making pupils and students aware of their own ideological position, and by confronting that position with others. Literature is a way of doing that (as long as the fictionality of every work is considered).
Censorship has always existed - a.o. the Codex of the Church. Banning pledges which assert the priority of one ideology is a step in banning censorship and opening up. It does not ban religion, it bans the imposing of one religion over another, or of one ideology over the other.
If you're afraid that the loss of religious feeling would be linked to a loss of feeling for great literature, you make a huge mistake. I am not religious (as you no doubt have noticed by now), but I do adore literature, all kinds of literature, and to me the religious aspect is an aspect of the book, not necessarily THE aspect.