Should students (or anyone) say the Pledge?
Yesterday, the Indiana General Assembly passed a bill that would require public schools to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, display the American Flag, and have a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day. The Indy Star opines in Silence is golden, but bill isn’t needed, that a mandatory moment for reflection (even with individual student opt out) may be problematic and that, in any case, school districts should be left to decide on their own about these matters, the way it is now. I doubt that the Star’s concerns about a moment of silence will materialize but I do agree with the larger point that the bill isn’t needed.
I have no difficulty with a moment of silence or display of the American Flag in public schools. I do, however, consider recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance objectionable on two grounds. The first has to do with the nature of any pledge or oath/affirmation – to be meaningful, the person must understand it and take it voluntarily.
I’ll grant that rote memorization has a place in school: multiplication tables, the alphabet, things like that. Learning to recite famous speeches or lines of dialogue from plays has a place also, however, one hopes that along with the memorization comes analysis. In the case of a pledge, however, just understanding it isn’t enough. A pledge is rather like a contract in which the person making it obligates himself/herself to honor it.
Consider such civic rites as oaths of office or the swearing-in of witnesses in trials. They all involve the assumption of an obligation: to faithfully execute the duties of office or to tell the truth. Traditionally, pledges and oaths had the contractual element that the individual was putting his/her immortal soul on the line. The U.S. Constitution allows for either an oath (swearing to the Deity) or an affirmation – an affirmation is rather like pledging your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor.
Instead of a flag pledge – the specific objections to which I’ll discuss below – I propose that there be a citizen’s pledge to be taken when a person reaches the age of 18. As a polity we have made this the age at which a person can vote, serve on a jury, and/or enlist in the military because we believe that 18-year-olds are responsible enough and mature enough to enter civic life (though we still don’t let them drink alcohol for some strange reason). Have the public schools administer the pledge on graduation for those students who are 18 or older and wish to take it. Those who are younger (I graduated when I was 17) can take the pledge when they turn 18 at one of the regular public ceremonies held at, say, the county courthouse. The public ceremonies could be monthly, though I’d prefer a once-a-year event on the 4th of July. Taking an oath, before the Deity or on your sacred honor, to respect the founding principles of our Republic and to “preserve, protect, and defend” the U.S. Constitution should be a big deal and treated as such. Incessant, rote recitations trivialize a pledge and drain it of meaning. Which brings me to my second objection – the origin and meaning of the flag pledge. I wrote about this in response to an email that circulated on the Monroe County Republican Party distribution list. I’ve quoted the main part of that email below.
For years I’ve refused to recite the Pledge. Recently, I’ve taken to putting my hand over my heart and standing but saying nothing. This was to avoid giving people the impression that I was being unpatriotic and thus necessitating a long explanation of why I was refusing to recite the Pledge.
There are a number of things I find problematic about the Pledge but the main one is this: the Pledge was originally intended to promote government centralization, government (i.e., “public”) schools, and socialism.
The author of the Pledge was an ex-minister named Francis Bellamy. Bellamy was the first cousin of Edward Bellamy, the founder of American Socialism. Bellamy wrote a very influential book titled Looking Backward: From 2000 to 1887. At one time this book was enormously popular. I tried to read it some years ago but didn’t get very far before I decided the writer was hopelessly naive and what could best be described as a fascist. Still, a lot of people in the U.S. and Europe at one time took this book as gospel.
Pages: 1 2