In my perfect world, we wouldn't force kids to recite the pledge of allegiance every morning before school. We wouldn't indoctrinate them at all. We'd teach them to read, write, and think critically. They would learn all the wonderful things our nation is and does and will love America because America is deserving of love. Instead, we make 7 year olds make pledges they can't possibly understand and pretend that to do otherwise would be unpatriotic.
This is not, as the last 24 hours of my personal life demonstrate, a perfect world.
We've got to compromise in public arenas. I know Christian parents are worried that learning about evolution or reading a certain piece of literature will debase and secularize their children. Now we have atheists worried that saying "under God" will turn their children into believers.
Look, parents: we don't control what our children become. Tell your kids what you believe and why you believe it. Model the behavior you want your children to emulate, then let them make their own choices.
I'm sorry (actually, I'm not sorry, but I understand your disappointment) if you child's belief in god is so fragile that biology represents a grave threat. I'm sorry if your child's unbelief in god is so fragile that cant phrases represent a grave threat. But you've got to deal with it.
Our kids will be stronger, better, happier, healthier if they meet people not like them. If they learn to think for themselves. If they learn to defend what they believe in and to adapt to new ideas. Heterogeneity is a strength we ought to embrace.
I'm familiar with the history of the pledge, going back to wily flag merchants and the struggle against godless communism. Atheists, in this case, have a point. "Under god" was inserted into the pledge to promote religion. Or, at least, the notion that America is a religious nation. I don't care.
If your kid doesn't want to say the pledge, don't say the pledge. If that's hard because the kid gets singled out, tough. Some things in life should be hard. Standing up for yourself and what you believe should have some cost, otherwise it wouldn't feel so good to do it.
Politically, though, this is such a loser for liberals. Liberals should condemn the case as a waste of time and remind people that we all make compromises in public schools. This is one compromise I'm ready to make.
Instead, of course, the suit is grist for the Tony Perkins mill:
Militant secularists will not stop until they have eradicated any mention of God in the public square.
Perkins and his ilk have no conscience, so they quickly paint the current decision as "judicial activism". Of course, it clearly is not. The federal district court followed the established precedent of the ninth circuit. The ninth circuit decision can be called "judicial activism" (though the term really has no meaning now other than "bad decision"). This judge simply followed a clear precedent, which is what district courts are supposed to do.
If your kid doesn't want to say the pledge, don't say the pledge. If that's hard because the kid gets singled out, tough.
When I was in kindergarten, my friend, a Jehovah's Witness, explained to me before school why I shouldn't pledge my allegiance to the flag. I recall it was something to do with not having allegiance to anyone or anything but Jehovah. It sounded good to me, so I skipped it that morning. Afterwards my teacher told me that I didn't have that option.
By Joseph Thvedt, at 5:05 PM
<< Home