Is the Pledge of Allegiance really necessary?
Sam Molmud
Issue date: 11/9/09 Section: Opinion
Every morning, children around this country recite the over century-old Pledge of Allegiance. Historically viewed as tradition and a symbol of patriotism, the perpetual statement resembles an incantation, and in our times is subject to as many philosophies as there are Americans to interpret it.
In 2002, Congress reaffirmed the Pledge of Allegiance. Reenacting it without any changes, the motion emphasized the element of faith in our nation's development and history.
But lying in stark contrast to the unity expressed in the pledge is Americans' First Amendment right to protest the government. We live in a nation of many opinions, all of them freely expressed.
With the multitude of cultures and lifestyles the United States historically and currently hubs, it would be nothing less than conceited to attempt to ingrain a pledge of allegiance to one establishment and its traditional code. Not all agree with the statement; not all are in complete obeisance of that establishment. Significant then is that the primary audience and practitioners of this pledge are school children.
The process of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, as a student, is ultimately up to the child. When asked, "Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance," the majority of children will proceed to rise, place their hands on their chest and pledge their allegiance to this country. If one really had a fundamental problem with recitation, the decision at that point is whether to go with the motions, or remain seated.
The risk of societal consequence almost certainly averts a child away from any dissent. Concurrently, many children recite the pledge before knowing the philosophical and historical connotations of their memorized words.
Ultimately, parental voicing is the pivotal factor in determining a child's participation. Almost every student reciting the pledge is a minor. A parent of any minor has singular authority to influence the values and beliefs of his or her child, sometimes with twists that seep into the public eye.
In many cases, as with anarchists or Jehovah's Witnesses, non-participation is championed. A legal form of dismissal is not the answer, legally or operatively. If parents do not want their child reciting the pledge, they can easily explain to the teacher that the child will not be participating.
Rare is it that you find or hear of a child who, of his or her own accord, takes issue with the pledge, reasoning and articulating to their superiors a statement of individuality. Peer pressure to speak against tradition and patriotism ultimately sabotages the process of a child developing freely.
Admiration for development of free thought and appreciation for distinctness is what any child deserves.
In 2002, Congress reaffirmed the Pledge of Allegiance. Reenacting it without any changes, the motion emphasized the element of faith in our nation's development and history.
But lying in stark contrast to the unity expressed in the pledge is Americans' First Amendment right to protest the government. We live in a nation of many opinions, all of them freely expressed.
With the multitude of cultures and lifestyles the United States historically and currently hubs, it would be nothing less than conceited to attempt to ingrain a pledge of allegiance to one establishment and its traditional code. Not all agree with the statement; not all are in complete obeisance of that establishment. Significant then is that the primary audience and practitioners of this pledge are school children.
The process of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, as a student, is ultimately up to the child. When asked, "Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance," the majority of children will proceed to rise, place their hands on their chest and pledge their allegiance to this country. If one really had a fundamental problem with recitation, the decision at that point is whether to go with the motions, or remain seated.
The risk of societal consequence almost certainly averts a child away from any dissent. Concurrently, many children recite the pledge before knowing the philosophical and historical connotations of their memorized words.
Ultimately, parental voicing is the pivotal factor in determining a child's participation. Almost every student reciting the pledge is a minor. A parent of any minor has singular authority to influence the values and beliefs of his or her child, sometimes with twists that seep into the public eye.
In many cases, as with anarchists or Jehovah's Witnesses, non-participation is championed. A legal form of dismissal is not the answer, legally or operatively. If parents do not want their child reciting the pledge, they can easily explain to the teacher that the child will not be participating.
Rare is it that you find or hear of a child who, of his or her own accord, takes issue with the pledge, reasoning and articulating to their superiors a statement of individuality. Peer pressure to speak against tradition and patriotism ultimately sabotages the process of a child developing freely.
Admiration for development of free thought and appreciation for distinctness is what any child deserves.
Be the first to comment on this story