h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The New Pledge of Allegiance - A5833785
Author: Nixiel - U1876622

OK, I wrote this very quickly and with a lot of emotion, and thus it needs a lot of work. Thanks for any comments/suggestions, I really appreciate it - this being my first entry and all.

My own thoughts on the significant matter are largely unimportant, but here are some thoughts about the piece.

There are many nations with allegiance pledges. A little more context should be included. You might want to mention up front where this all applies. It is certainly not the UK, and this is a BBC website.

Doggerels are fine to ridicule a position that you do not favor, but the don't really do anything to address the matter.

An allegience pledge that specifically mentions not being allowed to mention a diety is still mentioning a diety and has virtually the same effect.



Personally, I find it hard to understand what is objectionable about hearing other people mention something in which I do not believe. Atheists and agnostics, who get so riled everytime a diety is mentioned, seem to me to be somewhat hypocritical. It sounds, quite a bit, like someone who feels guilty or wrong, but is too stubborn to admit that there may be such a diety for fear of the consequences, and who would rather not have to think about it.

If I should hear someone discussing their pet Gryphon, Klingon friend, or Hobbit neighbor, I would hardly get upset that they were being discussed, just because I believe they do not exist or have no opinion on the matter.

Likewise, I don't mind other people praying to their gods, Buddah, Allah, the Trinity, Mohammed, or Aunt Mays left shoe. I just don't want them forcing their viewpoints down my throat. The same goes for the atheists and agnostics. I support their right to their view, but don't want it impacting my world by trying to write a revisionistic pledge.

Frankly, the U.S. Pledge, of which I believe you are writing, is a fool thing in any case. One is not actually pledging anything to the USA, just to the piece of cloth that is a metaphorical representation of it. It is the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Go figure, why the flag and not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or something more meaningful.

I realise that it also includes the phrase 'and to the Republic', but I challenge you to find a part of the population where a random sampling would be able to find 30% who could give a lucid definition for 'Republic'.

Ah well. What fools these mortals be, to argue so vehemently over things they cannot even define.

Since I made a point of studying religion in the US public schools for a paper a few years back, I have some legal knowledge here that I would like to make a point of:

The Pledge of Allegiance is not outlawed in schools. Not by a long shot. In fact, many states (the State of California, for one) require that elementary schools (secondary schools can be exempt) do some form of patriotic observance at the beginning of the school day, whether that be the Pledge, the singing of a patriotic song, etc.

The only portion of the Pledge that has been challenged recently is the phrase 'under God', which was added in 1954 to the then-50-year-old Pledge to show that the US was not a nation of 'Godless Communists'. It was Truman's idea, I think, after a campaign from the Knights of Columbus. Anyway, that's the only section that has been challenged recently. Earlier this year, a Calfornian man named Michael A. Newdow was able to bring his case to the Supreme Court, alleging that his atheist daughter was excluded because she was required to affirm a belief in God by reciting the Pledge. He cited various previous SC decisions on prayer in schools to support his argument. The SC refused to rule, claiming that he didn't have legal standing to make the claim.

It's not a question of being 'not allowed' to recite something like the Lord's Prayer in school. You're perfectly entitled to do so, as long as you do it on your own time. The reason why it is illegal for entire classes to pray or have religious moments of silence together is because it violates the 'Establishment Clause', a section of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution which states that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'. When the New York Board of Regents (which was/is in charge of NY public schools) made it the law that all the kids in the NY elementary schools had to pray as a class at the beginning of school, that was ruled to be a violation of the Establishment Clause, because it required all the kids in a public, government-funded school to affirm a belief in a monotheistic (presumably Christian) God. Similar instances of teacher-led prayer were outlawed throughout the country *because they violated the establishment clause*. Students are not prohibited from praying, but school officials and teachers are prohibited from leading all-school prayer sessions in which everyone is required to join.

Phew, got that off my chest. Sorry if I went on.

I'd like to propose Back to Entry. The author has ed and this article is an opinion piece, the majority of which is not even written by the author.

<BB<

Removed from CWW