I wonder why everybody looks like they expect the flag to hand them their change.

Good to remind folks that there was a time when it wasn't expected of you to profess in school that the Judeo-Christian God was responsible for your nation's well being.

Good sift. Do all US schools do that every day? I think that most Europeans would frown upon doing a daily pledge like that. Especially here in Germany. Just goes to show that different perspectives make for a different world.

Not every school in the US does this (I don't recall ever having to do it), but it's considered a traditional way to begin the school day. I suppose it's appreciated for its symbolic nature (in that the idea is to have people acknowledge that they want to be good citizens), but I think making kids say it every day in school reduces it to routine and this degrades its (arguably) meaningful symbolic value to that of a dogma. Not to mention that the primary beneficiary of the pledge is not the country itself but an object representing it, which seems unnecessary.

I lived in Germany for a year a few years ago, and I definitely remember that one of the most jarring things about returning to the US was the way people wear their nationalism on their sleeves (so to speak) here. Everywhere you go in this country there are flags and slogans plastered about on cars, houses, t-shirts, you name it. Contrast that with Germany, where the national flag is most frequently found in souvenir shops and perhaps on some government buildings/monuments. It's not as though pride in one's country its citizens is absent from German culture, but it's certainly not paraded around the way it is in America.

I recently went to Ireland and I had the opposite impression: Patriotism is ok, fine, and expected in Ireland, and only buffoons do it in the US. At least in my part of the country, any sort of national pride is like a "I'm with stupid" tshirt. Now, I'm an oblermann-watching liberal with a civil liberties fetish and a deep belief that my current government is terrible and many of their actions ... well, why beat around the bush... many of their actions SUCK. And they are, in some sense, my actions, after all: it's my country.

But I get tired of wallowing in shame, and there are reasons to enjoy a little national feeling now and then, and I love my country and revere the people who serve it as a whole (while objecting strongly to the dishonesty and unethical acts of particular individuals). I really envied the unembarrassed national pride the irish swim in. They make fun of themselves a lot too, but man, they are dead serious about ireland being the most noble of all loves.

I realize I live in a rather liberal community, but I don't see a lot of violent patriotism even when I go to the more conservative parts of California. Neither do I find unconscious patriotism in Seattle, Boston, or Chicago. I go to Virginia this week: I will see how I think it looks there.

Oh, and that arm gesture was used until the Nazis made it unpalatable.

Rbar, this is the original version of the pledge and it was this way for half a century. In the 50s, in an effort to contrast the U.S. with the godless commies, they added "under God" to the "one nation indivisible" part. So now we have a children pledging allegiance to "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."

Actually, the original pledge of allegiance as written in 1892 was: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1924 it was changed to: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Then in 1954 the phrase "under god" was added.

In 2002 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 to 1 to declared the Pledge unconstitutional because of the addition of the phrase "under God," but some schools still start their day with it.

its optional; some schools lead a pledge but no child is required to say it or even stand up for it.

WTF are you people talking about. "Back in my day" of course everyone was required to say the pledge of allegiance and it started the school day.

I suppose if you were a brave third grader you might exercise you civil rights to make it "optional" but I'm willing to bet that would not go well for you. I believe many schools still do this daily, especially private religious middle and high schools.

In fact in the early 90s there was a scheme by this corporation to outfit EVEREY classroom in the school with "free" TVs in exchange that we had to sit like zombies and be subjected to advertising and mandatory (I suppose you could gouge your eyes out) crappy programming. I can't remember if the pledge was incorporated into this.. maybe.

You must go see the Red Skelton video on this subject. It is mandatory prescient required reading before anyone can speak intelligently on this subject. (BTW, the whole thing, not just the crappy rethug corrupted mashup). The whole "war on the pledge" movement B.S. cracks me up.

(links anyone?)

http://www.videosift.com/video/Red-Skeltons-Pledge-of-Allegiance

Since day 1 in kindergarten to my last day in high school it was more or less a required thing to do. Not reciting pledge usually got you yelled at or on occasion "written up". Mumbling it half-heartedly was acceptable though.

^yea, it's not ok to have a dissenting opinion in the US, but it is ok to be half-assed.

Nowadays, the pledge is seen more in the lower levels of school. The older you get in the United States, the less you have to say the pledge.

When I was in elementary school, not standing, not saying the pledge, or not saying the pledge appropriately got you sent to the principal's office. I was always willing to stand and honor my country with the pledge, but I stopped saying "under God" in 2nd grade when I decided I didn't believe.

I was a quiet, timid, well-behaved kid, so the teachers generally didn't get on my case about it. I was sent to the principal a few times, though, especially in 5th grade when I had a teacher who enjoyed singling me out for embarrassment at any opportunity.

By high school, most teachers didn't care if you even paid attention during the pledge. There were 2 Jehovah's Witnesses in my class who were permitted to stand in the hallway during the pledge. All in all, nobody but a handful of teachers made a big deal out of any of it; It was just another part of the morning homeroom announcements.

I think we started out day with the pledge up until 5th grade. After that, I think we just cut the BS and got down to business.

It's like singing, "O Canada" every morning in Canadian schools. Equally ridiculous on its face. I think the main function of these rituals is like an ice-breaker at a meeting -- it gets people focused on the task at hand. In this case, it's a minute or two where the students have to stand still and be quiet or sing. Getting them settled after that must be much easier.

Thank you for the clarification on the history of the pledge of allegience, jimnms. It's good to know the dates that it was altered.

During the McCarthy era when our country was desperately trying to seperate itself from communism, which was thought to promote Atheism, there was a widely accepted push to demonstrate Western capitalistic democracies (which were nominally Christian) in a prominent light. Aside from the addition of "under god" added to the pledge of allegiance, in 1956, they also added "In God We Trust" to the money.

I think "In God We Trust" was on money earlier than that, blankfist, but it became the official national motto in 1956 (what was E Pluribus Unum?). According to Wikipedia, it was first used in 1864 and wasn't mandated by Congress until 1908. Interestingly, Teddy Roosevelt was against it.

"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege ... it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements." - TR 1907

I agree with him. It's a strange idea that putting God's name on money does anything good.

I'd heard that the pledge used to have the hand stuck out like that, but then it was seen as too similar to the Nazi salute. So now we put our hands on our chests.

The socialists have nothing to worry about. The voluntary Pledge is said in government schools not authorized by the Constitution that cost twice as much to run as free-market schools, in government-controlled classrooms run by bitter liberal activists. The only thing the schools omit is American history. The only mention of faith outside of "Under God" is Al Snore's religioenviromentalism.

What good liberal would dare approve of the separation of SCHOOL and State?

http://www.schoolandstate.org/

Yes because we really need more mention of faith in public schools. "Under God" isn't enough, we need public prayer, and tablets, and Gideon Bibles, and Intelligent Design taught. Definitely, a lot more of that will make everything better, cheaper, faster. And it will also save us from climate change. (or not)

http://seperation.churchandstate.org

Yes, T-man, I guess I quickly summarized the history of "In God We Trust". Thanks for the better explanation.

Are you serious QM?

You honestly think that the government cutting all ties to education would be beneficial to society?

One Nation “Under God”
Questions & Answers

In 2002, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2-1 that public schools may not sponsor recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, due to its religious content through the inclusion of the phrase "under God." This ruling sparked much comment in the media and was denounced by many political leaders. The U.S. Supreme Court later announced that it will hear
an appeal of the decision. The high court’s ruling is expected by late June or early July 2004.

Q. Why did the 9th Circuit Court rule the way it did?
A. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates the separation of church and state. Under this time-tested arrangement, government is given no authority to meddle with religion or religious matters. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that public school sponsorship of the Pledge furthers religion. Thus, the court declared the action unconstitutional. The court noted , "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical…to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect of religion. The coercive effect of this policy is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren, and their understanding that they are required to adhere to the norms set by their school, their teacher and their fellow students."

Q. Isn't this a radical ruling?
A. Not at all. The court simply applied the constitutional principle that government has no business promoting religion. Courts have been particularly vigilant when it comes to public schools. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that religious instruction is up to parents, not government officials or public school personnel. Public schools serve children of many
different religious perspectives (and some who practice no religion at all). Thanks to the protections of the Constitution, students cannot be pressured to participate in prayer or other forms of worship at public schools. The appellate court's ruling on the Pledge is simply a logical continuation of that wise judicial precedent. Furthermore, the 9th Circuit judge who wrote the
opinion, Alfred Goodwin, could hardly be called a radical. He is a Presbyterian elder, a World War II combat veteran and was appointed to his position by President Richard M. Nixon.

Q. Did the court declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?
A. No. The court ruled that public schools may not sponsor daily recitation of the current Pledge of Allegiance because of its religious content. If the Supreme Court upholds the 9th Circuit ruling, public schools could continue to recite the pre-1954 version. Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Q. What did the Pledge say before 1954?
A. Students used to end the Pledge, "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Despite the controversy surround the 9th Circuit's ruling, many Americans thought the Pledge was just fine as a patriotic ritual without religious references. After all, America survived the
Great Depression and won two world wars with a secular Pledge, and neither religious devotion nor patriotism suffered.

Q. How did "under God" get into the Pledge of Allegiance?
A. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister. Bellamy crafted the Pledge for a magazine called The Youth's Companion as part of a patriotic exercise to mark the 400th anniversary of Columbus' voyage to the New World. Bellamy, who was an advocate of church-state separation, did not include religious references in his Pledge. In
1954, Congress inserted the phrase "under God" into the Pledge after a lobbying campaign led by the Knights of Columbus. This was during the McCarthy era, and the change was seen as a blow against "godless communism" in the Soviet Union.

Q. Does the ruling mean that public schools can no longer open the day by reciting the
Pledge of Allegiance?
A. The ruling currently affects only those states in the 9th Circuit -- California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Alaska and Hawaii and is currently on hold while the Supreme Court considers the matter. If the high court upholds the lower court ruling, it will apply that decision nationwide. Public schools would have to stop sponsoring recitation of the
Pledge or use the pre-1954 version.

Q. What's wrong with a generic reference to God in the Pledge? Who does it hurt?
A. The Pledge was a purely patriotic exercise until Congress in 1954 made it a patriotic and religious exercise. Millions of Americans who have no religious beliefs or who object to religious-political entanglement were alienated by that change. When it altered the Pledge, Congress sent the signal that in order to be a patriotic American, one must also be religious.
Many Americans disagree with this assertion. Not all religious people agree with so-called “generic” references to God. These references tend
to reflect Judeo-Christians understandings of God that may not be shared by Buddhists, Hindus and others. Other believers oppose phrases like “under God” because it is a form of watereddown spirituality. They note that religion has thrived in America due to the separation of church and state and do not want to violate that principle.

Q. Haven't some courts said that references to God in the Pledge are permissible because
they are ceremonial and don't really promote religion?
A. Some courts have said this and have even asserted that such usages are acceptable because they are merely "ceremonial deism" -- the practice of government co-opting generic religious Americans United for Separation of Church and State language for ceremonial purposes. Religious believers ought to be appalled by such statements. The phrase "under God" has obvious religious meanings. It is not drained of its religious
meaning merely because of frequent repetition. In addition, religion is not some prop designed to give heft to government functions. For believers, faith is to be taken seriously. It demeans religion to claim that phrases like "under God" are no longer religious because they have been so
frequently used by government.

Q. How have politicians reacted to this controversy?
A. Many overreacted. There were immediate calls to amend the Constitution, even through the Supreme Court has not issued its decision yet. Both houses of Congress have also passed resolutions condemning the 9th Circuit's ruling and expressing support for "under God" in the Pledge. Some political strategists have also recommended using the decision for partisan
purposes. President George W. Bush and his allies in the Senate said they would use the ruling to press for confirmation of Bush's judicial nominees.
Bush himself said that the decision shows that "we need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kinds of judges I intend to put on the bench." Bush's statement implies that he has a type of "religious test" in mind for judges, a violation of Article VI of the Constitution, which forbids religious tests for public office.

Q. What about Religious Right groups -- how did they react?
A. Several Religious Right groups used the controversy to raise money, foment hysteria and attack the separation of church and state. Many groups also hoped the ruling furthers their farright political agenda and urged President Bush to use the decision to argue for more judges who oppose church-state separation. TV preacher Jerry Falwell, for example, sent a message to his supporters telling them that he believes it is "time to go to war" over this issue. TV preacher Pat Robertson said the Pledge ruling may cause more terrorist attacks, concluding, "[I]f something much more terrible than
September 11th befalls our beloved nation, the answer to the question 'Where was God in all of this?' may well be 'He was excluded by the 9th Circuit.'" Ultra-conservative newspaper columnist Cal Thomas suggested that the Pledge ruling may have been even worse than the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Thomas wrote, "On the eve of our great national birthday party and in the
aftermath of Sept. 11...the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has inflicted on this nation what many will conclude is a greater injury than that caused by the terrorists."

Q. What happens now?
A. The Supreme Court will issue its decision most likely by the end of June or early July. The high court could uphold the 9th Circuit’s decision or overturn it. The court could also dismiss the case and rule that the man who brought it, Michael Newdow, lacks “standing” (the right to sue)
because he does not have full custody of his daughter, a public school student who is exposed to Pledge in school.

Q. Could this case result in a tie ruling? What would happen then?
A. It is possible that the Supreme Court’s decision could be a 4-4 tie. Justice Antonin Scalia made public comments about the case in January of 2003. Justices are not supposed to pre-judge cases, and Scalia was asked to remove himself from the deliberations. He later recused himself from the case. If the court splits 4-4, the decision will still apply to the states in the 9th Circuit but will not be extended nationwide.

if you would like to learn more about religious liberty, please contact:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
518 C Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: (202)466-3234 Fax: (202)466-2587
e-mail: americansunited@au.org
website: www.au.org

To those saying they don't have this kind of patriotism in Germany, I wonder why?
The Pledge doesn't bother me, it just words.

¨The pen is mightier then the sword¨

Germany has its patriotic moments just like all other countries. In Germany this has been a touchy subject for the last 50 years or so. I think you can imagine why. Last year when the Germans won the World Championships soccer there was a lot of open patriotism and it was celebrated as the first time Germans were united in open patriotism again without shame.

But there is still a lot of difference between Germany especially, most European countries and the way patriotism is shown in the US. On average I would say US citizens are more patriotic then EU citizens. There is nothing wrong with that. From a US viewpoint it is considered rightful pride and from a European viewpoint it is considered a little arrogant. Both viewpoints are completely understandable and correct in their own way, especially looking at the history and culture of the places.

In the end, we will all be speaking Chinese. ;-)

In my small-ish country patriotism isn't that casual either. Maybe people aren't more patriotic in fear of being thought to be a neo-Nazi. They are the only people who are seen wearing the flag. A flag of Sweden is acceptable, but that's just sarcasm.

Even now as the 90'th independence day is on the 6'th this month, the only patriotic thing I've seen is a chocolate bar. Well that and some movies about the wars.
Strange when there are still some veterans alive who defended our independence in 1944.

Maybe people don't want to angry the Russians. Maybe political apathy is to blame? Who knows?
I think people should pay more respect to the veterans and show a little patriotism once in a while.

Are you serious QM?

You honestly think that the government cutting all ties to education would be beneficial to society?

Yes. Free-market schools can do a much better job at half the price. Competition breeds excellence. Let religious or vocational schools compete with schools bereft of faith, values and history but filled with crime and drugs (e.g. government schools).

See how people quickly learn the real value of a dollar spent on education when 90 cents of it isn't wasted on bureaucrats.

"The Red Pony" movie shows a "cleaned up" version of America's Nazi salute from 1949 (well after WWII was over). http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html In the film, the Pledge is being distanced as the source of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, as exposed by the historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets"). http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg The government and its government schools (socialist schools) were effective in their propaganda to cover up their truth about the Pledge even in the cinema. Even so, the film "The Red Pony" (1949) does it poorly, as it continues to show the mechanical chanting in unison, in military formation, on command in socialist schools. Note that even the original military salute (the initial salute) appears to have been dropped (the military salute was extended out and thus led to the classic palm-down stiff-arm salute). Also in this fictional film version, the arms are kept low. The arms are so low that the children are begging for handouts from their socialist government, like panhandlers asking for spare change. It fits with the National Socialist dogma of Francis Bellamy (the Pledge's author), Edward Bellamy (his cousin) and the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (~60 million slaughtered), the Peoples' Republic of China (~50 million slaughtered), and the National Socialist German Workers Party (~20 million slaughtered).

I think "In God We Trust" was on money earlier than that, blankfist, but it became the official national motto in 1956 (what was E Pluribus Unum?). According to Wikipedia, it was first used in 1864 and wasn't mandated by Congress until 1908.

"In God We Trust" first appeared on our coins in 1864 in the midst of the Civil War. This was somehow supposed to show that we were a nation of honorable people despite the appearance of the time.

It first appeared on cash in 1957 after it became our national motto, in order to separate us from those godless commies.

It seems to me that the reasons for both adoptions should offend everyone. As an atheist, I'm not particularly offended; I just think it doesn't belong there. As a Christian, I'd be thoroughly offended that God has become a catchphrase synonymous with "we're not as evil as we seem."

The history of the motto as pertaining to money can be found here: http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html