Forced Pledge of Allegiance

Recently a Senator in the Nebraska Unicameral proposed that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance be a required event at the beginning of each day in public schools.  Apparently, foreseeing the potential unconstitutionality, the writer left provisions in for both students and teachers to opt out.  It would probably be career suicide for a teacher to opt out and nearly all students do not have the mental wherewithal to understand what they are actually saying nor the significance of what the Pledge means.

Anyone who went to public school here in the U.S.A. surely did it at least once while growing up.  If there are people who don't know it, I do find it a little disappointing.   That being said, I have a HUGE problem with this proposed law.  The history of the Pledge doesn't really go as far back as most people think.  It was not related at all to our founding fathers and in fact wasn't even written until 1892 and even then was not officially adopted until 1942.  Here is the original, in its glorious entirety, designed to take no longer than 15 seconds.:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Here it is in it's current incarnation:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 It shouldn't be too hard to spot why I don't like this and believe that it is unconstitutional, but for those who aren't very good at reading between the lines, it is the "under God" part. 

One, it steps on all those who do not have a Western style religiosity as it presumes that there is a singular entity at the head of all religious views a la the Abrahamic Religions Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism.  For those who are not aware of it, Eastern religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism are all much more complex and oddly enough can sometimes be taken on concurrently with other Eastern Religions.  Their deistic makeup is far from singular, in some cases having many deities, in others having no deities and in even others, having both multiple and none (Side note: Go research Eastern Religion, it's incredibly fascinating no matter what religion you are).  Most importantly, to me, is that it presumes that all people believe in a god.  The fact that I would be required to pledge to a deity, despite my own personal beliefs that there is none, strikes me as about as anti-liberty as you can get, well, until you read my next reason.  But that is not all.  If you look at the official wording you should notice that it does not say "god" but rather it says "God."  That is not a placeholder for all religions, that is a specific reference to a specific deity, namely the Christian deity.  I could go on and on about why the pledge is unconstitutional, why it was changed, why it should be changed back, etc etc etc, but then this post would never end.  Suffice to say, my point has been made.

Two, and most importantly, I have a GIGANTIC issue with anyone, be they a single person, a private organization or the government forcing me to pledge my allegiance, namely, every fiber of my being to them, unconditionally and unquestionably.  This is not to say that I will never recite it and mean it, or that I don't like it.  It is all about my right as a human being to keep the government out of my personal decisions.  It is at this point where I have found many people who proudly proclaim themselves members of the TEA party who rally against government intruding upon their lives in any fashion, somehow lose their conviction and agree that it be required.  Many such comments could be found all over the comment sections of various news outlets here in Omaha.  In one instance someone insisted rather boldly that patriotism should be taught in schools.  I would really like to see a lesson plan for that topic.  The other mind boggling post, which was much more numerous, was that "If you don't like it then you can get out of the country!"   If you consider how many people would have a problem with the "get out of the country" argument when applied to pretty much any argument, I would hate to see the homogenous state of the country afterwards.  I can't imagine the average IQ would be terribly high.

My Pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to truth, liberty and justice."

A little Superman mixed with the original Pledge.  :)