Originally Posted by tryingtogetbig
The courts have said that if they take "under God" out of the pledge, then it's ok to have the kids recite it.
Otherwise, the state cannot ask people if they wish to participate in anything religious. They can't ask if you approve of it, or if you disapprove. They can't ask if you beleive in God or if you don't, they can't ask what religion you belong to, they can't ask why you don't belong to a particular church or why you have no beleifs at all.
As soon as the state says, "Ok, anyone who wants to be excused can come and tell us," they are asking people to volunteer whether or not they want to participate in saying a religious phrase. And back in 1963, the Supreme Court said that the gov't can't do that, as well it shouldn't.
On top of that, every person in this country has the right not to participate in a state-sponsored religious activity (yes, when a taxpayer funded public school does the "one nation under god" thing, it's a state-sponsored religious activity--a very brief one, but still a religious activity), and a person can not be required to volunteer whether or not they wish to participate in order to exercise their First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.
So . . .
You hear a lot of whining that "liberals are against the Pledge of Allegience," but really all it is, is a fight by religious people to keep as many references to religion in public schools that they can. If the Pledge had the two words "under god" removed (and why not? That's what we had from 1897 to 1954, and it worked fine), then it would be not only constitutional, but welcomed into public school systems by lily-livered liberals all over the nation. The religious conservatives wouldn't like it, 'cause they'd consider it had been neutered, but it would still be a statement of patriotism.
I say let the religious people whine, let's neuter the pledge and get it back where it belongs . . .
--Tock