Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance facts for kids

The Pledge of Allegiance is a promise of loyalty to the United States. But some people have concerns about it. A big debate is about saying the Pledge in public schools. Critics say that when the government supports a religious idea, it might go against the First Amendment. This part of the Constitution protects our freedom of religion. People also argue that the Pledge might not fit with democracy and freedom. Some see it as teaching too much national pride. They point out that similar loyalty promises were used in countries like Nazi Germany. There are also claims that the Pledge was first made to honor Christopher Columbus and to help sell flags.

Religious Freedom and the Pledge

Even before the words "under God" were added in 1954, people questioned the Pledge based on freedom of religion. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses believe they should only show loyalty to God. In 1940, the Supreme Court first said schools could make Witness students say the Pledge. This case was called Minersville School District v. Gobitis. This decision was not popular and led to problems for Jehovah's Witnesses.

Just three years later, in 1943, the Supreme Court changed its mind. In the case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Court ruled that schools could not force students to say the Pledge. This means that since 1943, public schools cannot punish students for not reciting the Pledge. However, many schools still teach it and expect students to say it. The addition of "under God" in 1954, during the Cold War, brought new questions.

Legal Challenges to "Under God"

After the words "under God" were added to the Pledge in 1954, several lawsuits were filed. Joseph L. Lewis, a writer and co-founder of Freethinkers of America, challenged this change in New York. These cases are known as the Matter of Lewis v. Allen.

The 1957 Case

In 1957, Joseph Lewis argued that the new Pledge was unconstitutional. He said it forced people who don't believe in God to say something against their beliefs. The court disagreed. It pointed out that students were not forced to say the Pledge. No one was punished for not saying it.

The court also said that the First Amendment stops the government from creating an official religion. But it does not stop the government from supporting religion in general. The judge gave examples like "In God we trust" on coins. He also mentioned the Presidential oath which often includes "So help me, God." The court decided that simply saying "under God" in the Pledge did not create a state religion. It said that students who don't believe in God could simply skip those words.

The 1960 Case

Lewis tried again in 1960. He argued that the Pledge with "under God" was teaching religious ideas in public schools. He also said it put pressure on children who were not religious. The court again said that students were not forced to say the Pledge. It repeated that the First Amendment does not mean there must be a complete separation of church and state in every way. It allows for general references to God in public life. Lewis appealed this decision, but the higher court also ruled against him in 1964.

Modern Challenges to "Under God"

In 2005, a new lawsuit was brought by Dr. Michael Newdow. He argued that requiring public schools to lead the Pledge with "one nation under God" was against the Establishment Clause. A judge agreed, saying the words violated the right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." However, this ruling was later appealed.

The words "under God" were added to the Pledge on June 14, 1954. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill into law. He said that from then on, school children would "daily proclaim... the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

In 2002, a court in San Francisco ruled that adding "under God" was unconstitutional. This case, Newdow v. United States Congress, was brought by an atheist father who did not want his daughter to say the Pledge in school. After this ruling, the Senate and House both voted to support the Pledge as it was. President George W. Bush and many other politicians also spoke out in favor of the Pledge.

The Supreme Court heard the appeal in 2004. However, they did not rule on whether "under God" was constitutional. Instead, they said that Michael Newdow, as a non-custodial parent, did not have the legal right to represent his daughter in the case. So, the question of "under God" remained. In 2005, another court ruled that teacher-led recitations of the Pledge were not against the Establishment Clause.

What is "Religious Exercise"?

One debate is about whether saying "under God" is a religious act or just a historical reference. Some argue it's just a tradition. But those who added the words in 1954 said it was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator."

Michael Newdow, who is an atheist, also had concerns about "In God We Trust" on money. He believed it was a government statement of religious faith. He wanted to raise his daughter "without God being imposed into her life by her school teachers." He asked how Christians would feel if the Pledge said "one nation under NO God." He also asked how people would feel if it said "one nation under Sun Myung Moon" or "one nation under Mohammad." He argued that the reference to God is meaningful and creates a religious bias.

The Pledge's Origins and Socialism

Francis Bellamy, who wrote the Pledge, was a former minister. He believed in ideas similar to socialism. He was related to Edward Bellamy, a famous socialist writer. Francis Bellamy was against capitalism and supported ideas like income tax and government-run education. He wanted to change how people viewed the country. He hoped to move from states having more power to a strong central government.

When he got the chance to write a pledge for a campaign to sell flags to schools, Bellamy used socialist ideas. He thought that if young Americans learned "loyalty to the State," it would help create the socialist society his cousin wrote about. The idea of "one nation" in the Pledge was important for his vision of a strong, united government. He even thought about adding "liberty, fraternity and equality" from the French Revolution, but knew others on his committee would not agree.

Bellamy believed that public schools were the perfect place to teach strong loyalty and patriotism to the government. In 1892, a "National Public School Celebration" was held on Columbus Day. This was the first time the government promoted the Pledge across the country. The Pledge was said by many people at once. Public schools were also promoted, while private schools were criticized.

Forced Speech and Other Concerns

Some people are against the Pledge because they feel that making children say an oath, especially by government employees in public schools, is a form of compulsory speech. They see it as teaching ideas without allowing free thought. They believe this goes against the very idea of liberty that the flag represents.

In the 1943 Barnette case, a judge wrote that "Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds." Another judge said that "no official... can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." This means that no one in power should force citizens to believe or say certain things.

Other specific criticisms of the Pledge include:

• Some believe it is like idolatry, which means worshiping something other than God.
• The Pledge talks about "liberty and justice for all." But critics say it ignores problems like the large number of people in prisons or past events like internment camps during WWII.
• Some feel it goes against the freedoms protected by the First and Fourth Amendments.
• It might encourage blind patriotism instead of real involvement in civic life.

2006 Florida Ruling

In a 2006 case in Florida, Frazier v. Alexandre, a court ruled that a state law requiring students to stand and say the Pledge was unconstitutional. Even though the law allowed students to opt out with parent permission, the court said forcing them to stand was still wrong. This ruling came after a student was removed from class for not saying the Pledge or standing.

|