[DustyMoment]

. . . I'm glad to see such an overbearing law struck down. Demanding a daily loyalty oath to the government is hostile to conservative principles.

You have an excellent point and I stand corrected. Starting today, I am going to start violating those overbearing laws requiring me to stop at red octagonal signs and red colored lights. Why should I? I am also going to start violating those laws that prohibit me from taking other people's property without their permission because they violate my conservative principles.

And I'm even going to start violating those annoying commandments against adultery and murder and all that other stuff that violates my conservative principles.

The fact is that laws of all sorts serve different purposes. This law doesn't, as you contend, demand loyalty to the government, it demands loyalty to the United States of America. Some laws serve the public good, some of them help us develop morals and ethics, some of them help us develop character and a sense of common needs and respect for the individual. Not all laws are good laws, but laws that cause no harm are not a cause celebre for retraction. What harm does it cause for a child to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the National Anthem? Sure, they may not want to, but they also don't want to go to school, do their homework or eat broccoli. Should we strike down those laws that require them to go to school because it forces them to do something they don't want to? Shall we strike down your authority to govern your children as you see fit and require them to go to bed at a certain time, or eat certain foods, or behave in a certain way? Where do you propose that we stop?

Too many people in those country feel no connection to the United States because we don't require their allegiance or that they sing our National Anthem periodically so that we don't violate their "rights". We expect these people to grow up into mature, honorable, patriotic adults while we continually send them messages that they don't have to do anything they don't want to. I don't want to pay my taxes every year, but the government has other ideas. I think it violates my "rights" and forces me to support government policies and programs I disagree with, what do you think?

[Lunatic Fringe]

Starting today, I am going to start violating those overbearing laws requiring me to stop at red octagonal signs and red colored lights. Why should I? I am also going to start violating those laws that prohibit me from taking other people's property without their permission because they violate my conservative principles.

This is such a leap of logic, it's beyond any attempt to define it.

[Flint]

Wonder how a modification of the law that says that in each class room in each school the plege will be recited would fly? Not that everyone must participate but just that it be recited and those who wish may join in?

[Flint]

Wonder how a modification of the law that says that in each class room in each school the plege will be recited would fly? Not that everyone must participate but just that it be recited and those who wish may join in?

[freeeee]

Too many people in those country feel no connection to the United States because we don't require their allegiance

Allegience is earned, and by definition must be freely given.

Compelled allegience is a cheap euphamism for servile obedience.

[SedVictaCatoni]

You have an excellent point and I stand corrected. Starting today, I am going to start violating those overbearing laws requiring me to stop at red octagonal signs and red colored lights. Why should I? I am also going to start violating those laws that prohibit me from taking other people's property without their permission because they violate my conservative principles.

The soul of leftist belief is that everything, including people, ultimately belong to the state, and by extension to the government. Coercing children into "pledging allegiance to the republic" forces them to acknowledge that their government has the right to control them. It's not a statement that they agree to abide by the laws of the republic - it's a statement that the republic owns them, rather than the other way around. As such, it is almost by definition anathema to conservative political philosophy.