Posted on 10/09/2001 7:02:25 AM PDT by Jean S
Can't use Pledge of Allegiance to comply with law, schools told
The Madison School Board barred schools on Monday from using the Pledge of Allegiance as a way to comply with a new state law that requires a daily patriotism dose.
Instead, schools can use only the national anthem - and then only instrumental versions of it. No words.
The 3-2 board vote came after several parents and teachers complained that the pledge, which contains the line "one nation, under God," is a religious oath that doesn't belong in public schools. Others criticized the pledge for promoting nationalism and militarism.
Board President Calvin Williams, who voted with the majority, said the board's action is the "least intrusive and least offensive" way to comply with the law.
"We've chosen a reasonable compromise that preserves freedom of expression on both ends of the spectrum and doesn't trample on anyone's rights," he said.
The law, which took effect Sept. 1, requires schools to offer the pledge or anthem daily in grades 1 to 12. Madison implemented the law last week, with Superintendent Art Rainwater leaving it up to each school to decide whether the pledge or anthem would be offered and in what format.
The heaviest criticism has been aimed at those elementary schools where the pledge is being read over the public address system. Although the law says students cannot be forced to participate, critics said children have little choice but to listen to it when it's broadcast throughout the school.
"What we're doing here is opening up a very slippery slope," said Sally Franz, an educational assistant at Cherokee Middle School and one of six people who criticized the law Monday. "Indoctrination leads to totalitarianism, and we're approaching that moment."
Board member Bill Keys' motion instructs schools to broadcast an instrumental version of the anthem at a time deemed appropriate by administrators. This option will allow dissenting students to opt out less conspicuously, reducing the chances for harassment, he said.
Williams and Carol Carstensen agreed with Keys. Carstensen said the motion in no way prohibits the teaching of the pledge for educational reasons or the singing of the anthem in music class. And students can say the pledge on their own during the school day, she said.
Ruth Robarts and Shwaw Vang opposed the motion, with both saying it doesn't go far enough to protect the rights of dissenters. "It's a step in the right direction, but it doesn't remove the coerciveness of the classroom situation," Robarts said. She wanted the anthem to be offered before or after classes.
Ray Allen and Juan Jose Lopez were absent. Reached later, Lopez said he opposes the motion.
"I would not have voted to ban the Pledge of Allegiance," he said. "We live in the United States of America, and people should be given the choice."
Why are these fascist-Commie-anti-American people even still ALIVE?
FReep the creeps.
Visit them.
It is looking as though we might just do so. Check out this link:
Ask yourself this: is your child more likely to learn the joys of living with Jesus Christ as Lord and savior by studying the Bible, or by standing up in a group every day and reciting the Serenity Prayer? Exactly the same principle is involved, which is the difference between substituting a recited set of verses for actual study and understanding.
The pledge has as much to do with true patriotism as the Serenity Prayer has to do with Christianity. The professor made a fatuous comment aimed at discrediting individual thought. He owes an apology every bit as much as you do.
That kind of person is not American and reciting a test oath written by one of them is about as unamerican as one can get. It doesn't take a fancy education to learn what the United Sates is supposed to be about and to love the ideals on which it's founded. Anybody who can read and who'll take the time to do some independent study can get a good grip on our founding principles in a day or two.
That's one of the main duties of citizenship. A patriot won't shirk that duty while pretending to patriotism by repeating a few lines and saluting the flag. Keep the pledge if you like, but you have to go beyond it to express patriotism by real action.
FReeped em Good! BUMP
Right back at em and in their faces with a big NO. Thats the way you do it.
Only after that trial has been completed, the owner has lost, and the opportunity to appeal has passed, is the asset finally forfeited. Though you may object to such laws, they are duly passed by Congress and those states as choose to do so, and they are enforced in court by "due process of law."
Something does not become illegal or unconstitutional simply because you disagree with it. I don't agree with all of those laws, myself. But I repeat, the US is not yet a socialist country because the government does not have the power simply to take away private property without due process of law -- as required by the Constitution.
Congressman Billybob
The board should reverse its decision next Monday. If - and only if - there is sufficient public concern about including in the pledge the words "under God," which were added in 1954, the board can inquire whether simply omitting those words would satisfy those concerns and the Legislature's intent.
The board can also help restore public confidence if the three board members who voted to ban the pledge - Bill Keys, Calvin Williams and Carol Carstensen - along with the two members who wanted more extreme action - Ruth Robarts and Shwaw Vang - begin Monday's meeting by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Board members Ray Allen and Juan Jose Lopez were absent from the first vote.)
It would be a good idea if the public attended that meeting at 5 p.m. Monday at the School District's Doyle Administration Building, 545 W. Dayton St., to make sure the board learns from its experience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.