O.K. Cisco, at the risk of starting something I don't plan to finish, let's bring a little reality to this discussion.
The Pledge of Allegiance, written by socialist editor and clergyman Francis Bellamy, debuted on September 8, 1892, in the juvenile periodical The Youth's Companion.
The Pledge's initial publication was an attempt by Bellamy to refect his cousin, Edward Bellamy's novel "Looking Backward" and other socialist utopian novels.
In it's original publication, the Pledge read: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all."
It was not until 1924 that the words "the flag of the United States of America" were substituted for "my Flag." Fittingly, the change takes place on Flag Day. And it wasn't until 1942 that the Pledge was officially recognized as
The Pledge of Allegiance.
In 1954 the confusion began over the 'Under God' inclusion.
Worried that orations used by "godless communists" sound similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, religious leaders lobby lawmakers to insert the words "under God" into the pledge. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, fearing an atomic war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, joins the chorus to put God into the pledge. Congress does what he asks, and the revised pledge reads: "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."
In 2002 the debate took on new meaning when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruleed that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" because of the words added in 1954. The decision affects schoolchildren in eight states: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana and Hawaii.
On August 9th of that year, the Justice Department files an appeal of the circuit court's ruling.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet addressed the issue directly, rather dismissing a father's challenge to the use of the words "one nation, under God" in the Pledge. In so doing, the high court avoids addressing the question of separation of church and state. The court said the father, who was in a custody battle for his daughter, could not sue to ban the pledge from the girl's school because he did not have sufficient custody to speak as her legal representative.
Whether or not the reasons for refusing to stand or not and recite the Pledge are valid, the courts have already spoken on the issue and therefore, this teacher was completely out of line.
If this were my son and/or daughter, regardless of whether or not I agreed with the stance taken, I would strongly sugges they approach the principle (and school board if necessary) and in a written statement, demand a public apology in front of the same class where this incident took place.
Or, file a civil suit against the teacher, the principle and the school board for violation of the 9th circuit court's order and demand as damages $1 and a public apology.
