http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html)
Most of you probably already know but yup... the Pledge is under fire again.
Let's get that religious nonsense out of it. It should never have been added in 1954 (or was it 1956?). The only reason it was added was for anti-communist reasons in the midst of McCarthyism when the politicians were afraid of the "Reds." Communism was demonized and associated with atheism in order to make it appear as evil as possible (not that communism was a good thing) in order to rally the nation in its anti-communist agenda. An agenda not unlike the anti-terrorist one.
It seems we need an other that we can use in justifying our defense expenditures and the necessity for war, etc.
We need to get that cult crap out of our "pledge" that we make school kids recite and we need to get it off of our money.
back to normal i say.
edit: actually i think we should remove God, and insert instead, Odin.
I personally think the pledge of allegiance is stupid period...but if we're doing anything lets make it tolerant of those who don't believe in God.
Frankly, the thought of all those kids undergoing some form of cult like recital all the time has always struck me as weird and oldfashioned... but i guess if you want to then whatever. Don't really see the point in it myself.
Having the "under god" bit does appear to totally contradict the consitiution's wording in this case though. Not commenting on which is right, merely that they do seem to be incompatible.
Well, everyone knows how not Christian I am, so obviously they should drop it. But, speaking very sleepily, why hasn't anyone decided to complain about how it says 'In God We Trust' on all our currency?
But, speaking very sleepily, why hasn't anyone decided to complain about how it says 'In God We Trust' on all our currency?
'Cause it's money, dope. :p Though I do find it very interesting that the groups who attack the pledge never mention the bills and coins. I guess man is just too greedy for money to care what's on it.
As for the pledge itself, though I would sorely be dissapointed if it was removed, it wouldn't be the end of the world, so meh.
It isn't hurting anything, and nobody is making or forcing kids to recite it with or without the word God in it.
leave it be, it's not killing anyone.
It establishes religion on the citizenry and elevates one cult doctrine over all others. It is unconstitutional. If it is allowed to stay, then it sets precedent for future violations of the Constitution of the United States.
Its gotta go.
Funny that this thread would be started just now, as I'm preparing to post one on organized patriotism (US-style). Coincidences are sure funny.
edit: actually i think we should remove God, and insert instead, Odin.
One nation/Under Odin/Indivisible/? I like it:D
(...) Nobody is making or forcing kids to recite it with or without the word God in it.
But of course not. Who's ever heard of kids being teased or frowned upon by their peers for being different:confused:?
But, speaking very sleepily, why hasn't anyone decided to complain about how it says 'In God We Trust' on all our currency?
They have, bud'. They have. At least they were while I lived in Houston.
Let's just say, just for one second, that the pledge did say "one nation under Odin". Or "Ganesh" or "Mara" or "the teachings of Siddharta Goutama" or whatever. Would Catholic parents feel happy about their kids daily acknowledging the sovereignity of that religion, if only in pretence? Five bucks says nope.
--D. E.
But of course not. Who's ever heard of kids being teased or frowned upon by their peers for being different:confused:?
Being different? Yeah, if you were a boy and wore a dress to school, you could probably expect to be teased for being different. Nobody ever once teased me for refusing to pledge allegiance. Ever. I also never felt that Christians were forcing their "cult" on me or my atheist cult beliefs. I simply, and respectfully, sat quietly and waited for the cows to finish their chanting about how great their flag, and nation were, and how pleased they were with themselves to be aligned with these things. I don't think anyone even questioned me about it, much less made fun of me for it. I spent my entire school life in the Bible Belt. So if someone was going to tease or frown upon me, there were certainly opprutunities. If you or your kids are too simple or scared to just refuse to say it, then yeah, by all means fight the power. Rock the vote. Or whatever.
I swear to GOD that if one of my kids ever comes home to me and says "Daddy! You're not going to believe this! They made me say God in school today! That's against my constitutional rights as an American citizen!", I'm not calling the school. I'm not calling a lawyer. I'm not calling my worthless state representative. I'm kicking my kids ass for not having the balls to risk teasing and frowning by doing what they believe is right.
Let's just say, just for one second, that the pledge did say "one nation under Odin". Or "Ganesh" or "Mara" or "the teachings of Siddharta Goutama" or whatever. Would Catholic parents feel happy about their kids daily acknowledging the sovereignity of that religion, if only in pretence? Five bucks says nope.
You mean the same catholic parents who won't let kids play AOE because it has foriegn gods in it? Ca't see why they would have a problem... ;)
We need to get that cult crap out of our "pledge" that we make school kids recite and we need to get it off of our money.
No, Skin, you definitely want to keep it on your bills... I've seen the security features of a $1 bill, and there are more anti-copying measures in the average Playstation game. You definitely want to keep that provision on your bills.
Well, everyone knows how not Christian I am, so obviously they should drop it. But, speaking very sleepily, why hasn't anyone decided to complain about how it says 'In God We Trust' on all our currency?
Eer, Skin did?
leave it be, it's not killing anyone.
Meh. I say we change the wording to '... one nation that denies God.' You gonna object?
We had some fun with this issue several years ago when this was first decided before appeals, in this thread. (
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=65500&page=1&pp=40) I find it funny that the same issues keep coming back to haunt us...
In my school,(at least my class) you didn't have to say the pledge if you didn't want to. From freshman year to I think junior year, we said it once, at the begining of the school year. But senior year we went back to saying it everyday. It kind of looses it's meaning when you fight over should we leave "under God" in it or take it out. I know if I recite it, i'll say "under God", but I think there are a lot of bigger issues that I would fight for and against.
Darn... why didn't you guys tell me about that thread :) Looks like it was fun... tempted to post to resurrect, but I'll restrain myself.
I have a much better idea, let's just get rid of the entire pledge. It's a moronic concept that serves no purpose other than to give elementary kids something to whine about until homework is given.
My school, all the way in to highschool, we were forced to say it. I however did not, not because some religious war BS, but because the concept is moronic and I have better things to do with my time. Things like getting an education.
Instead of forcing little kids to say the pledge, god or not, I say we just go right to teaching the little pukes about math, science, and english. Stuff that'll actually serve purpose.
And how many kids can appreciate what they're saying? I had no idea what I was saying up until highschool. It was just something that we did every morning.
Darn... why didn't you guys tell me about that thread :) Looks like it was fun... tempted to post to resurrect, but I'll restrain myself.
Well, it was like 3 or 4 years ago, and I don't think the forums had even merged yet (back in the day when XWA had more than 4 or 5 active members, and more than a post or 2 every couple of days.)
But yes, it was fun. :) We had a couple like that... back in the day.
We actually discussed this very topic recently in one of my law & justice classes. In a rather large class of about 300 students, 95% of them sure to go on to pursue law degrees, almost all of them said that they didn't care if the phrase "under God" was kept in the pledge. In fact, a good number of them said that they'd be mildly disappointed if it was taken out. I happen to be one of them.
My reasoning is this. This country was founded by a bunch of aristocratic white guys who just happened to be Christian. As such, they implemented certain phrases and such reflecting their beliefs. (The phrase in the pledge was not one of these things, as already established). But you get the idea. The United States was founded on democratic beliefs, not Christian beliefs. The founding fathers set up a democratic republic, not a theocracy. I believe their purposes were inspirational and patriotic. As the years pass, it has become more of a cultural thing than anything else.
I find the claim that it establishes a religion to be ludicrous. One is not required to say it. Two little words. How can two little words establish a religion? Do they require prayer? Tithes to the church? Blessings before meals? Do they establish a set of doctrines that everyone who says it must follow? Does it attack any other religion's doctrines? No.
Does it stomp on other people's religions? Does it say Christianity is better than everything else? Does it say that Islam sucks, Buddhism blows, and Hinduism gobbles monkey balls? Does it say that you cannot practice any other religion other than Christianity? No. (But Pat Robertson does say yes, and he's a fat sack of bull****.)
As a side note, I would like to point out the various nations around the world that have "God" in their mottos, anthems, pledges and what not. These nations include: Canada, England, Poland, the Philippines, El Salvador and a few others. All of these countries have never had a problem before and quite a few of them have populations with comparable ethic, cultural and religious diversity as the United States.
The bottom line is that you have a choice. That's the beauty of this country. It tolerates whatever you desire to do. You can choose to say it, or to ignore it, just like you can choose to not sing the national anthem at baseball games, or not to enlist in the army, etc. The US does not require a lot out of you patriotically. And for people to get their panties in a twist about something so trivial as the pledge really demonstrates what this country has become. Pandering to be politically correct and all that junk. Quite frankly, it sickens me.
You have freedom of choice. Use it.
Instead of forcing little kids to say the pledge, god or not, I say we just go right to teaching the little pukes about math, science, and english. Stuff that'll actually serve purpose.
Or do something like morning yoga, like in the Japanese factories or whatever.
The US does not require a lot out of you patriotically.
But it certainly requests a lot of you patriotically. Much, much more than other countries without organized patriotism.
I find the claim that it establishes a religion to be ludicrous.
Then I beg to differ. It says that the nation is "under God", thus estabilishing that God is watching over the nation and that the nation is thus Christian, with a ditto God supervising it. It does not turn the world upside-down doing so, but it does it.
And for people to get their panties in a twist about something so trivial as the pledge really demonstrates what this country has become. Pandering to be politically correct and all that junk.
But is it trivial? Organized patriotism is a rather big issue to me and a lot of other people. But that's for my own thread.
In addition, while I care about relatively small things like "two little words", I also care about bigger things such as rape, Operation Iraqi F***-up, homosexuality, and the growing numbers of homeless dogs and cats.
Quite frankly, it sickens me.
I do have to partially agree. I'm tired of people coming up with new words for ethnic groups every year and people substituting regular, harmless, everyday words like "short" with nonsense like "vertically challenged" (and I'd say something with "challenged" in it is more offensive than just "short":confused:). But I believe that saying that you find political correctness to be undesireable a bit too generalized. There's PC and there's PC.
As a non US person I'm at a bit of a disadvantage as I don't really understand how this "pledge" works in real life. Is it some sort of official wording? Is it required? Is it required that it is said, even if it isn't required that you join in? Are there variations? When is it used? If it isn't required then what is the point?
So for now I'm working for now on the assumption that it is at least a semi-regular offical part of school life.
@Rogue Nine:
I'm kinda surprised about those law students. Agreed that this is hardly one of the most important issues facing the world today. But putting aside questions of morals or ethics or beliefs, from a purely legal point of view it appears to be illegal. Surely this is what potential lawyers should care about?
If there is indeed a legal requirement for people to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." then surely this blatantly breaks that legal reqirement? Sure it isn't really that important in the big scheme of things, and maybe you could even argue that the legal requirement should be changed. But if it does indeed exist then "The Pledge" is surely illegal. And we shouldn't be picking and choosing which illegal acts we ignore.
The fact it appears to be a recent ammendment means that there isn't even an argument of tradition to support it.
The UK does indeed refer to god quite a bit. "God save the queen" for example. But bear in mind that this is a very old tradition, not a new ammendment, that the queen is the head of the Church of England, so she has never claimed to be free from religion, and that the UK has no constitution or other requirement requiring freedom of religion or whatever.
I for one am quite glad that there are people out there willing to fight these minor little battles for me, as I'm sure that 99% of us couldn't be bothered to do so. But if thousands of totally minor transgressions were allowed to go unchallenged then eventualy they would add up to something major.
I went to a Church of England pimary school where we had to say the lords prayer every day in assembly, I didn't but I don't think anyone noticed.
As far I as i see it it is the same sorta thing, if you want to say some pledge thing, say it, if you don't, don't. there is no need to force each others beliefs in each others faces every day.
If the pledge needs to be changed it should have "God" replaced with "gods", more than one see? that way it refers to what ever god you believe in (if you don't you could just not say it)
It establishes religion on the citizenry and elevates one cult doctrine over all others. It is unconstitutional. If it is allowed to stay, then it sets precedent for future violations of the Constitution of the United States.
Its gotta go.
No offence, but thats slightly weak: I can see it now "The pledge violates the constitution, so why not violate it more!!!!! You act as if its an act of defiance.
If the pledge needs to be changed it should have "God" replaced with "gods", more than one see? that way it refers to what ever god you believe in (if you don't you could just not say it)
Yeah, but then you'll be pleasing the smallest crowd of people. The athiests will be mad still, the christians, jews, and muslims will be mad... so yeah...
Personally I want it to stay, but, after this year in school I probably won't say it again. I mean really, how many of you recite the pledge? In fact, even in school, they request we stand, but I am one of the few who actually say the pledge. Most just stand there, or argue that they don't want to stand. Pssh, just suck it up and stand in my opinion... don't say it if you don't want to.
As a non US person I'm at a bit of a disadvantage as I don't really understand how this "pledge" works in real life. Is it some sort of official wording? Is it required? Is it required that it is said, even if it isn't required that you join in? Are there variations? When is it used? If it isn't required then what is the point?
Well, pretty much we say it before school starts (well, sorta right after it starts, but who cares) It has official wording, and no variations. Its not required to be said, and its used generally everyday by schools, and at sports events and such. Its also said at special ceremonies, like the 9-11 ceremony, and on July 4th. Feel free to add on guys... :)
Whats the point? There is no point. Americans who don't believe in God can drop "Under God" if they want, and leave everyone else alone.
But it certainly requests a lot of you patriotically. Much, much more than other countries without organized patriotism.
What do you mean, you say the pledge, and continue your daily plan. I mean, its not like people recite it in there homes (well, I guess some people might)
I have a much better idea, let's just get rid of the entire pledge. It's a moronic concept that serves no purpose other than to give elementary kids something to whine about until homework is given.
My school, all the way in to highschool, we were forced to say it. I however did not, not because some religious war BS, but because the concept is moronic and I have better things to do with my time. Things like getting an education.
Instead of forcing little kids to say the pledge, god or not, I say we just go right to teaching the little pukes about math, science, and english. Stuff that'll actually serve purpose.
To be honest I think a lot of things in America are dumb... but I won't bother. You know ritual stuff... and showy things, that server no purpose.
Yeah, but then you'll be pleasing the smallest crowd of people. The athiests will be mad still, the christians, jews, and muslims will be mad... so yeah...
Why should they be mad? The reason god was added to the Pledge was to combat communism, not to cater to the religious. Are they going to be mad because we're not combating communism anymore?
You act as if its an act of defiance.
Isn't it? It is the defiance of the so-called religious right that protects this and other superstitions, like the 10 commandments in public buildings. I find it ironic, by the way, that religious right heralds the 10 commandments as sacred -a set of rules from the "old law"- but they wouldn't dream of putting up quotes of Jesus. I'd have no problem at all with "blessed are the meek...," "turn the other cheek," "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...," "blessed are the peacemakers...," and "who ever said I could walk on water? I just know where all the rocks are."
Umm... yeah... rocks in the middle of a huge lake? Peter walked on the water too. Really funny skin... yeah.
Why should they be mad? The reason god was added to the Pledge was to combat communism, not to cater to the religious. Are they going to be mad because we're not combating communism anymore?
Think about it. If you change it to "Gods" then all the christians, muslims, and Jews will be mad because they only believe in one God... they won't settle for that. And the athiests will be mad because religion is still in it. Unless... of course, you guys are just mad because the Christian God is in it, and in that case your whole argument falls in on itself and proves that your just nitpicking because you don't like Christianity.
Think about it. If you change it to "Gods" then all the christians, muslims, and Jews will be mad because they only believe in one God... they won't settle for that. And the athiests will be mad because religion is still in it.
Yup, changing it to "gods" would be even worse.
Unless... of course, you guys are just mad because the Christian God is in it, and in that case your whole argument falls in on itself and proves that your just nitpicking because you don't like Christianity.
Except that if it WERE the christian god then we'd have MORE reason to argue about it, because that really would be the state sponsering an official religion - unconstitutional.
It isn't hurting anything, and nobody is making or forcing kids to recite it with or without the word God in it.
Nobody gives a damn about the pledge. :p
I say it every day. It's just reciting something. I don't care if I am semi agnost. It doesn't burn my throat to mention God. :/
No offence, but thats slightly weak: I can see it now "The pledge violates the constitution, so why not violate it more!!!!! You act as if its an act of defiance.What exactly are you saying would be unconstitutional about changing the pledge? When you get right down to it, at the most basic level laws are made to be changed. Although, everyone does seem to be making a big fuss of it, you are aware of the British national anthem, are you not? I'm not religious, but I have no problems with singing it. When you get right down to it, it's just words, it's not hurting anyone (unlike many other religious presences in American culture).
What exactly are you saying would be unconstitutional about changing the pledge? When you get right down to it, at the most basic level laws are made to be changed. Although, everyone does seem to be making a big fuss of it, you are aware of the British national anthem, are you not? I'm not religious, but I have no problems with singing it. When you get right down to it, it's just words, it's not hurting anyone (unlike many other religious presences in American culture).
Im not saying its unconsitutional to change the pledge, but Skin was saying that "Under God" Violates the constitution, and that could be an excused used to further violate it. I doubt that would happen...
Nobody gives a damn about the pledge.
Evidentally, some people do. They care enough to take the whole situation to court just to change the words. I doubt those people regularly recite the pledge anyways.
No offence, but thats slightly weak: I can see it now "The pledge violates the constitution, so why not violate it more!!!!! You act as if its an act of defiance.
Precedents, Skywalker. Precedents are important.
And, yes, I'll happily admit that it would give me a warm and fuzzy feeling in my tummy to see the fascist right of the US slapped so soundly in the face over this issue. But that is hardly my primary concern. If you want to know why Skin and I are so riled up over it, go here (
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=1880130#post1880130). Essentially it boils down to the fact that the words themselves are fairly trivial but they set the precedent that the right to practice religion overrules the right to not practice religion. And that has some of us mighty pissed.
Isn't is a but fascist to have kids reciting a pledge of allegiance? It's like those schools in fascist countries that teach kids how their country is great, yada yada yada...
To a non-American who never even had to learn his own national anthem, this is just weird.
IMO, just get rid of the whole thing. People will become "patriots" by their own will. Nobody needs to pledge every year/month/day.
Isn't is a but fascist to have kids reciting a pledge of allegiance? It's like those schools in fascist countries that teach kids how their country is great, yada yada yada...
To a non-American who never even had to learn his own national anthem, this is just weird.
IMO, just get rid of the whole thing. People will become "patriots" by their own will. Nobody needs to pledge every year/month/day.
Once again, nobody is forced to say it. Anywhere. It's completely voluntary. Nobody that I'm aware of is forced to learn their national anthem either. Where do you people keep getting the idea that this is somehow being forced on kids? It isn't. Fascist how?
Well, I guess thats a valid arguement, ShadowTemplar, but I can also say that saying "Under God" doesn't mean you are practicing a religion.
IMO, just get rid of the whole thing. People will become "patriots" by their own will. Nobody needs to pledge every year/month/day.
Yeah, like CapNColostomy said, you don't have to say it at all... ever. And yes, it is weird considering I go each day not even thinking about the pledge, as many other Americans do aswell. The only time I think about it is in school when they say over the intercom and we stand... and are supposed to say it. The only requirement is that we stand. Thats probably illegal to, but since we are merley students, nothing we say or do will influence their decision.
I shall return after my exploits tomorrow in not saying the pledge during the morning announcements when they ask us to stand and do it.
Pray for me my friends; I may not return.
:p
I've not said the pledge plenty of times. Stood silent or mumbled to give the appearance of saying the pledge as a little kid. :p
Didn't somebody mention they were forced to do it? I'm sure I read it somewhere...
Yeah, some schools force you too.. but technically, its 100% illegal and unconstitutional. I am made to stand, although I don't mind it... I guess some people do. :-\ I mean, its a quick 20 second pledge... probably less than that.
Ah ok. I always thought it was long or something. Then again, I never had to pledge my allegiance to the US of A :p
lol its as long as
i pledge allegiance to the flag
of the united states of america
one nation
under god
indivisible
with liberty and justice for all*
lol its as long as
i pledge allegiance to the flag
of the united states of america
one nation
under god
indivisible
with liberty and justice for all*
You forgot
"And to the republic
on which it stands"
Then let us all start wiping our butts with the Constitution. The establishment clause is clear. The pressures on young, impressionable minds is clear. My daughter is a perfect atheist. She knows absolutely nothing of any gods or superstitious nonsense.
At some point she'll come home from her indoctrination process in school, after standing up and reciting the "pledge" and ask "who's god?" Mind you, I'm ready for that question, but it doesn't change the fact that elementary school children don't have the first clue what their legal rights are with regard to the establishment of religion. The only thing they know is that the single highest authority in the room said stand up and repeat after me.
The inclusion of "under god" in the pledge is unconstitutional. It needs to be removed. It sets a precedent. It violates the rights of those that aren't aligned with a cult of Christianity. It wasn't there until religious nutters put it there. The pledge works fine without it.
The case will go before the Supreme Court again and, this time, they'll have to hear it and rule. Mark my words: it will be gone. The Court already has precedent and the only reason it wasn't removed already is because of a technicality that gave the Court a way out.
FOR which it stands.*
You've exposed me as the unknowledgeable bastard that I truely am... >.>
What do you mean, you say the pledge, and continue your daily plan. I mean, its not like people recite it in there homes (well, I guess some people might)
Except there's a good deal more to it than saying the pledge. There are patriotic gatherings, the "duty" to fly your flag every day and show your patriotism, your "duty" to support the President, and so on. Not to mention that it's all organized, which never was very healthy for democracy.
Isn't is a but fascist to have kids reciting a pledge of allegiance? It's like those schools in fascist countries that teach kids how their country is great, yada yada yada...
Yup, it is.
Once again, nobody is forced to say it. Anywhere.
Fallacy alert, as was already stated.
Nobody that I'm aware of is forced to learn their national anthem either.
That's not the same thing. Learning is one thing; Reciting is another.
Im not saying its unconsitutional to change the pledge, but Skin was saying that "Under God" Violates the constitution, and that could be an excused used to further violate it. I doubt that would happen...
Incorrect.
I don't see how a little nationalism hurts anything
It doesn't.
A lot of organized nationalism, on the other hand, has been known to hurt a good deal in world history. The way Presidents have been known to use patriotism as a political tool is just one of many examples.
Fallacy alert, as was already stated.
Yeah. You should see the poor children, all at gunpoint being forced to recite the pledge. Zoinks. Sound the falacy alarm. :rolleyes:
Except there's a good deal more to it than saying the pledge. There are patriotic gatherings, the "duty" to fly your flag every day and show your patriotism, your "duty" to support the President, and so on. Not to mention that it's all organized, which never was very healthy for democracy.It is not my "duty" to do any of those things, and no one forces me to. The only organization happening is at the citizen level.
And it's not a democracy.
Yup, it is.As it's optional, I'd say it's not. If no one's forcing you to do it, how is it fascist?
Incorrect.It's been there for 50 years. No one's yet succeeded in exploiting it.
It doesn't.
A lot of organized nationalism, on the other hand, has been known to hurt a good deal in world history. Organization at the citizen level is a fundamental American right. If schools want to encourage it by saying the pledge, it's not a problem so long as everything voluntary.
The way Presidents have been known to use patriotism as a political tool is just one of many examples.
Politicians use anything that happens to be available as a political tool. Saying that they use patriotism (or whatever) is like saying they use words, or that they lie. Even Stalin used patriotism as a political tool, and he was (supposedly) a communist. They're all about furthering their agenda, one way or another.
I didn't say the pledge today.
I'm writing this from the county jail. :indif:
Nobody gave a damn. :p I got a funny look from my friend. That's about it.
Sure kids are impressionable. But at the same time do you really believe they are interpreting the pledge? Nah, I don't think so. I didn't. It was just something I said. Then when I got to middle school I started analyzing it and decided it was good enough to continue saying, even with (gasp) under God in it. Even though I was technically Buddhist at the time. (gasp x2).
'Cause it's money, dope. :p Though I do find it very interesting that the groups who attack the pledge never mention the bills and coins. I guess man is just too greedy for money to care what's on it.
As for the pledge itself, though I would sorely be dissapointed if it was removed, it wouldn't be the end of the world, so meh.
As for "In God We Trust" on currency...
Don't they get away with the currency bit because the Federal Reserve is not a government agency?
Then again, I guess the mints (that press the coins) might not count (somebody correct me on that it's been a long time since American Government class in High School!).
As for the pledge it doesn't seem to have any real benefit other than some touchy-feely stuff. Does it really make better citizens? Does it squelch free thought? I don't think so, but ultimately somebody is mad about it because it gives the IMPRESSION that people are being taught "fit in with us or you're weird" (ie: conformity in majority patriotic monotheistic culture). Originally there was no pledge, then we had one, and it was tweaked a bit, then we got "under God." I can see it going back and forth. Honestly it's hardly a catechism, so religious folks aren't missing anything by not having it.
Incidentally we recited the Pledge in church a few weeks ago (I was visiting the historic St. Mary of the Seven Sorrows Catholic Church in Nashville that features a latin liturgy, and before you ask, no the pledge was in english). Very interesting, since I'd never seen that done before. Given the geographic location and history, I'm thinking this may have been a remnant from America's anti-Catholic past (after all this was a very old church and you could see the Irish influence on everything). After all, one of the main polemics against the RCC was that their members (mostly immigrants) were "dual citizens" and thus could not be trusted in patriotic society. Of course the Knights of Columbus were the ones who insisted on putting "God" into the pledge, so perhaps it was another way to show "hey we're on your side!" etc.
Perhaps certain fear-mongers feel better when they see immigrant children reciting the pledge? (oh good, they'll grow up to be loyal Americans!) I don't know, but it's a possibility.
As far as requiring it in public schools, I'd say no. I can see why Libertarians would be upset about this though. The idea is that even if it's "optional" the threat of peer pressure on kids is too great a "risk."
When I was growing up, we did it in 1-3rd grades IIRC, and 4th and 5th we didn't do it as much. After that we never did.
If they want a patriotic exercise, perhaps standing for the national anthem would be better?