Boulder High students walk out during Pledge, recite own version
I’m proud of the 50 Boulder, Colorado, high school students who’ve started walking out of the state-mandated pledge of allegiance and who have also substituted their own version, “which omits the reference to God and adds allegiance to constitutional rights, diversity and freedom, among other things.”
They argue, correctly, I believe, that the inclusion of the phrase “One nation, under God” breaches the constitutional separation of church as state.
It’s good to see young people standing up for the constitution and for religious freedom and showing more wisdom than their elders. Although reciting the pledge is optional, it’s divisive for students in a public school to have to listen to a state-sponsored theological message.
5 Responses to “Boulder High students walk out during Pledge, recite own version”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “Boulder High students walk out during Pledge, recite own version,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Sep 29 2007
Tags and categories
Category: Religion & Society
Yeah, Boulder kids!! It is time, especially in this political climate, for more people to call the government out on this. I have been to official military functions, and before they start, there is always an official prayer provided by the leading chaplain at the venue. I’m always dismayed and appalled by this blatant presumption that everyone in the room is a Christian~ especially at an event that is being paid for with taxpayer dollars….
It’s the same with prison functions. Every year there’s a volunteer appreciation evening which starts with a prayer from the chaplain and continues with hymns. The assumption is that everyone there is a Christian — or that they *should* be Christian.
That position is a very presuptious one to take. I didn’t know it was also done in prisons.
I really enjoy your blog. Thank you for sharing!
I who used to pledge allegiance to the flag and the nation in the morning at school am no longer comfortable with that practice, but the one thing that made it safe and commended it was that we were pledging allegiance to an authority with a recognition that it is not the highest authority and I saw my pledge only valid in as much as my allegiance would not take me into conflict with that higher authority.
It is quite a stretch to view the pledge as a breach of the seperation of church and state. A highschool is not the state regardless of the funding it gets from the state. Not only is it not a state, the state isn’t mentioned in the 1st amendment which only speaks of Congress passing laws. It’s quite a stretch to go from Congress passing laws to highschoolers making what has been an optional pledge that recognizes an authoritative God (without even noting which “establishment of religion” that is in mind when invoking God).
There are clearly many of view on this topic. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals famously ruled that the pledge (which is codified in Title 4 of the United States Code — meaning that it is indeed government sanctioned) was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Others think that the reference to God is so non-specific that it doesn’t endorse any particular religion. Yet others think that we should in fact be promoting God along with patriotism. Some have even argued that the mention of God should continue to be included because it doesn’t mean anything anyway! The courts have been notoriously shy about getting involved in such an inflammatory issue, and I don’t blame them. Jehovah’s Witnesses were physically attacked after the Supreme Court ruled that their children could be compelled to recite the pledge.
Feelings on this matter run high, which is one reason why I think it was a big mistake to inject “under God” into the pledge. Once you’ve given token sanction to one religious tradition it becomes hard to withdraw from that position.
My own take is that a state-sanctioned affirmation of the existence of God creates a climate where Buddhists and other atheists are unwelcome.