American public schools should not lead recitations of the current Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you for your well-sourced opening. I move right into rebuttal. I. Nebulous Origin You claim the origin of the Pledge of Allegiance to be nebulous. Are you aware that nebulous means "hazy, vague, indistinct, or confused" [1]. Clearly you did not mean nebulous as you then provided a highly detailed and cited, yet irrelevant, history of the Pledge of Allegiance. Let's assume that by 'nebulous' you meant 'undemocratic'. Indeed, the Pledge was based off of novelist Edward Bellamy's Utopian ideals [2] and not directly based on some touchstone of democracy like the declaration of independence. I agree. The origin of the Pledge is not democratic. I have two reasons why the origin of a tradition is a minor detail. First, US culture is not past oriented. We are always talking about what we are going to do. We become offended if someone is late. Restoring a historical building is often like pulling political teeth. Other cultures would care about the origin of an idea, but not the US. Second, I'd like you try your origin logic on the classic American tune Yankee Doodle Dandy. Did you know that Yankee Doodle Dandy was originally sung by British soldiers mocking American soldiers in the War of Independence? American soldiers altered the verses and sang it right back at the Brits as they retreated{3]. Do you propose Yankee Doodle Dandy stop being an American classic because of its origin? It is more important that the US has made the Pledge into its own than whose idea the Pledge was and how it came to be part of the school system. Lastly in this section, I would like to reject two specific claims. You said the Pledge has been "changed to an almost unrecognizable point" and that this "render(s) the entire purpose of the pledge moot". The phrase "under God" was added, and the ending changed from 'liberty, equality, fraternity' to 'liberty for all'. If anyone read the old version of the pledge they would notice the ending sounded funny and they may even notice 'under God' missing, but they would most certainly still recognize it as the Pledge of Allegiance. You also claim this invalidates the purpose of the Pledge, but earlier you demonized the origins of the Pledge. Why would it matter if the meaning has been changed (though I say it has not significantly) if you disagreed with the original meaning? You also said "The Pledge only serves to hearken back to [corruption, jingoism, and oppression]". This is a false assumption. The spreading of one concept from a particular age will not usher in the negative conditions of the age it came from. After all, those who teach Darwin's evolution are not afraid that the age of burning atheists will return. II. Dangers of Nationalism The pledge does not induce blind nationalism! It is hard to know where to start, there are so many pieces of this argument I disagree with. For your convenience I have arranged them in the order they occurred in your speech. You say when teachers lead the pledge they "force() students to line up, in an authoritarian fashion". Teachers lead students in various materials, math, science, literature " all of which students typically sit in rows for and listen. Homework is constant and grades are all that matters. It sounds like you are more against how the education system focuses on test results more than caring about creating critical thinkers. The way the Pledge is lead has to do with the values of the school system, not the act of leading the Pledge itself. The Pledge of Allegiance could just as easily be lead in small circles after discussing what it means. Speaking of which, you said the Pledge contains "words most students cannot understand". What better a place to create a teaching moment than school to explain what the vocabulary means and discuss what the implications are. You also said the Pledge "impresses itself into the brains of impressionable young". There is not brainwashing going on in American public schools. Not one person has ever in discussion with me attributed the reasoning behind any action to the Pledge they recited back in their school days. Besides, how can it be brainwashing if, as you say, the students don't know what the words mean? You said the Pledge creates a "subconscious allegiance to the government". If that were true there would be much less crime and much more patriotism. Clearly there is no subconscious allegiance. You said the Pledge would bring about "hatred, bigotry, and violence (as was often the case during the formative years of the Pledge)". As I said before, a teacher of evolution does not fear bringing about a new age of atheist burning. You seem to have this fallacy stuck in your head that the conditions of when an idea was born are somehow carried with it and could infect the future. That is not how knowledge works. You said the Pledge has "been used to perpetuate such despicable acts". Would you care to back up that claim with evidence? It seems that you are saying acts carried out by the army, for instance, are despicable and that the Pledge the soldiers gave in their childhood lead them to commit these 'despicable' acts. That would be a horrible and illogical thing to say. I hope you can clear up in your response that you actually meant something else. You said that leading the Pledge is "akin to forcing children to sign a binding contract". A pledge is not a legal contract and cannot be enforced by law. Pledges are a great way to introduce responsibility and rules to children in a way that they can understand. I, and most children, recited several pledges as children. I recited one for Girl Scouts. I recited a conduct pledge for Tae Kwon Do. For a math class, my classmates and I pledged not to cheat on a take home test. Pledging is a great tool. It in no way takes advantage of children. You claim that leading the Pledge is the same as forcing the Pledge due to peer pressure. Peer pressure is never going away. Parents should discuss the meaning of the pledge, peer pressure, and the option to sit out. This is a great opportunity to introduce how to handle peer pressure to a student. Would you have public schools remove everything that could possibly trigger peer pressure? Would you make them all use the same school supplies and ban decorations? Would you prevent them from interacting without supervision? Peer pressure happens. You can't prevent it, you can only teach children how to resist. As a last point in this section, you neglected to go into what the dangers of nationalism are. Would you care to touch on that next time? III. Freedom of Religion Students can opt out. Being led is not the same as being forced. This is not a freedom of religion violation. The case you sourced even suggests opting out. You have provided your own solution to this argument. See above my peer pressure rebuttal. "Freedom of Religion" is such a stock argument I chose to focus my limited time on the more applicable arguments, but even so I feel I have appropriately countered this argument. The status quo should remain. There is not enough harm to enact a change in policy. I look forward to reading the PRO's response. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://www.oldtimeislands.org... 3. http://www.npr.org...