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

Thank you Con, and I too hope for an interesting, informative debate. That said, I will move into my contentions. I. The Nebulous Origins of the PledgeI shall be brief here, but I will demonstrate that the origins of the Pledge belie any possible traditional or patriotic benefits. The Pledge was created in 1892 by a Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy [1]. In order to get the Pledge into schools, he used his position on the board of the National Education Association to insert his Pledge into a flag-raising ceremony celebrating Columbus Day, thus setting the precedent for saying the Pledge today. Later, in 1954, under pressure from the Christian Knights of Columbus and anti-communists, the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge, which in turn had received several other modifications in the intermediary period [1]. The argument I will put forward is that the nebulous origins of the Pledge, written only a century ago, enacted due to nepotism, and changed to an almost unrecognizable point render the entire purpose of the pledge moot. The Pledge has no relevent traditional heritage, no importance to a particular historical moment. It is reflective of parts of society we would usually not prefer to reflect, like corruption, jingoism, and oppression. The Pledge only serves to hearken back to this era, implicitly or explicitly. II. The Dangers of NationalismThe second argument I will present deals with the inherent blind nationalism the Pledge foments. The fundamental issue is one of an paradoxical juxtaposition; the United States proclaims to be a nation of freedom and equality, yet forces students to line up, in an authoritarian fashion, to, as one group, pledge allegiance to a flag and a government using words most students cannot understand [2]. What this results in is a blind, rote pledge that impresses itself into the brains of impressionable young students. What this results in is a blind, meaningless, robotic pledge that students recite without even thinking, with a subconscious allegiance to the government of the United States rooted in the pledge. This necessitates a drop in critical thinking and questioning skills, persuading at least some marginal amount of students to listen to the government and nationalism no matter what, even if doing so requires hatred, bigotry, and violence (as was often the case during the formative years of the Pledge). Such allegiance, indeed, could, and has, been used to perpetuate such despicable acts.Such a blind nationalism lacks both meaning found in true patriotic displays, where the truly good things of the United States can be genuinly celebrated, and nuance to understand that a government cannot always be trusted. Finally, there is also the idea that forcing children to literally pledge allegiance to a flag is downright unethical, akin to forcing children to sign a binding contract. Even if students are not actually forced to recite the pledge, having a teacher or administrator lead the pledge, with all other children doing so, leads to a de facto social coercion, peer pressure [3]. III. Freedom of Religion Part of the First Amendment of the US Constition prevents the government of the United States from enacting legislation regarding the establishment of a religion; that is, the government cannot prefer one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion [4]. This means that two distinct cases can be made specifically against the "under God" clause of the Pledge. The first is purely Constitutional case. "Under God," as stated by a teacher acting on behalf of the state, certainly amounts to a government endorsement of and preference toward a specific religious belief, the belief in monotheism. While the Supreme Court (to this point) has not ruled the Pledge unconstitutional, I see little reason to find that the Pledge does not violate this clause. The second relates to values. The First Amendment makes incredibly clear the importance of freedom of conscience, which we see manifested in free speech, free religion, and free assembly clauses, among others. These values are fundamental to the founding of the nation, which was about freedom of conscience solely. The necessity of respecting these differences in religion and thought are, therefore, integral in protecting American values and liberties. Thus, the Pledge acts against American values, as enshrined in the Constituion, by mandating one religious belief. Such coercion should not be deemed acceptable in the United States. ConclusionI have demonstrated that the Pledge has nebulous origins, damaging nationalistic effects, and rights-abrogating clauses. As a result, students in public schools should not be subject to universal recitations of the Pledge. I look forward to reading Con's argumentation. Thank you. Sources: 1. http://www.oldtimeislands.org...2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...3. http://www.dailykos.com...4. http://www.law.cornell.edu...