I keep hearing them, and they keep coming up, so I thought I'd recap some of the dumber "arguments" for continuing the practice of teacher-led Pledge recitation in public schools:

1) "We've always done it this way."

This isn't an argument, and even if it were, it would be an extremely weak one. Just let your mind wander back through our history and see if this bit of idiocy might possibly have been used to justify the continuation of laws or practices that really weren't all that great. Hmm...

2) "It's a trivial issue. There are more important things to worry about."

Perhaps to you it's trivial. But obviously, to many people it is not. If we were to sit around and only dwell upon issues of grave importance, we'd probably never care about potholes or sales tax because we'd be engrossed with the problems of world hunger and AIDS. Arguing that a particular issue is less important than another does not invalidate the arguments, in principle, for or against it. And hey, if it's so trivial, then what do you give a shit if the ruling goes our way? Just shut up and go about your business if the issue is too insignificant to deserve your high-minded attention.

3) It doesn't hurt kids to say the Pledge with "Under God".

Is physical or psychological trauma the standard for First Amendment issues? Baloney. Strictly speaking, it wouldn't hurt kids to force all of them to wear yamulkes to school every day, or to pray to Allah every morning. There are many practices that a reasonable person would recognize as a violation of the individual right to believe whatever one wants to believe that would not induce immediate physical harm. That's a stupid standard.

4) The language in the Pledge doesn't "establish religion".

Well, I've always thought that the "under god" phrase tended to violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment moreso than the establishment clause...then again, I'm no lawyer. But it seems to me that yes, this argument is correct. It doesn't establish a national church that citizens have to worship under. But the phrase does connote an official acknowledgement by our government that god exists, and that he/she/it is over our government and our people. And a state representative leading a child in utterance of such a concept violates government neutrality towards religion and inhibits the child's ability to freely believe and exercise their beliefs without any influence or coercion on the part of the government.