In us we trust

A decision by the student trustees of Orange Coast College in California has revived the debate on the Pledge of Allegiance in public institutions. The trustees have voted almost unanimously to ban the recitation of the pledge at their meetings, citing ideological issues with swearing loyalty to God or country. The leader is an atheist who claims a government must earn allegiance, not bully its citizens into reciting rote patriotism. Some of their schoolmates have responded with vehement disagreement, loudly reciting the pledge at their open meetings and going public with accusations of being inappropriately offensive and anti-American. This debate bears to question: Are these students forward-thinking heroes of constitutional fervor, or are they commie bastards who should get out if they don't like America?\nThe trustees make the point that "under God" was added during the dark era of McCarthyism -- not an ideology most Americans wish to associate themselves with. And to be compelled to recite it could be perceived as a violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, however, has not ruled on the matter, striking down a 2004 challenge to "under God" on a technicality and leaving the lower courts to decide. With no universal standard for pledge constitutionality, we are left with press-hungry revolutionaries and the reactionaries who hate them to duke it out in the arena of public opinion. \nUltimately, our right to criticize and protest the administration must be protected. To refuse recitation of the pledge is the ultimate expression of no confidence in our government. Yes, the methods this group chose are a childish ploy for media attention, but its protest must remain protected if we value our right to call out the government. Punishing the group with intimidation or ruling the forced recitation of the pledge constitutional would truly be antithetical to the heart of our Constitution.\nIf you force kids to eat lima beans against their will, I can guarantee they won't pass a love of lima beans onto their children. In fact, they will only foment further resentment and animosity toward you and your lima beans. In the same vein, if our government were to legally compel dissenters to pledge their devotion to a country they are unhappy with, it is unlikely that blind patriotism would well up inside them. On the contrary, it would only prove the protestors right that our government does want to suppress liberty, and we are not really free. \nThe best thing to do for the well-being of our country is to concede to their childish tantrums, proving our Constitution's magnanimity and our government's willingness to take criticism. Then perhaps the dissenters would realize that, despite all its flaws, we live in a beautiful country that cherishes personal freedom. We can speak out openly and vocally against our government and petition for change without fear, which is the most precious liberty our forefathers framed for us. Fighting for and protecting that liberty is not only our right as citizens but vital to what it means to be American.