In second grade there was a boy in my class who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. He was the first dissenter I had ever encountered. At recess the boy was teased by his classmates for being different.

Each day he would remain in his chair as we all stood and mindlessly recited our loyalty to the nation with a little religious faith slipped in.

A Sacramento district judge ruled last Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools violates children’s Constitutional rights to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”

Elk Grove parent Michael Newdow began his fight for his daughter’s right not to take part in the Pledge of Allegiance in 2002. Newdow, an atheist, believes that the pledge should be free of the phrase “under God” which was only added by Congress in 1954, the height of 20th century conservatism.

As an attorney, Newdow has now filed the case on behalf of three anonymous parents and their children and is headed for the Supreme Court.

As a child reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, I had no liberty, I saw no justice in eating my vegetables and I couldn’t even pronounce “indivisible.”

Minor details, I know.

The Pledge of Allegiance enforces a mindset that there is no need to educate our children, encourage free thought or separate church from state when we can permanently ingrain them with an empty but mostly ideal vision of America instead.

Public universities do not require students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance but according to Sacramento State Government Professor Robert Friedman, there has been a policy of requiring public university employees to recite a State Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution before beginning employment. The oath, however, includes no mention of religion or a creator. They save that sort of thing for minors.

Friedman does not support Newdow’s cause because he’s “singling out God but leaving the pledge otherwise intact as something children have to recite,” whereas Friedman feels that because of their positions as minors “incapable of consenting to sex, making contracts, etcetera” the pledge should not be required of them.

“The choice to pledge allegiance should be left to adults if they had the desire to do so,” Friedman said. “Many immigrants becoming naturalized citizens do this very thing. But we require that they pass a test on the Constitution so they understand the terms of the contract.”

Opinions on campus differ when it comes to the Pledge of Allegiance, as some feel it is an important part of their upbringing and our country’s history.

Sophomore physical therapy major Nicole Mihalik does not feel that the pledge should be changed or abandoned as it is an American tradition that has been required of many generations before us. “The words ‘under God’ should not be removed,” Mahilik said, “but if someone does not agree then they should have the right to abstain.”

“By the third time reciting the Pledge of Allegiance I was practically asleep,” remembered junior theater major Dillon Chase. “I was far more interested in the blonde chicks leaving class and refusing to recite it.”

“The pledge is a slogan that no one follows,” Chase said. “Why can’t the tradition of America be to live out those words instead of recite them mindlessly?”

There’s no liberty or independence in requiring anyone to perform a task against their principles, especially in a place for education and exposure goes against the very idea of liberty.

The beauty of America is in our supposed acceptance of so many values and ideas yet we suppress those ideas when they threaten the righteous, God-fearing notion that we have of our country.

If we were more honest about the reality of our country and its people by embracing true liberty, insisting upon justice for all, and actually dealing with its division rather than hiding behind an American image, we would not need a pledge. We would truly have a united nation. Jen White can be reached at [email protected]