The Constricting Pledge of Allegiance

The pledge is something that should not be mandatory to do and yet in schools it is something that is mandatory. I agree with the decision from West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette which says that students do not have to say the pledge of allegiance. The pledge is something that should be said with your heart and soul and if someone is not willing to say it in that way then there is no point in even saying it. I agree with Mark Silverstein when he says "beliefs and ideals of liberty and justice should be voluntary" because I believe that people should say the pledge out of their own will and not be forced to say it, thus taking away the freedom (something that this country was founded on) that every American should have.
I believe that in Lipp v. Morris, when a student would not stand for the pledge, the student deserved to be punished because the law at that time only covered a student who would not talk. I believe that students should be allowed to stay seated and not say anything just as long as it was not disruptive to those saying the pledge. A similar case to this is the Holloman v. Walker County Board of Education which concluded that a student had the right to raise his fist during the pledge as long as he was not "disrupt(ing) the educational process or the class in any real way". I believe that as long as whomever is not saying the pledge or doing something disruptive should not be penalized for it.
I disagree with the measure saying "under god" should be in the pledge. Although President Eisenhower signed it saying that this measure should be added to the pledge, I believe that the government and religion should be separate, in the same way that the government does not force its people to take on a singular religion. A major problem is that the pledge is supposed to be said in school. With the laws about church and state being separate, the measure "under god" should be taken out without any hesitation. I agree with Goodwin who believes that the measure "under god" should be taken out because of his reasoning when he states "the inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator".
The Pledge should not be mandatory to be recited and it is not, students are allowed to opt out yet still to this day, students are not protected from the law to stay seated or to do something else that could possibly be judged as "disruptive".