Now that the US Supreme Court has agreed to examine the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, we can be sure of vigorous public debate on this exciting topic. We can also count on a lot of misinformation about what the issue is, and what is legal in a public school.

Journalists typically describe the case as whether “the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional,” or “children should be banned from reciting [it].” In addition, critics compare “banning” the Pledge to banning the “Star Spangled Banner” from public sporting events, or Bach’s “Jesu, Joy of Man‘s Desiring” from music class. None of these analyses are valid.

The case only concerns the words “under God,” added to the Pledge during the McCarthy Era. (McCarthyism was a movement to squash dissent, and is famous for blacklisting sinister figures like Charlie Chaplin.) A ruling “against” the Pledge would not ban the Pledge of Allegiance from public schools; it would require them to restore the Pledge to its original form.

Such editing wouldn't impact life outside of school. Americans could recite the religious Pledge in their private lives, public parks, on street corners. They could jump up and recite it at ballgames (which they care about more than schools).

So it is wrong to be concerned with a sweeping removal of the Pledge from public life, or blanket declarations of constitutionality. The topic is narrow: what may public schools promote?

If schools cannot promote religion, do we have to prohibit music classes from singing Bach chorales? This idea comes from a misconception of what is allowed in school. All of the following are legal: Teaching the Bible; making students listen to other people’s religious beliefs; teaching communism; pressuring students to read aloud from the Bible (or Communist Manifesto). In fact, it is perfectly OK to pressure students to recite the religious Pledge in public school--regardless of the Court’s ruling.

Am I a fascist? Gee I hope not. Deluded? Hard to tell, but in any case, here’s the argument: It is legal to teach the Bible --as literature. It is legal to teach Marxism, as part of the study of history. Music students can be required to sing Bach’s religious works, as part of the study of Bach. Likewise, it is legal to have students read aloud from the Bible or Communist Manifesto, because recitation is educational. And what is true of the Bible or Marx is equally true of the religious form of the Pledge of Allegiance--when part of the study of social science.

The key to teaching is form, not content. Virtually any content, including the Bible, is legal. But, it is properly illegal to ask students to rise, place hand over heart, and recite the Bible or the same religious lyrics they just sang for music class. That’s bad form, because it tells students what to think, instead of simply giving them good things to think about.

Good teaching doesn't teach students to be anything; it teaches them to understand things, such as religion or patriotism. The beliefs students acquire in school should belong to them, not to their teachers, parents or "the majority." So, regardless of the law, schools shouldn't promote even a secular Pledge of Allegiance. If we really believe in the ultimate triumph of truth, then we believe that bringing about understanding of patriotism will bring about patriotism. If it doesn’t, then patriotism is not the truth. This principle, that we "trust in understanding" and let the individual do the rest, is the heart of education.