Public traditions like the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation have long been a part of local government meetings, but should they remain? This week, Clark County Today wants to hear your thoughts!
At a recent Clark County Council meeting, a discussion emerged about whether these traditions should be kept as they are, updated to reflect a more diverse community, or removed to maintain government neutrality. The debate raises important questions about tradition, inclusivity, and the role of public ceremonies in official meetings.
Now, it’s your turn to weigh in! Do you think the Pledge and invocation should stay, change, or go? Cast your vote in our Clark County Today Weekly Poll and let us know where you stand.
More info:
No action taken after county councilor suggests invocation and Pledge of Allegiance are unnecessary
Clark County Council decided to keep the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance after public comments overwhelmingly opposed removing them.
Read more
Also read:
- Opinion: ‘Seeking might over right destroys representative government’
Retired judge Dave Larson argues that prioritizing political power over constitutional principles has undermined representative government and calls for renewed civic responsibility. - Letter: ‘Immigration’ resolution scheduled for this Wednesday at Clark County Council Meeting
Rob Anderson urges residents to closely watch an upcoming Clark County Council meeting where an immigration-related resolution and proposed rule changes are expected to be discussed. - Opinion: The 1700-square-foot solution to Washington’s housing crisis
An opinion column arguing that Washington’s energy code has driven up housing costs and outlining how HB 2486 aims to limit those impacts for smaller, more affordable homes. - Letter: Public school vision
Clark County resident Larry Roe urges a deeper community discussion about public school priorities, levy funding, and the long-term affordability of education for local families. - Opinion: House Bill 1834 would create a regulatory nightmare and restricts parental control on social media
Mark Harmsworth argues that House Bill 1834 would undermine parental authority and create sweeping regulatory and legal risks under the guise of protecting minors online.
