Or reported them to the British…and the colonists would’ve had you tarred and feathered…
Hmmm…better not mention that…might give 'em ideas!
Well, maybe just a tad.
I really don’t equate apphrehension before a ceremony with fear in battle. Apparently Gazer and your pals do.
Speak for yourself, friend. At the age of 18 and 19, I was living and working at a “real world” job.
Yep, that’s the way to make life decisions, uh huh. Base your decisions on rumour.
Please define “righteous enlisted.”
Try to get the terminology straight, friend. I’m “Mister Sailor-man.” Please explain why you require someone to respect a piece of cloth over respecting the Veteran who defended the country.
Apparently, you’re good at missing the point. I asked Gazer if he served because he was making such a big deal about how the Pledge represents Veterans and how it’s an insult to not honor the pledge, and basically how it’s such a personal insult to him. Yet, the Veterans posting in this thread say it’s not a dishonor to them for someone to not participate in the Pledge. BTW, the “Sir, yes, sir!” bit is from the Marines.
I never said, nor implied, that it did. My point, as you so ably missed it, is described above.
Funny thing about the word “Nam.” Directly translated, it means “South.” In some military circles, there’s the idea of “Haven’t been there, don’t use the ‘in’ lingo.” That is, apparently, to what the “other soldier-man” was referring. The lingo for the combat Veterans was “Nam.” For the non-Veterans, using the lingo was an envious attempt to be included incorrectly.
My point, which you again missed, is that my bet was on Gazer’s either never attempting to serve or attempting to serve and being found unfit for duty. My rationale on that was based on how he makes such a big deal about the insult to the Veterans when someone doesn’t participate in the Pledge and how much of a personal insult to him it is, yet the Veterans posting here say it’s not an insult to Veterans.
And this addresses the issue of not being in a field at exactly one week’s service how?
Cites, statistics, evidence, please?
Addressed, and refuted, ably by David B.
Svinlesha, you’re a hero in my book.
The basic response here is that no kid should be required to stand out of respect for the flag because the kid has a right not to do so even if it is a school rule, even if the kid has no clear or good reason. The whole general opinion seems to be that the Pledge is a political statement, which makes it something to be valued about as much as rancid garbage.
Harmless civil disobedience. I’m not sure if there is such a thing as totally harmless civil disobedience. The school has a rule (maybe not your school), and that rule is to be followed. Those on the board of education agree with the rule and the teachers agree, and considering that these people are probably smarter than most, I’d say it’s a good rule.
There are rules in school that do not affect public safety, like no reading of comic books, no eating or chewing gum in class. No possession of pornographic material, no squirt guns, and, in some schools, strict codes concerning hair and dress. So, a child then can basically blow off these rules as he or she feels fit?
What if a child rips down the American flag and fouls it for some reason while in class? Does the child have the right to do so?
There are universal rules in any school, so the child has the right to select ‘harmless’ ones and defy the teachers by not following them? We all know how children often make wrong decisions based on inadequate information, peer pressure, misunderstanding, the urge to rebel and the urge to gain attention.
So, because standing for the pledge is considered a minor honorific, the flag no longer commanding the respect that it used to, a child may snub this ‘ritual’ at will?
Uh, I don’t? I can’t even argue with someone from the military? What act of disrespect did I commit aside from disagreeing?
When you put your child into a school, you agree with the rules and regulations of the school or at least agree that they should be followed. You don’t tell your child to follow whichever ones he or she agrees with.
Though, I find it interesting that so many here seem to feel that the least important rule to follow is the one concerning showing respect for the symbol of the US.
I figure I can well understand why we keep electing selfish leaders into office who do pretty much what they want to do, ignoring people and rules.
I’ve been in 4 different schools, two different states, and saying the Pledge has never been a rule, punishable or otherwise.
But civil disobedience is very effective. Remember Dr. Martin Luther King Jr? Or Ghandi?
The rest of your post is far too bizarre to even address. Are you implying that only uncivilized, savage heathens refuse to stand for the Pledge? Well, you know what? I’m not a savage, or uncivilized. I love this country, I’m going to dedicate my life to defending the Constitution. However, I do not believe that the Pledge is an effective tool, for very respectful. Unlike other symbols of this great country, the pledge is a piece of anti-communist, red-scare, McCarthey-era-bullshit propaganda, and as such, I feel it does not deserve my respect. I respect the flag itself. I respect and thank the Veterans who fought for my freedom. However it is my right to refuse to stand, and it my right to protest the government anyway I please, including spitting on and burning the flag.
Why is that concept so out of your grasp?
That rule contradicts the constitution of the United States, and is therefore a rule that no American is obligated to follow.
Or do you value school rules more than the constitution?
I wouldn’t say that… however, I think at the age at which we are requiring children to recite it, it amounts to little more than indoctrination and brainwashing, much like a re-education camp activity. I never had to say it in Jr. High or High School (that I recall) but in elementary school I did - and without much awareness of what exactly it all meant.
Ahem, didn’t some school board in Kansas vote to remove evolution from their curriculum? Hmmm, not only were they smarter than most, they were apparently smarter than scientists! 
Both of which could be disruptive to the learning process.
<snip the rest as they all can come down to being disruptive>
Kids are in school to learn - that is it - oh, sorry, and as a byproduct to socialize with peers and learn how to interact with one another. They are not there to pray, to idolize a piece of cloth, or be indoctrinated into a belief system. You’d think that if the America you talk of us is so grand, that people would love it out of a sense of duty, not out of a requirement - I know I do.
You continue to confuse issues - why is that? The flag belongs to the school - why should the child be allowed to rip it down? Furthermore, would that not disrupt the learning environment?
Hello? It’s a school, not an indoctrination center! I learned to love my country without the help of this overbearing idolatry you seem to cherish so much. Why can’t you?
The pledge is a political statement, and a political statement you do not endorse recited by rote under pressure from those in power is to be valued slightly less than rancid garbage.
**
There’s no such thing as totally harmless eating, as you will always have to take life to preserve yours. But the benefits in both cases quite often outweigh the costs.
**
A school is not a society, a sovereign nation, or a religion. Although certain rules are required to allow its function, it does not have the arbitrary right to tell its members to do whatever it wants.
**
If a rule is in place, it means that the majority of the members of the board agree, and that the teachers do not disagree strongly enough to try to change their minds. And you know who else was smarter than most? Hitler.
**
In an ideal world, yes. Absolutely none of these rules need to be in place for the school to successfully accomplish its goal (that being education).
**
His flag or someone else’s?
**
Adults do the same damn things, if not as often. We as a society should remove the harmless ones so children can learn exactly why societies have rules in the first place, instead of growing up fearful and suspicious of arbitrary authority.
**
Yeah, pretty much.
**
When you put your child in school, you agree that a private education isn’t cost efficient, and you try to teach him the values you think are important, rather than the values the schoolboard thinks you should think are important.
**
Forced respect is not real respect.
You can be selfish and still follow the rules. You can still be selfless while not following the rules. We elect selfish people into office because we often have little other option.
Why is the concept of respect for the symbol of the nation so far out of your mental grasp? Observe, I’ve been saying ‘stand for the pledge’ as a show of respect. I’ve not been saying recite it.
Is that something beyond your delicate sensibilities? Something far to great for you to accomplish? Since when has it become slavish and immoral to even recite the Pledge? Standing for the Pledge should be considered a token of respect, something, as the decades have rolled by, people seem to forget, but then, hardly anyone respects anything these days that does not pertain only to their selfish selves.
Welcome to the Century of Me, Myself and I.
Because as each generation wipes out rules in schools, we plunger deeper and deeper into confusion. Kids no longer have to learn in school and teachers are happy just to survive the day without getting shot. Parents who enforced rules with their kids assured that once they became adults, they would have the solid footing to be able to blend in with functioning society. Now, far too often parents do not enforce the rules and kids emerge from school with the attitude that they can do what they want. Those who were interested in learning found it to be a struggle just to survive so they were unable to learn as they wished. These kids arrive in society reading on a 3rd grade level and unable to write in a legible script with the math skills so low they must use calculators to add, subtract, multiply and divide.
The only skills they emerge with are those that enable them to view the world as revolving about themselves.
Standing for the pledge is a small thing, but it is important because kids are not only allowed to disrespect the symbol of the nation, but to defy an educator, which in turn chips away at the respect the teacher requires to teach, which, domino-like, chips away at the need to respect the school system, and authority in general. In a short time, nothing is sacred.
In a school system, rules guide the students through their education. Standing for the pledge instills a sense of honor and respect for the symbol of the nation, something anyone living here should have anyhow. Teachers need to be in charge so if they tell you to stand, you stand.
Refusing to do so is the beginning of the breakdown of the authority needed in an educational system.
Everything else I’ve mentioned just falls neatly right in behind it.
I stand by my beliefs.
I must weigh in with those who feel that it should be the child’s choice whether to stand, or not, for the Pledge. I would add that I think it’s inappropriate for a child to pledge in the first place. They have not attained the age of consent.
For those of you who feel it should be required for all to stand in the presence of the flag, would you also require all to kneel in the presence of a cross? They are both symbols, you know.
At present, I choose to stand in recognition of the flag of our country. However, I will not salute, pledge my allegiance to a flag, nor sing the National Anthem.
The more appropriate way to honour those who fought and died for our ideals of freedom is to safeguard those freedoms from politicians, bureaucrats, and others who seek to limit them.
Why do you assume these people are “smarter than most”? I’ve known plenty of teachers (and members of the board of education) that were, to be blunt, not too bright at all. Plenty of boards of education have banned beautiful works of literature because of some perceived evil - talking about sexuality, say, or advancing an atheistic point of view. The same arguments made by fascists when they begin purging. This isn’t meant to impugn educators; my mom is a teacher, and so are three of my closest friends. Another good friend of mine (teacher for 35 years) is the chairman of the Community College Board of Governors for the county. And by the way, they all assure me that they’ve never seen anything anywhere that states saying the pledge is a rule. And they all work in different school districts.
As has been pointed out, things like reading comic books and chewing gum may not affect public safety, but they disrupt the learning process, which, as you should be able to figure out, is the main point of school. Squirt guns and dress codes are matters of public safety in some schools. Remember the kid who was shot because his squirt gun looked so realistic? And in areas where gangs (and hence gang colors) are prevalent, dress codes are enforced to curtail potential violence. As far as pornography, some parents would consider it a safety issue, at least insofar as they perceive it to adversely affect their childrens’ mental state. I think that’s fair. Just like it’s fair for some parents not to want their children to learn about evolution in science class, or dissect animals, orsalute the flag, if it interferes with their moral or religious beliefs. Get a grip.
[QUOTE]
When you put your child into a school, you agree with the rules and regulations of the school or at least agree that they should be followed. You don’t tell your child to follow whichever ones he or she agrees with.
[QUOTE]
See the above examples of evolution and dissection. You mean fundies have to learn about evolution? I mean, it’s a rule, isn’t it, since schools teach it? Do you see what I’m trying to say? Probably not, but at least you’re not threatening to bash my head in for it (yet). Oh, and since you’re still stuck on the military thing, I’ll repeat: I’m a veteran too. Don’t assume that your views are held by all (or even the majority) of us. Trust me, in the military, people with your outlook don’t usually last long.
Correct. The rule is unenforceable because it has the clear and obvious risk of forcing a person to choose between observing the secular command and obeying a religious precept, without a compelling government need to enforce the rule. Requiring an objector to state a “clear or good reason” for objecting is unwarranted here because the government doesn’t have a sufficiently “clear or good reason” for enforcing it in the first place. Objectors should be allowed to object without having to expose themselves to opprobrium beyond that inherent in objection.
The government has no authority to force people to recite political statements. Period. Forcing people to recite them reduces them to rancid garbage.
Not when the rule is unlawful.
**
My Nine Wise People in Black (who are FAR smarter than your piddly little teachers and school board flunkies) say it’s a Really Bad Rule.
Of course not. But rules made by public schools which interfere with the free exercise of religion must meet the same standard as any other government exercise of authority, and a compelled pledge doesn’t meet those standards. Strict dress codes are touchy; in the past, they have been struck down on free speech and free exercise grounds, although lately the trend has been reversing. The other items you suggest do not appear to involve fundamental freedoms and would only be reviewed at the “rational basis” level, which means they would probably pass muster. (Actually, the pornography rule would be reviewed at strict scrutiny because it pertains directly to speech, but would pass muster anyway because the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from prurient materials, and may do so as long as the mechanism used does not impair access to such materials by adults.)
If the flag belongs to the school, obviously not. If it’s his own flag, it would depend on whether his action is likely to disrupt the educational environment (which is probably the case). Neither of these, however, compares in any credible way with politely but firmly refusing to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, as long as such refusal is done in a polite and nondisruptive manner.
You are deliberately mischaracterizing the origin of the disobediance. This is not a case of a child arbitrarily and irrationally refusing to follow a rule. This is a case of a child who places more faith in the truth and accuracy of her parents’ direction than the school’s. In my opinion, schools should not attempt to subvert the role of parents as the primary source for moral guidance in a child’s life. A school has no business making rules which force a child to choose between the moral instruction offered by her parents and that imposed by the government (the school).
I would choose to err on the side of allowing parents broad reign in the moral indoctrination of their children. You have no evidence that any given refusal to stand for the pledge is motivated by any of these desires.
School attendance is compulsory. This argument does not work because neither parents nor children (at least not those without the funds for private schooling) have any option but to attend the public school and submit to whatever rules that school makes.
I believe a parent is completely within her rights to tell her child not to follow a school rule which she believes is inappropriate. I think we need to raise children to question the legitimacy of authority, not accept it blindly. You apparently believe otherwise.
Why can you not see that forcing people to show respect for a symbol is inconsistent with the tradition for personal freedom which underlies and permeates the entire Bill of Rights and 212 years of governance under the Constitution?
It is not “slavish and immoral” to recite the Pledge. I respect the right of people to freely choose to do so. The problem (and the irony) arises when people are forced to swear allegiance to a symbol of a country which stands for the freedom to not be forced to do things like that.
I disagree. In my opinion, refusing to stand for the Pledge, especially on principle, evidences a child who has learned to challenge the correctness of the edicts of her government, and by so doing has taken a major step toward maturing into a fully participating member of a free, democratic society.
I am not bothered by students who recite the pledge, knowing what it means and what it stands for. Nor am I bothered by those who refuse to do so, knowing what it means and what it stands for. What frightens me are all the students who mindlessly recite the pledge without any comprehension or understanding of what it means.
Forced respect is not respect; it is fear.
Refusing to stand may signal the breakdown of teacher authority but forcing a student to express a political statement is the beginning of totalitarianism.
I know which I will take.
And as someone who was raised a Jehovah’s Witness (though I am not now) I truly hated every teacher that tried to make an example of me.
But does the evidence support your beliefs? Can you give any studies which shows that not standing for the flag leads to disrespectful and destructive behavior or an eroding of the nation’s educational system? Do you have anything substative to base your objections on? Most people here won’t simply take your word for it. Especially since many folks have given examples of the brightest, most respectful, and accomplished students being the ones who didn’t stand at their schools.
BTW, I find your use of the words “domino-like” very ironic. The Domino Theory is one of the reasons we escalated the conflict in Vietnam. The idea was that if the south fell, the rest of southeast Asia would go communist too. Well the south did fall, and the rest of the continent did not. The policy makers back then also didn’t have any evidence to support their claims.
Monty wrote:
Thanks, Monty.
Now, Get Down upon Thy Knees – no, wait, better yet, STAND UP! and WORSHIP ME, showing me and even my symbols at all times the PROPER RESPECT I deserve, and should you not do this in MY NAME I shall RISE UP! in RIGHTEOUS ANGER and SMITE THEE upon THY CRANIUM!
Oh, wait – got myself confused with TheMoonGazer there for a second.
And by the way, Broken: thanks to you as well. That was awesome.
TheMoonGazer wrote:
Okay, TheMoonGazer, I think I’m beginning to get your point. You think that American society has been going downhill since, say, the 50s, and that part of the reason for that decline lies with the fact that parents no longer instill in their children the proper sense of respect for authority, for one’s fellow man, and so forth.
I still think you’re using the wrong issue to prove your point. I can see very little connection between a refusal to stand for the PoA and “the rise of selfishness” in the US. In addition, your patriotism is blinding you to historical fact – I doubt the America you yearn for ever really existed. And pursuing your argument to its bitter end, it seems that you think that somehow forcing a kid to stand up for the PoA is going to make him less selfish in the end. Hardly, I respond. Please explain your reasoning on this point more clearly.
To start with, as lots of people have already pointed out, the PoA is too ideologically charged to work as a useful example of the problem. (Cervaise’s post on this thread, way back on page 2, is a good example of how complex the flag symbol really is.) In other words, too many thinking adults also have a problem with it. If I had kids, I wouldn’t want them being forced to stand up and/or pledge an allegiance to a Nation or State unless they themselves wanted to. (Your argument about “choosing a school, and thus its rules,” has already been dealt with. If I lived in the States, I wouldn’t be able to arbitrarily remove my child from the school system just because I didn’t like school policies. I think you can see you’re oversimplifying here.)
Truth is, we don’t know why a given kid is refusing to stand. It may just be an expression of simple laziness, or rebellion, or it may be on religious grounds, or it may even be a well-grounded moral stance and an expression of civil disobedience. It could even be an expression of “selfishness.” And the reasons behind the refusal aren’t relevant, since any one of them should be acceptable in a “free” society. (KellyM argues this point clearly in her post.) It seems to me that trying to force the PoA on kids is just setting oneself up for a pointless, meaningless conflict.
A retraction:
Point taken. I was mixing you up with Adventurious82, whom I felt was being most disrespectful to Monty after arguing so strenuously that one should “respect the flag.” And of course it’s not a sign of disrespect to disagree – which I think has been my point of contention with you here from the beginning, Oh Mighty Head-Basher.
TheMoonGazer said:
Nobody ever said there were only rules that affect safety. The rules you listed affect the learning environment – rather the whole point of school. Students are expected to follow them so everybody can have a good learning environment. Forcing somebody to pledge allegiance has nothing to do with the learning environment.
Of course not. That is vandalism.
But, of course, something simple like the difference between vandalism and simply refusing to worship a flag is a subtlety that we can’t expect you to understand…
TheMoonGazer:
What about the victim of your assault? Was he or was he not a Veteran?
If you answer say he wasn’t, how did you know prior to assaulting him? Did you ask him if he was a Veteran?
My mistake. I forgot you don’t care about trials and juries and rule of law. You certainly don’t give a hoot about the Constitution.
Again, I ask: Have you read the Constitution. Do you understand what it says?
Mr2001,
I will be more specific:
No search warrants are needed. (We agree here)
No probable cause is needed:
From FL SS. 232.256
(Italics mine)
Though it may seem trivial to you or any other person, reasonable suspicion is defined as “less than probable cause” but “more than mere suspicion”. So, probable cause is NOT needed.
From your cite:
(italics mine)
Again, “good reason” is less than probable cause.
Random searches are NOT legal:
I will admit to being wrong there. I was trying to express the unbelievable power and authority that schools have by standing in loco parentis to the students. I made the statement on a whim since many times I have seen students in a class get their bags searched if one student’s property turned up missing. Technically they ‘could’ do random searches, because they DO random searches. But now I know they are illegal.
So here it is: “I was wrong. I should have been more carefull to not overexaggerate a fact to stress a point. ‘Random’ searches are not legal in schools.” (though they happen- but that doesn’t make it right or legal)
My previous statements still stand though. Warrants are not needed. Probable Cause is not needed.
Adventurious82,
Do you not see the irony in
Moon is the one ignoring the law. All that crap you spewed about letting our kids steal and ignoring rules and laws they do not agree with is ridiculous. The LAW does not require them to stand for the pledge. On the contrary, it says they don’t have to!!! There is no rule saying they must stand and say the pledge. So where do you get off saying we don’t think our kids have to obey laws the do not agree with.
BTW, bashing in the head of a person expressing his opinion or using force against people with different beliefs IS illegal. But you two seem to be ignoring that fact.