Forced to stand for pledge
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
So, now patriotism is a political statement. Loyalty to our country is a political statement. Respect for others is a political statement. And, this is a problem. If a teacher cannot ask for respect for the other kids in the class, we can now understand why we have so many discipline problems in schools. |
Anonymous
Being respectful is good. But you're saying that no one should protest because it's disrespectful. Obviously that's incorrect. |
Anonymous
The Supreme Court case that set our current standards (that people cannot be compelled by the state to participate in the pledge) was decided in 1943, so... |
Anonymous
Yes, exactly. And it's been that way since at least 1943. To sustain the compulsory flag salute, we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual's right to speak his own mind left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/319/624 |
Anonymous
I’m one of the PPs emphasizing that there is a constitutional right to decline to stand for the pledge. I just want to note that I think your approach is a sound one. Sometimes kids are not paying attention and would otherwise choose to stand. I think it’s great that you talk to a student about their choice not to stand, as long as you do it privately and don’t hold it against them if they continue to choose to sit. I also think it’s fair game to point out to the child that some people will be offended and see their choice as disrespectful. That part of the conversation would be delicate and would need to be done in a non-coercive fashion. I think a good teacher can accomplish this. |
Anonymous
You can show respect for something without participating in it. I have coworkers who are Muslim and take times for prayer during the day. I respect that. I don't interrupt their prayers, or schedule a meeting so that they have to choose between prayer and their career. I don't make fun of them for praying. But I also don't kneel down, because that would be participating, and since I am not Muslim, I do not participate in Muslim prayers. Standing for the pledge is participating in the pledge. I do it, because it aligns with my beliefs, but if my kid decided it didn't align with his belief, or that he wasn't sure if it aligned, then he should be allowed to sit quietly and show respect by not interrupting, and not teasing the people who pledge later. |
Anonymous
So, we should teach our kids to be conformists? To follow blindly what society decrees to be good manners, etc. Holy sh*t! Instead of standing for the pledge, let's teach its meaning. I am a 70s child - great time to grow up - and we had this. https://www.amazon.com/Childrens-Story-James-Clavell/dp/0440204682 It's made into an ABC Afterschool Special. Good stuff. |
Anonymous
Bingo. PP can "villify" all he or she wants, as an individual. But, the State doesn't have that right. |
Anonymous
The original case involved Jehovah's Witnesses. From Wikipedia (Note that the Nazis also persecuted JWs for refusal to salute the flag): "In the 1930s, the government of Nazi Germany began arresting thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to salute the Nazi flag and sent them to concentration camps. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the obligation imposed by the law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by temporal government. Their religious beliefs include a literal version of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5, which says: 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them.' They consider that the flag is an 'image' within this command. For this reason, they refused to salute the flag. Children of Jehovah's Witnesses had been expelled from school and were threatened with exclusion for no other cause. Officials threatened to send them to reformatories maintained for criminally inclined juveniles. Parents of such children had been prosecuted and were being threatened with prosecutions for causing delinquency. In 1935, 9-year-old Carlton Nichols was expelled from school and his father arrested in Lynn, Massachusetts for such a refusal." So, some people have religious objections. Others object to the principle, rejecting any kind of mandated loyalty oaths. Personally, I find making groups of schoolkids recite the Pledge kind of creepy. Of course, I went to a Catholic school, where we added "the born and the unborn" to the end of the Pledge, so I was never under any illusions about the purpose and explicitly political nature of the Pledge (if the history of the phrase "under God" didn't already demonstrate that). Yes, it's a small thing, but public displays of patriotism are really common in American life (sporting events, for example--why should we sing the National Anthem before playing a game of football) but pretty unusual in other democracies. Many people find them jingoist rather than moving. And look at the PP who equates the Pledge with respect for people serving in the military. There's not a single word about the military in the pledge. How is not standing for the pledge disrespecting a soldier? Why should a private citizen have to venerate the military anyway? It's nice if you want to, but this isn't Starship Troopers. Why is venerating the military equated with patriotism? Not wanting to make a public display of one's loyalty to one's country does not mean that one does not love that country. If anything, the truest patriots I know are not the ones who make a big show of their patriotism. |
Anonymous
|
"The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." West Virginia State Board of Education v. Burnette (1943) (Justice Robert Jackson, who went on to serve as the chief prosecutor for the Nuremberg Trials) "Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions." (concurring opinion by Justices Frankfurter and Black) |
Anonymous
This is arrant nonsense. Rather, it is a right wing talking point - a post facto justification in an attempt to shame people into acting the way the right wing deems appropriate. Can you please point to the part that references the members of the armed forces? Like many people on this thread, I have said the Pledge well over a thousand times, so I will save you the trouble - you can't. It doesn't exist. So, for you, the Pledge is about honoring servicemen and women. But you decided that for yourself. And like you, the rest of us get to decide for ourselves. For some, it is about democratic ideals; for others, it is about a belief in a nation that we grew up believing is great; for others, it is incompatible with their deeply held religious beliefs (and I'll wager that in other contexts, you are really big on "religious freedom," just not when it is a different religion); and for others, it (and the flag) are symbols of oppression of various groups of people. You don't get to tell anyone what the Pledge, or the flag, means to them, and the hubris to think you can is directly contrary to being "grateful for the freedoms" you claim to support. |
Anonymous
Why do you object to standing for the flag? Seriously. As for our military, they fight for what the flag represents. It sounds to me like you do not like our country. Just because you CAN sit, does not mean it is not disrespectful to others in the class or to our military who fight for the flag and country. It is disrespectful not to stand. If you don't choose to say the pledge, that's on you. No one notices, I guess. If they do, it shows who you are (unless you are not a citizen of this country.) It shows that you put your personal gripes over country. You can protest policies. You can protest our leaders. That's fine. But, you should not be protesting our country and what it stands for. The flag is a symbol. That is why people get upset when the football players kneel. They are using the freedom the flag stands for to protest what the flag stands for. It's kind of counterintuitive. Sure, Kapernick has the right to kneel. And, people have the right to object to what he is doing. It shows what he is--someone who is ungrateful for the opportunities he has been given. He has plenty of opportunities to object to policies and behaviors outside of thumbing his nose at our country. |
Anonymous
Why are you anti-LIBERTY? |
Anonymous
I can't tell if you are being willfully obtuse or if you can't help it, but:
I don't, and I'm not sure where you got that idea. I object to the state compelling anyone to stand for the Pledge. Stand if you want, say it if you want.
OK, but that's not the point. It's only recently that the right has hijacked the pledge of allegiance as a proxy for support of the troops. (And we'll gloss over that often the military, through no fault of their own, fights for a lot of things that have nothing to do with the flag - corporate profits, exercise of American power over others, support of dictatorial regimes . . . the list goes on.)
And there it is - if you don't stand for the pledge of allegiance you don't like the US. Nonsense. Rather, I have a clear picture of this country, not some idealized, whitewashed fantasy version, and I can both love it and recognize its flaws at the same time. (FWIW, I am an upper middle class white Protestant western European male - I'm so white I'm almost clear, and if there were a picture of the person least likely to be discriminated against in this country, it could be me. That doesn't mean the country is perfect.)
The Supreme Court says it isn't, and has for more than half a century. A student has to sit quietly and not disrupt the pledge. I get that you disagree, but you're simply incorrect.
It's actually the opposite of counterintuitive. Freedom to protect the government is one of the things that makes this country great. |
Anonymous
|
So much to unpack in PP's post.
Let's start:
This is absurd. The pledge has been "hijacked"? And, the rest of your post makes it clear that you do not support our union. The military fight for our country. The rest of your post shows your beliefs. |