Saluting the American Flag and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

[Jedi Knight]

All children in schools, even in colleges, should mandatorily salute the American flag and conduct the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag every morning.

Now for the reasons why it is the correct thing to do.

Leftists will tell all Americans that they should pay taxes for their social agendas because "America" provides the "venue" to make money. It is the "state" that provides the "stability" for "the people" to make money.

Well, using that logic, all children should salute the flag at 5:45 AM every morning for two minutes in silence, and then say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag right after in perfect, undistracted and disciplined unison.

Why? Well the "state", using "tax-payer money" is providing those children the "stable venue" to go to school so they can be adults and then "pay taxes" for the social leftist programs that leftists say the "state" provides "stability" for.

That is why. Not to do it is hypocritical. The only exemptions should be institutions of learning that receive no US tax-payer money.

JK

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
All children in schools, even in colleges, should mandatorily salute the American flag and conduct the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag every morning.
['QUOTE]

Unless you are a Jehovah’s Witness or something like that. Or would the leftists make them do it too?

[QUOTE]
Now for the reasons why it is the correct thing to do.

Leftists will tell all Americans that they should pay taxes for their social agendas because "America" provides the "venue" to make money. It is the "state" that provides the "stability" for "the people" to make money.

Well, using that logic, all children should salute the flag at 5:45 AM every morning for two minutes in silence, and then say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag right after in perfect, undistracted and disciplined unison.

Why? Well the "state", using "tax-payer money" is providing those children the "stable venue" to go to school so they can be adults and then "pay taxes" for the social leftist programs that leftists say the "state" provides "stability" for.

That is why. Not to do it is hypocritical. The only exemptions should be institutions of learning that receive no US tax-payer money.

JK [/B]

uh, would those exist? I mean institutions of learing that receive no tax cash? Remember it is a leftist run country you are talking about.

[Samus]

I disagree. I don't think the pledge should be mandatory for public schools.

I'll use my "What's the use" argument:

Significance - This is not a major issue facing education today. It is appropriate for children to recognize how living in the U.S. benefits them, more specifically, that it provides them a free public education. However, reciting the pledge does not accomplish this. Furthermore, I can think of better use of time than trying to pass such a law.

Harm - There is no harm in the status quo. Not reciting the pledge doesn't hurt anything, and forcing children to recite the pledge won't alleviate any social ills that I know of.

Inheritance - I think one of the things keeping the status quo (no mandatory pledge) is the continued debate over the constitutionality of the pledge in its current wording. Surely, you wouldn't want to require such a pledge when some (including the Supreme Court) feel that it violates the establishment clause of the first amendment, in that it is a government-endorsed pledge that references a specific deity.

Solution - The best solution at this juncture is to keep the status quo. Schools that wish to recite the pledge may do so, but requiring it is more trouble than it's worth.

[corplinx]

Personally, I have a problem with anything that takes an extra second out of the school day. Silly Channel 1 news, pep rallies, or even reciting the pledge. Students are there to learn. However, I could be convinced otherwise if it could be proven that the morning reminder that we are all americans promotes a sense of unity that has beneficial effects on the study body. If this lessens the tensions that divide your average student body (class, race, religion, etc) and grades increase, I might be convinced it is a good idea.

Do this, take two inner city schools. Have one school recite the pledge and have the teacher at the beginning of the year explain what it means. If this school show a significant decrease in student violence or a significant increase in grades as opposed to the control school then I might be convinced reciting the pledge might be beneficial.

[Skeptical Greg]

It's pretty stupid to pledge your allegiance to a flag..

Whoever came up with that anyway?

Now, if you just skipped over the flag part, and pledged allegiance to the U.S. of A... That might make sense..

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Diogenes
It's pretty stupid to pledge your allegiance to a flag..

Whoever came up with that anyway?

Now, if you just skipped over the flag part, and pledged allegiance to the U.S. of A... That might make sense..

Agreed. Saying a pledge to a symbol/idol would have many religious sects in protest.

[F(z)]

:) <- self declared leftist member from UK.

Greetings comrade! :D

The problem here is with the values of the US, and hence the idea of patriotism. Now, patriotism as a term can mean two things - 1. A patriotism of state. and 2. A patriotism of values. In this case, the idea of pledging allegience to the flag leads to a contradiction in these two ideas.

The patriotism of state requires unthinking loyalty to the government.
The patriotism of values requires continued skepticism and public wariness towards the government.

Now the question is not that of time but of philosophy. What kind of values do we indeed want to foster in our children? We need our children to respect the contribution of the nation as a whole to their future and the development of their potential, but most importantly of all we need a thinking patriotism that understands their responsibility as citizens to criticise the state, to strive towards improvement. Installing an idol of traditionism and unthinking loyalty in institutes of education is deeply counter-productive in this respect. I wouldn't think we would wish to model our education system on those of dictatorships, if we believe in the importance of democracy.

And to end, a quote:
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
Justice Robert H Jackson

[headscratcher4]

Contradictory though it might seem to some, the great triumph of the American Revolution and the individual liberty that is aspires to is the freedom from government efforts to promote false patriotism through silly mandates like "pledges" of alligence and saluting the flag.

Every time Congress or some yahoo state legislature passes a law "requires" patriotism, something of the great achievement of our forefathers withers away.

And, oddly enough, every time such a law is implemented, America looks a little bit more like the kind of state -- totalitarian, Nazi, Soviet, etc. -- that JK claims to dispise.

[Doctor X]

Nice thing about the USA is you do not have to pledge allegience to it.

It may seem the "right thing to do" but the USA does not compel people to do the "right thing" unless it breaks a law.

Part of that stems from a reticence in allowing the "majority" to define "right."

Considering the flag-pledge debate, "under God" was inserted far later than the pledge's composition--a majority thought it the "right thing to do."

I would disagree. I think we should have "under sexed," but no one consulted me. . . .

To force allegiance to things we find abhorent impinges upon freedom. For those who scoff at this concerning "under God," I will kindly advise they consider appropriate changes given the jurisdiction, "under Allah," or "under Buddha," or "under Ozzie" if you live in LA. . . .

--J.D.

[Tmy]

AAAAAAAhhhhhhhh Patriotism!! Sort of like lighting off fireworks on the 4th of July. Of course in my state its illeagle o have fireworks. The irony of it being against the law to celebrate my country's freedom.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Doctor X

Considering the flag-pledge debate, "under God" was inserted far later than the pledge's composition--a majority thought it the "right thing to do."

I would disagree. I think we should have "under sexed," but no one consulted me. . . .



I'm guessing that everyone just took it to be a given.

[Plutarck]

Sounds good to me, just so long as I get to wear one of those nifty swastikas and do that nifty snap-salute!

:rolleyes:

[Doctor X]

Only if you are one of the Elite. . . .

--J. "Dressing like Hitler in School is not Cool!" D.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
All children in schools, even in colleges, should mandatorily salute the American flag and conduct the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag every morning.

Just in case anyone is actually taking this proposal seriously ...

What authoritarian ********. Kids should be encouraged to think independently, and to ultimately make their own decisions about who or what is deserving of their "allegiance", as well as how to express it. Ritualistic group pledges of loyalty to anything, if they have any effect at all, only subvert those objectives. And oaths of loyalty to symbols, in particular, only encourage stupidity. If parents insist on brainwashing their own kids, that's one thing, but in a free society, the state has no business imposing such nonsense on anyone.

[Aoidoi]

I always enjoy when they take little kids aside and have them say the pledge on their own... the words they think they're saying are quite amusing. Oddly enough, most kids just learn the pledge by rote and don't even consider the meaning (or even the correct words). Which, I suppose, is just as well.

One of the more disturbing images I've seen is a whole bunch of kids rocking back and forth while reciting the Koran in a school in Pakistan... all that was taught was memorization of a single book (well, that and beating up an effigy of a US soldier). I would prefer that such indoctrination be kept to a bare minimum in US schools.

And Doctor X, you forget that those who made the change were in Congress... and one of the few things I know about them is that "under sexed" does not apply. ;)
(btw, good one. :D)

[Doctor X]

And Doctor X, you forget that those who made the change were in Congress... and one of the few things I know about them is that "under sexed" does not apply.
(btw, good one. )


Perchance . . . a majority of them were shouting out "Oh God!! Oh God!!" when they should have been paying attention to their Constitutional duties . . . mayhaps they misunderstood "Constitutional" with "constitutional."

. . . or, as William Jefferson Clinton would note, sometimes a cigar is not simply a cigar. . . .

--J.D.

[Aoidoi]

Yes, pehaps Congress was envisioning themselves and their secretaries when they decided "under God" was a good choice of words.

For that matter, given that congress can be used as a euphemism for various acts perhaps there is even more to this than I thought!

[Catch-22]

First, there is no requirement-anywhere in the United States-for a school child to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Any child my opt out of the Pledge for any reason or no reason. Now, that being said, do most schools disclose this? No. If they did, most kids at some point would decide to not to recite it.

Second, should schools clearly state that it is optional? In this case, what I mean is something to the effect of announcing every morning before the Pledge is recited that if you are a conscientious objector you do not have to say it. The answer to the question is no as well. (Also, given the level of understanding my eight year old and his friends demonstrate, I am not sure what disclosure would be effective for most kids anyway.)

One of the purposes of schools is to teach foundational concepts. In the case of the Pledge it seeks to advocate affinity and loyalty to the principals under which this country was founded. That does not mean, however, that schools are trying to teach kids to grow up to be Rush Limbaugh. Instead, it means that the basic rules under which this country is governed (i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality under the law, etc...) are worth being loyal to.

If, as adults, we choose to question the implementation of those principals by a specific set of governmental officials, is simply not the question. The questions is whether we should ask our schools to advocate loyalty to those principals. Under that test, the Pledge is both useful and beneficial.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by F(z)
:) <- self declared leftist member from UK.

Greetings comrade! :D

lol

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by F(z)
:) <- self declared leftist member from UK.

Greetings comrade! :D

The problem here is with the values of the US, and hence the idea of patriotism. Now, patriotism as a term can mean two things - 1. A patriotism of state. and 2. A patriotism of values. In this case, the idea of pledging allegience to the flag leads to a contradiction in these two ideas.

The patriotism of state requires unthinking loyalty to the government.
The patriotism of values requires continued skepticism and public wariness towards the government.

Now the question is not that of time but of philosophy. What kind of values do we indeed want to foster in our children? We need our children to respect the contribution of the nation as a whole to their future and the development of their potential, but most importantly of all we need a thinking patriotism that understands their responsibility as citizens to criticise the state, to strive towards improvement. Installing an idol of traditionism and unthinking loyalty in institutes of education is deeply counter-productive in this respect. I wouldn't think we would wish to model our education system on those of dictatorships, if we believe in the importance of democracy.

And to end, a quote:
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
Justice Robert H Jackson

When US tax-payers pay money to government because leftist government tells them: "we provided you with the means and the stability to make money", the same can be said for the schools.

Since the tax-payers are paying taxes, that means they collectively agree with the current nation-state standard of institutions. If they did not, they would not pay up, right?

That means that the children are simply "celebrating" the "diversity" of their country by pledging allegiance to the flag and saluting it--because it is that which provides those children with the "stability" and the "system" in which they exist.

If it wasn't, why do "the people" pay for the schools? Sounds like "the people" love their country to me. They can express it via a simple two to four minute celebration every morning with their kids.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Contradictory though it might seem to some, the great triumph of the American Revolution and the individual liberty that is aspires to is the freedom from government efforts to promote false patriotism through silly mandates like "pledges" of alligence and saluting the flag.

Every time Congress or some yahoo state legislature passes a law "requires" patriotism, something of the great achievement of our forefathers withers away.

And, oddly enough, every time such a law is implemented, America looks a little bit more like the kind of state -- totalitarian, Nazi, Soviet, etc. -- that JK claims to dispise.

Here is my Capitalist spin on what you are saying, Headscratcher (hey, you, Rik and I are going to do lunch in DC soon), it is alright for people to sit in a dark secluded room and write patriotic checks to government because government provides them the "venue" and the "stability" to make money, and yet it is not OK for our tiny citizens to salute the flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance? Isn't saluting the flag and saying the Pledge of Allegiance simply "celebrating" the "venue" that the state "provides" and the "stability" and greatness of America? It is celebrating the idea of America. If April 15th certainly isn't a problem to leftists, I don't see how snapping a salute and a thirty-second pledge is a problem. They both mean the same thing, in the end, right?

JK

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Well, using that logic, all children should salute the flag at 5:45 AM every morning for two minutes in silence, and then say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag right after in perfect, undistracted and disciplined unison.


5:45 AM? In your dreams.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
I always enjoy when they take little kids aside and have them say the pledge on their own... the words they think they're saying are quite amusing. Oddly enough, most kids just learn the pledge by rote and don't even consider the meaning (or even the correct words). Which, I suppose, is just as well.

One of the more disturbing images I've seen is a whole bunch of kids rocking back and forth while reciting the Koran in a school in Pakistan... all that was taught was memorization of a single book (well, that and beating up an effigy of a US soldier). I would prefer that such indoctrination be kept to a bare minimum in US schools.

And Doctor X, you forget that those who made the change were in Congress... and one of the few things I know about them is that "under sexed" does not apply. ;)
(btw, good one. :D)

Hey, I am under sexed--maybe I should run for Congress. Hmmm....Congressman Jedi does have a nice ring to it. :D

JK

[gnome]

Saluting the flag voluntarily means something.

Saluting the flag because it is against the law not to means nothing--it cannot make you respect a flag that you do not, only act like you do.

To pass a law such as this would take the meaning away from those that salute it voluntarily.

[Ladewig]

JK, I always figured you for a states' rights kind of guy, but if you want to climb in bed with the Federalists, go ahead; that's your right. I am surprised that you are not suggesting that school children pledge their loyalty to their respective state flags.

As for my view, I'd rather have the children pledge their allegiance to the Constitution. I think the country would be a much better place if everyone paid more attention to the Constitution.

[The Fool]

Jedi..

When i was at school (a long time ago, when hippies roamed the earth) we had to stand to attention each morning and listen to the national Anthem..... In those days the Anthem was also played before Movies at the theatre, people used to stand.

I can honestly say that the standing to attention and playing of the anthem was regarded as a bit of a joke by the majority of students, I doubt if it made us more patriotic, we would have competitions to see who could come up with the silliest words to sing to the tune of the anthem.

In the end, children lined up saluting flags reminds me too much of North Korea. Its not normal child behavior, It leaves me with an uneasy feeling of brainwashing.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
All children in schools, even in colleges, should mandatorily salute the American flag and conduct the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag every morning.

... his usual nonsense

JK

Hey JK maybe this stuff will help clear a few of your many idiotic ideas.

Good Luck!

As seen on NBC, CBS, and CNN, and even Oprah! The health discovery that actually reverses aging while burning fat, without dieting or exercise! This proven discovery has even been reported on by the New England Journal of Medicine. Forget aging and dieting forever! And it's Guaranteed!
Try it now!

* Reduce body fat and build lean muscle WITHOUT EXERCISE!
* Enhace sexual performance
* Remove wrinkles and cellulite
* Lower blood pressure and improve cholesterol profile
* Improve sleep, vision and memory
* Restore hair color and growth
* Strengthen the immune system
* Increase energy and cardiac output
* Turn back your body's biological time clock 10-20 years in 6 months of usage !!!

Click here to view our site or -
paste this web address into your web browser:
[URL]

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Catch-22
One of the purposes of schools is to teach foundational concepts.

Huh? This could comment is so vague it could be said of churches as well. Which "foundational concepts" are you talking about? And how does a ritualistic group oath help teach anything other than memorization and conformity?


In the case of the Pledge it seeks to advocate affinity and loyalty to the principals under which this country was founded.

I'd say it's more designed to advocate conformity and blind loyalty, not to mention an unhealthy devotion to symbols.


That does not mean, however, that schools are trying to teach kids to grow up to be Rush Limbaugh. Instead, it means that the basic rules under which this country is governed (i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality under the law, etc...) are worth being loyal to.

You're making some serious leaps there to justify this daily ritual. Where does the pledge mention any of those things? And even if it did, wouldn't discussing these concepts go a lot further toward an actual understanding of their value than merely reciting the same words every day?

And speaking of those "basic rules under which this country is governed" that you cited, isn't it at least something of a violation of "freedom of religion" to expect kids to participate in, or even have to be present for, this endorsement of mono-theism? Do you believe kids should be allowed to voice any dissent they may feel after everyone else has finished reciting it? If not, then isn't it at least something of a violation of the spirit of "freedom of speech" to not only allow, but encourage, one point of view to be expressed, even endorsed by those in charge, without also allowing the opposing view? Come to think of it, it probably isn't that much of a stretch to see this as a violation of "equality under the law" too. So, is hypocrisy one of the "foundational concepts" you want to teach?


If, as adults, we choose to question the implementation of those principals by a specific set of governmental officials, is simply not the question. The questions is whether we should ask our schools to advocate loyalty to those principals.

Then the answer is a resounding "no". It is not the place of schools, particularly public schools, to "advocate loyalty" to any particular "principles". It is their place to teach, not to indoctrinate.


Under that test, the Pledge is both useful and beneficial.

The Pledge is only "useful and beneficial" if your goal is to brainwash.

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by WMT1
The Pledge is only "useful and beneficial" if your goal is to brainwash.

Can I get an AMEN!

;)

Even on a forum of great minds and critical thinkers sometime I find the blind adherence to patriotism, my country do-or-die, it was on CNN it must be true quite terrifying. I think the Pledge and other enforced rituals of patriotism and America's the greatest brainwashing is a form of social control. If you don't agree with policy, you're unpatriotic, ergo the conformity which used to be accomplished by the church is now accomplished through other means.

If you're not questioning, you're not dissenting - you're doing your duty, being a patriot and above all not seeing that the social control of the conditioning prevents you from objecting to your civil liberties being stripped away.

I think maybe I muddled that./... I might re-edit when I have my phrasing straight! ;)

[Reginald]

I kind of remember the national anthem of the uk involving slapping The queen on the belly with a walls icecream, when I was litttle.

Dosn't mean to say I don't like being English.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by WMT1

I'd say it's more designed to advocate conformity and blind loyalty, not to mention an unhealthy devotion to symbols.


Yep.

It's this whole mistaken notion that conformity and following rituals and devotion to symbols somehow constitutes "patriotism." Not at all.

Consider this relevent story:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/womensbasketball/2003-02-25-flag-protest_x.htm

This woman understands what the US is all about. Whether you agree with her or not, she is acting to express her view. Of course, those who boo her are doing so as well.

The founding fathers wonderfully recognized that dissent does _not_ weaken the US. It is what makes the US the best country on earth, the protected right to disagree.

OTOH, it probably just shows that I am one of the liberal elite, or whatever, because I agree with the University president:

Richard Berman, Manhattanville's president, said, "I think it's actually very healthy. I think what you see is a college campus alive with feeling and passion, where many perspectives can be shared with vigor."

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Consider this relevent story:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/womensbasketball/2003-02-25-flag-protest_x.htm

Did you catch the ironic moronic quote from the opposing coach:
Opposing coach Michael Murray watched Smith's rejection of the flag with dismay. His assistant, Doug Carter, was not on the bench because he had recently been called to active duty with the National Guard.

"It really hit home," Murray said, "because he's going to fight for our freedom and the flag symbolizes that freedom."

So much better to have a symbol than the real thing. :confused:

[Lemastre]

Of course anybody, government included, who contributes to the funding of anything can impose requirements. The question is how sensible are the requirements. If saluting and pledging make the kids better in some way, assuming "better" can be adequately defined, then I guess they should be required to at least go through the motions. Just as they are required to submit to tutelage in various areas of knowledge and to then take standardized tests, etc.

There is nothing magic about pledging and saluting, although they are lightning-rod issues, along with praying. As a kid, I saluted and pledged every day and came to think nothing of it, as did the teacher and all the other kids. It was, I suppose, a waste of a minute a day, which I guess could have been better used. While I oppose the idea of praying in school, unless the school is supported by a church, I expect it has about as much effect as pledging and saluting.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Lemastre
Of course anybody, government included, who contributes to the funding of anything can impose requirements.

"Contributes"??? You do know where that "funding" comes from in the first place, right? So rather than involving the government, why not just leave it with parents in the first place, and let them decide what "requirements" are appropriate for their children's learning environment?


The question is how sensible are the requirements.

That's not the only question. Another is what makes government any better qualified to make such decisions.


If saluting and pledging make the kids better in some way, assuming "better" can be adequately defined, then I guess they should be required to at least go through the motions.

That's a pretty monumental "if". Have you missed all the commentary about how it just teaches them conformity, and an unhealthy regard for symbolism?

Incidentally, how would you deal with a student who refused to "go through the motions", or specifically vocalized his objections every day at the end of everyone else's recitation? What if others began to join him?


Just as they are required to submit to tutelage in various areas of knowledge and to then take standardized tests, etc.

Yeah, that's the same thing. :rolleyes:


As a kid, I saluted and pledged every day and came to think nothing of it, as did the teacher and all the other kids.

I think you've inadvertently just identified one of the problems.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

"I plead alignment to the flakes of the united snakes of a merry cow, and to the Republicans for which they scam, one nacho, underpants, with licorice and jugs of wine for owls." -- Matt Groening

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LillyThePink


Can I get an AMEN!

;)

Even on a forum of great minds and critical thinkers sometime I find the blind adherence to patriotism, my country do-or-die, it was on CNN it must be true quite terrifying. I think the Pledge and other enforced rituals of patriotism and America's the greatest brainwashing is a form of social control. If you don't agree with policy, you're unpatriotic, ergo the conformity which used to be accomplished by the church is now accomplished through other means.

If you're not questioning, you're not dissenting - you're doing your duty, being a patriot and above all not seeing that the social control of the conditioning prevents you from objecting to your civil liberties being stripped away.

I think maybe I muddled that./... I might re-edit when I have my phrasing straight! ;)

Funny....when you consider that the "pledge" was first written by a leftist trying to instill reverance for the "state". The addition of "under God" only came later during the McCarthy era. "Under God" was the religious lipstick put on the leftist/statist (pledge) pig to make it more acceptable during that era.

I can't find anything remotely troubling about patriotic traditions being practised in schools, however...the religious addendum to the pledge appears to me to be unconstitutional. Without God the pledge seems acceptable enough. Like the playing of the national anthem at games...it's a traditional acknowledgement of our nation...our place in the world. The pledge as practised however, is not compulsary. Kids can, and do, opt out. The allusion to religion "under God" should be removed IMHO.

The traditional trappings of patriotism are IMHO not "brainwashing"...only the hopelessly cynical would think such a thing. :rolleyes:

-zilla

[Ladewig]

What happens to the kids who refuse to take part in this compulsatory exercise?

[Aoidoi]

Execution by immolation.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by WMT1


"Contributes"??? You do know where that "funding" comes from in the first place, right? So rather than involving the government, why not just leave it with parents in the first place, and let them decide what "requirements" are appropriate for their children's learning environment?
You may be misreading between my lines. To reiterate, my main point is that pledging and saluting, like anything else required of schools, should not be mandated unless they do some good. I hold no brief for either activity. And I expect you do not disagree that the funders of the schools call the tune in deciding what to mandate and that pledging and saluting are just two items of many that they could call for. In this regard is it necessary to explain that the taxpayers are the funders of the public schools and have delegated the spending of the funds, and the adoption of “mandates,” to their local school boards and other government agencies. Since we have chosen a system wherein elected representatives act in our behalf, the question whether “the government” will be wiser than the people is moot. (To place decision-making with the people directly, as you seem to wish, would involve adopting the town-hall type of democracy wherein every item of public policy is voted on by each citizen. In fact, local school-board meetings often resemble that very thing.)

Your concern that pledging and saluting won’t be taken to heart or will be rejected outright is certainly well taken, as my own experience suggested. My impression is that nowadays a lot of what schools present is not. Students’ attention is pretty divided these days, no doubt. And objections about all sorts of things are common. I suppose that if the objections are found to be justified, changes must be made. I guess the best we can do is present the kids with what we think they need and stick by it, hoping to get the parents’ cooperation.

Should we address the idea of requiring pledging and saluting in colleges and universities, where it would surely meet with a lot of scoffing. I assume that the instigator of this thread wasn't all that serious in proposing the idea in the first place.

[HarryKeogh]

ok, since schools are funded by gov't we should pledge allegiance. but what about businesses that receive gov't subsidies. they should pledge too. and we should do it at 4:45 because that's one more hour to love our country each day.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I can't find anything remotely troubling about patriotic traditions being practised in schools

If you're talking specifically about the "patriotic tradition" that's been the focus of this thread, then you apparently haven't been paying attention. Several "troubling" aspects have already been identified here. Among them are an unhealthy focus on symbols, and on symbolic gestures, and on conformity in general.


Without God the pledge seems acceptable enough.

Acceptable enough to use for indoctrinating children?


Like the playing of the national anthem at games...it's a traditional acknowledgement of our nation...our place in the world.

First, nobody has to go to a baseball game. Children are required to go to school.

Second, why does the nation, or its "place in the world", need to be acknowledged in such a pointless way? Is that acknowledgement on such shaky ground that it would fall apart without these rituals?

And third, many of these traditions you find so harmless can result in varying degrees of ostracism (if not worse) for anyone who chooses not to participate in them. Been following the news lately?


The pledge as practised however, is not compulsary. Kids can, and do, opt out.

Why should they be put in the position of drawing such attention to themselves, in order to refrain from participation? This is not what schools are for.

Moreover, can teachers opt out? If one of them considers it to be a pointless exercise, possibly even inappropriate, do they get to leave it out of their classroom?


The traditional trappings of patriotism are IMHO not "brainwashing"...only the hopelessly cynical would think such a thing.

If that's what you think, then you apparently haven't thought this through very well, and such a sweeping indictment may even be a reflection of the very brainwashing I'm talking about. The particular "trapping" being discussed here - repetitive, ritualistic, group behavior, initiated and led by an authority figure - is exactly the sort of stuff brainwashing often consists of. Did you miss the comment earlier in this thread about "a whole bunch of kids rocking back and forth while reciting the Koran in a school in Pakistan"?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Lemastre
To reiterate, my main point is that pledging and saluting, like anything else required of schools, should not be mandated unless they do some good.

In government institutions, they should not be mandated at all. Doing "some good" (which has hardly been established in the first place) isn't a good enough reason.


And I expect you do not disagree that the funders of the schools call the tune in deciding what to mandate

Actually, I do disagree, at least partially. Given that not all the "funders" agree about how things should be done, they don't all get to call the tune. Yet I am still required to contribute to the funding of those schools whether I approve of mandatory oaths of loyalty in them or not.


and that pledging and saluting are just two items of many that they could call for.

Well, they could call for them, but that's just about who has the power. Mandatory pledging and saluting are still not among the items that have any place in education.


In this regard is it necessary to explain that the taxpayers are the funders of the public schools and have delegated the spending of the funds, and the adoption of “mandates,” to their local school boards and other government agencies.

Actually, not all of the taxpayers approved of this process. I did not delegate any such power to anyone.


Since we have chosen a system wherein elected representatives act in our behalf, the question whether “the government” will be wiser than the people is moot.

Again, "we" didn't choose that system. Some did, and imposed in on the rest of us.

And I didn't raise the question of whether “the government” will be wiser than the people. Whether you're talking about government officials, or "the people" who voted for them, these are not decisions that should be imposed on children in public schools, period. It isn't the state's job to indoctrinate children with ritualistic oaths of loyalty, even if it's what the majority of voters happen to want.


(To place decision-making with the people directly, as you seem to wish, would involve adopting the town-hall type of democracy wherein every item of public policy is voted on by each citizen. In fact, local school-board meetings often resemble that very thing.)

Sorry, but that's not the only other option. Complete privatization is another one, and it's the one that would place the decision-making not only with "the people", but completely in the hands of those footing the bill - individual parents. And *poof* most of these disputes over how children should be educated (or indoctrinated) would dissipate.


Your concern that pledging and saluting won’t be taken to heart or will be rejected outright is certainly well taken, as my own experience suggested.

Where did you get the idea, from anything I posted, that these were my concerns??? If anything, I'm concerned by all the people who do take these practices to heart, and who do not reject them.


I guess the best we can do is present the kids with what we think they need and stick by it, hoping to get the parents’ cooperation.

You do seem to use terms like "we" without being very specific about just who you're talking about.


Should we address the idea of requiring pledging and saluting in colleges and universities, where it would surely meet with a lot of scoffing.

Shhh!

I can't imagine why we should even consider planting that idea in anyone's head.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Lemastre
Since we have chosen a system wherein elected representatives act in our behalf, the question whether “the government” will be wiser than the people is moot.

Originally posted by WMT1
And I didn't raise the question of whether “the government” will be wiser than the people.

Oops! It was just brought to my attention that I posted earlier ...

That's not the only question. Another is what makes government any better qualified to make such decisions.

Just to clarify, though, the specific question I was attempting to raise was not of the wisdom of government vs. electorate, but rather of government (as a representative of the electorate) making decisions for everyone's kids about things like who or what they should express loyalty to, vs. individual parents making such decisions for their own kids, on their own time.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by WMT1
Just to clarify, though, the specific question I was attempting to raise was not of the wisdom of government vs. electorate, but rather of government (as a representative of the electorate) making decisions for everyone's kids about things like who or what they should express loyalty to, vs. individual parents making such decisions for their own kids, on their own time.
In my messages I consider our representatives and our government to be the same thing. I'm not weighing the pros and cons of our form of government or how it came to be what it is; that's another discussion entirely – I'm only noting that under our form of government, pledging and saluting can be mandated. I think there is no Constitutional ban on those activities, although the word God in the current pledge approaches the out-of-bounds line.

I don't have a strong feeling for or against p and s. They are a waste of time, but only a brief one. If they took up appreciable time, I'd be more concerned (one might consider recess a bigger waste of time, I suppose). Parents who object can ask their kids to stand silently and think about other things; but as I say, the kids aren't paying much attention anyway. Beyond that, those who find p and s objectionable can express that sentiment at school board meetings and then vote for board members who agree with them. I feel that we should attend to the more significant problems in our educational system and not be too distracted by p and s.

The only reason I brought up p and s in colleges is that the originator of this thread included colleges as venues where p and s should be mandatory.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by WMT1


If that's what you think, then you apparently haven't thought this through very well, and such a sweeping indictment may even be a reflection of the very brainwashing I'm talking about. The particular "trapping" being discussed here - repetitive, ritualistic, group behavior, initiated and led by an authority figure - is exactly the sort of stuff brainwashing often consists of. Did you miss the comment earlier in this thread about "a whole bunch of kids rocking back and forth while reciting the Koran in a school in Pakistan"?

Like I said...only the hopelessly cynical. :rolleyes: Your post demonstrates my comment perfectly.

Go get a life...when you do listen for the loud pop.

-zilla

[Agammamon]

You could take into consideration that this is a putative democracy and that forcing someone to pledge their allegience to a set of ideals that they may not completely hold is in opposition to that pesky pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness thing.

Just my opinion of course, but membership in a democracy should be voluntary and not forced. We don't force foreigners who come over here to work to pledge alegiance, why should we do it to our own people.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Agammamon
You could take into consideration that this is a putative democracy . . .
What is a "putative democracy"? The definition I find for putative is "adj. commonly believed, supposed or claimed." Does it mean that we haven't a democracy, but maybe something similar. I guess our representative form isn't a pure democracy; so it may be putative.

Anyway, I agree that loyalty oaths and pledges should not be imposed on folks in principle. In practice, I think they do little to no good, and in fact may alienate those who disagree with them more than if they weren't imposed at all. In our schools, I think the fuss over them probably exceeds the problem they represent.

I'd prefer that folks attend to how students are doing in basic subjects, such as reading, writing, and arithmetic, plus sciences, history, etc. For example on another forum, a contributor points out that some teachers have decided that students need not be concerned with how words are spelled, as long as they communicate somehow. I suspect this attitude is not new, and I consider this a far bigger concern than the pledge.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Like I said...only the hopelessly cynical. :rolleyes: Your post demonstrates my comment perfectly.

Go get a life...when you do listen for the loud pop.

Sorry, I misread you as someone who wanted to be taken seriously in this forum, and who would not crumble at the first sign of anyone challenging his comments. My mistake.

[WMT1]

Lemastre:

I'll get back to you later. Not much time right now.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by WMT1


Sorry, I misread you as someone who wanted to be taken seriously in this forum, and who would not crumble at the first sign of anyone challenging his comments. My mistake.


No...you mistook me for someone who gives a $hit about your opinion.
:rolleyes: your bad.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by rikzilla
No...you mistook me for someone who gives a $hit about your opinion.
:rolleyes: your bad.

That might have something to do with the fact that you posted yours. Maybe the "can dish it out but can't take it" website might be more to your liking? :rolleyes:

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
All children in schools, even in colleges, should mandatorily salute the American flag and conduct the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag every morning.

...

Well, using that logic, all children should salute the flag at 5:45 AM every morning for two minutes in silence, and then say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag right after in perfect, undistracted and disciplined unison.

...

JK

All right JK, I have a good idea of what you want children to do.

However, what action(s) do you propose if a child does not:
a) state the pledge correctly, or
b) does not keep silent for the two minutes, or
c) gets distracted during the rendition, or
d) cannot make it to the 5:45 AM recital, or
e) just plain refuses to do it?

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

[max]

Without allegiance to the flag etc, where is the feeling of 'belonging' Where does ones allegiance then lie? Surely swearing allegiance to the country means your loyalties lie therein.
otherwise if a child is not taught that it is part of, and a worthwhile part of a bigger society i.e. the country, it must lean to other allegiances later in life, maybe undesirable ones. Also no one dares to stand up and say why do muslims swear allegiance to a faceless God as opposed to the country where they live. Which is worse? allegiance to religion or to one's country. The latter ensures secure borders, I would think

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow


All right JK, I have a good idea of what you want children to do.

However, what action(s) do you propose if a child does not:
a) state the pledge correctly, or
b) does not keep silent for the two minutes, or
c) gets distracted during the rendition, or
d) cannot make it to the 5:45 AM recital, or
e) just plain refuses to do it?

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Good question. Well, what happens to people who ignore April 15th? lol. I do not think it would be someting on that level, but they are one in the same, ideologically as citizens interact with the nation-state, aren't they?...or is it money that matters over the health of the nation?

But when you put it in that perspective, that is what we have. We are told that the "state" provides the "venue" for "making money" so we "celebrate" that by writing checks on April 15th. When we do not write those checks, we go to prison as citizens lol.

Now, since the "venue" of "stability" via the money we send in helps the "state" provide a "stable" venue for schools, I don't see anything wrong with the little citizens doing their April 15th thing every day via Saluting the flag and the Pledge of Allegiance. After all, the "state" provided the "stability" and "venue" for all the little citizens to go to school.

It is an interesting concept.

JK

[Crossbow]

Hello! Mr New Member Jedi Knight!

Knock, Knock! Anybody home?

You have not answered my question.

What do you propose to do the children who do not perfectly recite the pledge, salute, hold to the 2 minutes of silence, keep to the 5:45 AM timetable, etc.?

Come on now, this was your idea so you must have some idea on what is to be done with the children who have problems in preforming these acts. After all, most parents have trouble just getting their kids to brush their teeth and you are wanting much more than that.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Hello! Mr New Member Jedi Knight!

Knock, Knock! Anybody home?

You have not answered my question.

What do you propose to do the children who do not perfectly recite the pledge, salute, hold to the 2 minutes of silence, keep to the 5:45 AM timetable, etc.?

Come on now, this was your idea so you must have some idea on what is to be done with the children who have problems in preforming these acts. After all, most parents have trouble just getting their kids to brush their teeth and you are wanting much more than that.

Making an effort would be good to me. Showing up for school (not being tardy) and then demonstrating proficiency at saluting the flag and reciting the pledge would be a good thing.

I leave that proficiency up to the principals. ;)

JK

[Crossbow]

Hello Again!

Jedi Knight, I have asked you the same question twice now and so far you have not provided an answer.

What do you propose to do the children who do not meet the stipulations that you outlined?

I take it from your lack of an actual answer you do not have one.

Well if you do not, then I have a real problem with you. Because I have found that about the worst thing an authority figure can do a child is to tell them you had better do "This, That, and the Other" then when they fail to do "This, That, and the Other", the authority figure does nothing because they do not know what to do in response.

The child will learn very quickly what they can get away with, which will make them lose respect for the word of the authority figure and develop disdain for the ritual you think is so important. There are many children who are far too young to understand about taxes and school funding, and there are many others who do not like school that much to begin with, so this ritual will just give them something else to react to.

If you really want to children to learn respect for the institutions you are so proud of, then you will have to get a better grasp of how to actually work with children.

I hope this helps!

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Lemastre
In my messages I consider our representatives and our government to be the same thing.

So do I. The distinction I was making was between the judgment of those government representatives and that of individual parents.


I'm not weighing the pros and cons of our form of government or how it came to be what it is;

I'm not either. (The only comments I've made along those lines had to do with clarifying comments you made about who chose what, or who delegated what to whom.) But in a discussion about the merits of a particular practice, if it's something being done in government institutions, and initiated by those in charge, then the issue of whether it is a proper role for government in the first place is quite relevant - especially if it's mandatory for those present, and even more especially if it's mandatory for them to be there in the first place.


I'm only noting that under our form of government, pledging and saluting can be mandated.

I'm pretty sure I never disputed that it can be, but again, that's just about who has the power. I'm more interested in discussions about what should be. And so far, all attempts to make the case that it should be mandated are pretty laughable.


I think there is no Constitutional ban on those activities, although the word God in the current pledge approaches the out-of-bounds line.

As far as I know, there is no Constitutional ban on mandating that all kids profess a belief in in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either, or on forcing them to express loyalty to a particular brand of soft drink or candy bar (or to remain silent while others do). Some of us don't base our conclusions about whether something should be mandatory on whether any particular document specifically prohibits it from being made so.


I don't have a strong feeling for or against p and s. They are a waste of time, but only a brief one. If they took up appreciable time, I'd be more concerned (one might consider recess a bigger waste of time, I suppose).

In case you hadn't noticed, there are other issues besides how much time it takes.


Parents who object can ask their kids to stand silently and think about other things;

Why should they have to stand silently? Is there some reason they should not be able to be vocal in their objections to such silliness? Would you expect them to "stand silently and think about other things" if everyone around them was taking an oath to the symbols of Nazism?

I also asked the following questions earlier, but I never saw an answer ...

How would you deal with a student who refused to "go through the motions", or specifically vocalized his objections every day at the end of everyone else's recitation? What if others began to join him?


Beyond that, those who find p and s objectionable can express that sentiment at school board meetings and then vote for board members who agree with them.

Is it your position that anything is acceptable as long as there is enough school board support for it?


I feel that we should attend to the more significant problems in our educational system and not be too distracted by p and s.

You might be amazed at how much distraction could be eliminated if people didn't keep trying to use public schools for indoctrination rather than education.


The only reason I brought up p and s in colleges is that the originator of this thread included colleges as venues where p and s should be mandatory.

Sorry, I'd already forgotten about that.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by max
Without allegiance to the flag etc, where is the feeling of 'belonging'

I don't know about you, but for some of us, our families, friends, and co-workers tend to provide this "feeling" quite well, certainly to a greater degree than anything that would come from a ritualistic oath to a symbol.


Where does ones allegiance then lie?

Who cares? What matters is that it's not the state's place to decide that for them.


Surely swearing allegiance to the country means your loyalties lie therein.

I suppose, if you're telling the truth. But so what? Is that allegiance so shaky that someone must express it in a ritualistic fashion, on a daily basis, along with others, in order to avoid losing it?


otherwise if a child is not taught that it is part of, and a worthwhile part of a bigger society i.e. the country, it must lean to other allegiances later in life, maybe undesirable ones.

Or maybe desirable ones. In any case, we're talking about ritualistic oaths here, not teaching. Most of these concerns should be easily addressed by social studies and geography classes.


Also no one dares to stand up and say why do muslims swear allegiance to a faceless God as opposed to the country where they live.

Um ... why "as opposed to"? Why do either? Wouldn't allegiance to sound principles make more sense than allegiance to either a religion or a region, or to the symbols of either one?


Which is worse? allegiance to religion or to one's country.

Probably depends on what the particular religion is doing, and on what the particular country is doing. And one of the potential problems with strong allegiances to either is that the allegiance itself may become more important than taking a stand when that religion/country is wrong.


The latter ensures secure borders, I would think

???

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by WMT1
I think there is no Constitutional ban on those activities, although the word God in the current pledge approaches the out-of-bounds line.



As far as I know, there is no Constitutional ban on mandating that all kids profess a belief in in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either, or on forcing them to express loyalty to a particular brand of soft drink or candy bar (or to remain silent while others do). Some of us don't base our conclusions about whether something should be mandatory on whether any particular document specifically prohibits it from being made so.


Moreover, it is backwards to think that the government can do things unless the constitution bans it. In fact, the exact opposite is true: the government cannot do it unless the constitution allows it. The question is not, "Does the constitution ban the government from doing it?" but is "Does the constitution allow the government to do it?"

Powers not given to the federal government by the constitution are reserved for the states.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by WMT1

Surely swearing allegiance to the country means your loyalties lie therein.


I suppose, if you're telling the truth. But so what? Is that allegiance so shaky that someone must express it in a ritualistic fashion, on a daily basis, along with others, in order to avoid losing it?
[/B]

What you are saying here is that, yes, swearing allegiance to the country might mean your loyalties lie therein, but that _not_ swearing by ritualistic oath doesn't mean that your loyalties lie elsewhere.

IOW

If A then B

does not necessarily require that

If NOT A then NOT B

or

If B then A

But we can say

If NOT B then NOT A

IOW, someone not loyal to the US would not pledge allegiance to it.

I don't know where this puts me, but last summer when I went to a local baseball game, they played the national anthem before the game started. As we all stood there with our hands on our hearts, and those of us old enough to know took off our hats, there was this one greasy-haired, granola-eating, tree-hugging, soap intolerant, SOB walking through the bleachers in front of us on his way to who-knows-where. I wanted to bash his little, pinched, patchouli sniffing, crooked nose in.

[Pyrrho]

Couple of years ago we attended a graduation ceremony at the middle school. The guest speaker was a WWII veteran who was now in the American Legion. First thing the old man did upon entering the room was to turn and salute the flag. It took just a moment but it was a powerful reminder of what the flag stands for, because here was a man who had fought for it.

I'm all for encouraging students to say the Pledge. I don't think it should be mandatory.

[max]

WMT1


You sound very smug and what we call in the UK a smart Alec. You can speak as you do because you live in a democracy where for centuries the nation has been proud to be American , where the people have saluted the flag. That is why America is a wonderful country to be in and live in. With your non-conforming, liberal, perhaps bolshi ideas.....come back in a hundred years and see what America will be like then, with nobody being loyal to anything except their own selfish, isolated ideals. Somewhere further up this thread (I think it's this thread) school uniform is frowned upon because that is ruining the indeviduallity of individuals. I have three daughters and when they were teenagers, they too rebelled against uniform complaining that they all had to look alike. One evening several of their friends called as it was someone's birthday.
Out of twelve teenagers eight had on red sweat shirts, blue jeans and red Kickers (shoes) The other four had on white sweat shirts with blue jeans, ha yes we are all individuals



BTW If you don't like/agree with America's ideals, why don't you move to another country which suits you, and that would be.......?

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by LukeT
I don't know where this puts me, but last summer when I went to a local baseball game, they played the national anthem before the game started. As we all stood there with our hands on our hearts, and those of us old enough to know took off our hats, there was this one greasy-haired, granola-eating, tree-hugging, soap intolerant, SOB walking through the bleachers in front of us on his way to who-knows-where. I wanted to bash his little, pinched, patchouli sniffing, crooked nose in.

Understandable.

~ Andalyn (the indoctrinated)

[max]

Andalyn
How did the laser eye surgery go?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by max
WMT1


You sound very smug and what we call in the UK a smart Alec. You can speak as you do because you live in a democracy where for centuries the nation has been proud to be American , where the people have saluted the flag. That is why America is a wonderful country to be in and live in. With your non-conforming, liberal, perhaps bolshi ideas.....come back in a hundred years and see what America will be like then, with nobody being loyal to anything except their own selfish, isolated ideals. Somewhere further up this thread (I think it's this thread) school uniform is frowned upon because that is ruining the indeviduallity of individuals. I have three daughters and when they were teenagers, they too rebelled against uniform complaining that they all had to look alike. One evening several of their friends called as it was someone's birthday.
Out of twelve teenagers eight had on red sweat shirts, blue jeans and red Kickers (shoes) The other four had on white sweat shirts with blue jeans, ha yes we are all individuals



BTW If you don't like/agree with America's ideals, why don't you move to another country which suits you, and that would be.......?

Ahh Max....

You have taken the time to speak a truth to a lefty know-it-all. But that's not all he/she is. I have only spoken with this guy on this thread...but in 3 short exchanges I have observed him (or her) to be ...well...simply not worth talking to. I have debated Vic, Geoff, and Wayne,...hell even Shanek on occasion.... and found them to be honorable and worthy opponents. This WMT1 person will twist your words and make strawman pronouncements about you....basically all the worst qualities of a troll....even AUP is of higher quality that this *********. He/she has all the answers....you can't debate someone who has all the answers! :mad:

The pledge itself is perfectly reasonable. It is not asking young citizens to worship their country...it is asking merely for a short formal nod of respect to the nation and by extension those who have given their lives, liberty, and fortunes in support of it. It's not brainwashing...or indoctrination....it's courtesy and fosters good citizenship. I would only argue that the reference to God be removed.

-zilla

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by max
Andalyn
How did the laser eye surgery go?

Hey Max! Thanks for asking! The wife was down for 2 days, and stayed mainly in our bedroom with protective sunglasses on. Eye drops every two hours, and so on...

After the two days, when she could finally use her eyes - she could see much better than before (and it takes up to 6 months for eyes to heal fully). No more glasses.

So far, it looks like we are part of the "success" side with LASIK.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by LukeT
I don't know where this puts me, but last summer when I went to a local baseball game, they played the national anthem before the game started. As we all stood there with our hands on our hearts, and those of us old enough to know took off our hats, there was this one greasy-haired, granola-eating, tree-hugging, soap intolerant, SOB walking through the bleachers in front of us on his way to who-knows-where. I wanted to bash his little, pinched, patchouli sniffing, crooked nose in

Great. Someone doesn't demonstrate the same respect for symbolic mass rituals that you do, and your first instinct is toward violence? Well, if nothing else, this demonstrates that one of the residual problems of conditioning people from a very early age with such conformity is that some will cling to this nonsense, even as adults, to such a degree that they will experience hostility toward anyone who does not conform. Do you suppose this could actually be one of the objectives?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by max
You sound very smug and what we call in the UK a smart Alec.

If you want to dispute any of the particular points I made, how about identifying them, and explaining your specific objection, rather than simply telling me how I "sound"?


You can speak as you do because you live in a democracy where for centuries the nation has been proud to be American , where the people have saluted the flag.

Nonsense. I can speak as I do because one of the good things about this country is that, for the most part, the basic right of freedom of expression is recognized here. That has nothing to do with public displays of loyalty to a symbol. And if anything, mandatory displays of that loyalty, which is what started this thread, are an affront to the spirit of it.


That is why America is a wonderful country to be in and live in.

That does not mean everything it does is above reproach. What am I supposed to do, exercise that freedom by not challenging the things I disagree with?


With your non-conforming, liberal, perhaps bolshi ideas.....

Oh well, one out of three ain't bad, I guess. Incidentally, is there something about "non-conforming" that you think should be taken as insulting?


come back in a hundred years and see what America will be like then, with nobody being loyal to anything except their own selfish, isolated ideals.

Um ... okay. What the hell does this have to do with anything I've posted?


Somewhere further up this thread (I think it's this thread) school uniform is frowned upon because that is ruining the indeviduallity of individuals. I have three daughters and when they were teenagers, they too rebelled against uniform complaining that they all had to look alike. One evening several of their friends called as it was someone's birthday. Out of twelve teenagers eight had on red sweat shirts, blue jeans and red Kickers (shoes) The other four had on white sweat shirts with blue jeans, ha yes we are all individuals

You're spending an awful lot of your post not addressing the things I actually said.


BTW If you don't like/agree with America's ideals, why don't you move to another country which suits you, and that would be.......?

What???

The "move to another country" thing again? In this forum? Oh wait, this is a joke, isn't it? Who put you up to this?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by rikzilla
You have taken the time to speak a truth to a lefty know-it-all. But that's not all he/she is. I have only spoken with this guy on this thread...but in 3 short exchanges I have observed him (or her) to be ...well...simply not worth talking to.

And it is worth noting that the nature of those exchanges was:

1. rikzilla posts opinion on the subject
2. WMT1 responds to rikzilla's posts, point by point, as in this post
3. rikzilla's very first response to WMT1? "Go get a life...when you do listen for the loud pop."

Kinda adds a little perspective, huh?


I have debated Vic, Geoff, and Wayne,...hell even Shanek on occasion.... and found them to be honorable and worthy opponents.

That's nice. Now, good luck actually identifying anything in my posts to establish that I am anything less.


This WMT1 person will twist your words and make strawman pronouncements about you....basically all the worst qualities of a troll....

Would making unflattering accusations about someone, like "will twist your words" and "make strawman pronouncements", without providing any supporting quotes from their posts, be something a troll would do?


even AUP is of higher quality that this *********.

Yeah, people who rely heavily on namecalling can always be counted on for accurate assessments of quality.


He/she has all the answers....you can't debate someone who has all the answers!

You apparently can't debate someone who begins insulting you at the first sign of any serious challenge to their views either.


The pledge itself is perfectly reasonable.

Not when it's mandatory, it's not.


It is not asking young citizens to worship their country...it is asking merely for a short formal nod of respect to the nation and by extension those who have given their lives, liberty, and fortunes in support of it.

When it's mandatory, it's not asking.


It's not brainwashing...or indoctrination....

Sure it is. And this has already been supported. Would you like to go through it again?


it's courtesy

Last time I checked, courtesy usually referred to stuff that's, you know, voluntary.


and fosters good citizenship.

It fosters conformity, not to mention, in some cases, hostility toward those who don't conform. Why, examples can even be found in this thread. Check out LukeT's comments, and Andalyn's agreement.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by WMT1

It fosters conformity, not to mention, in some cases, hostility toward those who don't conform. Why, examples can even be found in this thread. Check out LukeT's comments, and Andalyn's agreement.

Yeah, but it's not my fault. I've been indoctrinated. :)

[max]

WMT1
you are not commenting sensibly on my comments either. What do you think about the kids who rebel about uniform then look identical when they have a choice. What country would suit your needs. I would wager somewhere like Afghanistan whereby there is no allegiance or civil order.....non-conforming leading to war-lords, home rule, anarchy. But maybe that is where you are from. You have obviously got a terrible chip on your shoulder about something because you sound like one unhappy bunny. Maybe your wife henpecks you or your children unaccustomed to discipline...i.e. not saluting the flag nor agreeing to the American dream, drive you mad with their unruly behaviour.
Whatever the problem is you are always welcome on here to vent your anger.....some sap will respond ;)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Andalyn


Yeah, but it's not my fault. I've been indoctrinated. :)


OMG!!! GWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! :D :D I guess I have too!
I must have been brainwashed to forget the part of being strapped in that chair with my eyes propped open and the looped video of the flag-raising on Iwo Jima going on forever!

God Bless America! :eek: :eek:

Originally posted by WMT1


Great. Someone doesn't demonstrate the same respect for symbolic mass rituals that you do, and your first instinct is toward violence? Well, if nothing else, this demonstrates that one of the residual problems of conditioning people from a very early age with such conformity is that some will cling to this nonsense, even as adults, to such a degree that they will experience hostility toward anyone who does not conform. Do you suppose this could actually be one of the objectives?

My first instinct was toward violence, but what was my action? I let him be.

I showed him more respect than he was showing our country.

This butthole's act during a demonstration of appreciation for our country was to act out with disrespect.

Anyone who disrespects my country is worthy of my scorn.

[max]

Well said Luke.......me too

Originally posted by max
WMT1
you are not commenting sensibly on my comments either. What do you think about the kids who rebel about uniform then look identical when they have a choice.

I'll answer it, max! :D

I meant to earlier, but forgot.

My 14 year old son and I have had a similar argument. His school requires that he wear only certain colored pants and shirts. His mother took his side and threatened to call the ACLU!!!! :rolleyes:

I think there are two good reasons for school uniforms. The first is for discipline. Some people like WMT1 think uniformity and learning to act as a member of a group is some kind of bad thing. I don't.

The second reason this is a good thing, and this was pointed out to me by my current wife, is that poor kids won't stick out. If everybody is dressed the same, then kids who can't afford the ritzier or current fad clothes won't feel out of place.

[max]

Luke
Exactly my sentiments on uniforms. I used to be proud of mine. If WMT is so against them I wonder if he thinks sportsmen shouldn't wear them either.......that would put the cat amongst the pidgeons at a football match, especially world cup standard.
All the players wearing just what they liked, they wouldn't know who they were passing the ball to!

[arcticpenguin]

Pledge Update

9th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals upholds its decision that the modified Pledge of Allegiance, containing the words "under God" does not belong in public schools. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/28/pledge.of.allegiance.ap/index.html

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by LukeT


I'll answer it, max! :D

I meant to earlier, but forgot.

My 14 year old son and I have had a similar argument. His school requires that he wear only certain colored pants and shirts. His mother took his side and threatened to call the ACLU!!!! :rolleyes:

I think there are two good reasons for school uniforms. The first is for discipline. Some people like WMT1 think uniformity and learning to act as a member of a group is some kind of bad thing. I don't.

Some people think that free expression and individuality is some kind of a bad thing. I don't. But that doesn't matter. What does matter is the constitution doesn't think it is a bad thing, either. In fact, the constitution protects the rights of individuals to express themselves freely, and the state cannot restrict that, no matter how many people think it is a good thing to do so.

[tongue-in-cheek]
If you don't like it, you can move to another country where the government is allowed to outlaw speech that it finds offensive.
[/tongue-in-cheek]

[WMT1]

Originally posted by max
you are not commenting sensibly on my comments either.

Nonsense. That's exactly what I did. Unlike you, I specifically quoted the portions of your post that I was addressing, and then followed each with my response, point by point. And if there are any of those responses you think don't make sense, you're free to identify them. As far as yours go, that whole thing about clothing doesn't seem to be the least bit responsive to anything I posted. You just appear to be going off in some different direction. In fact, for an example of a question I asked, that you completely ignored, and which I'd still like an answer to:

Wouldn't allegiance to sound principles make more sense than allegiance to either a religion or a region, or to the symbols of either one?


What do you think about the kids who rebel about uniform then look identical when they have a choice.

I'd probably want to know their reasons. On the surface, it may not seem to make much sense, but some kids are independent-minded enough that, while not objecting to voluntary conformity, they don't want anyone else's idea of it imposed on them. See the difference?


What country would suit your needs.

The USA comes closest, as far as I know. Besides, this is my home. Why would I want to opt for leaving it rather than trying to change what's wrong with it? As I asked you before, what am I supposed to do, not criticize what's wrong with it?


I would wager somewhere like Afghanistan whereby there is no allegiance or civil order.....non-conforming leading to war-lords, home rule, anarchy. But maybe that is where you are from.

What, are you kidding? Non-conformity in Afghanistan??? And where the hell did I argue for no allegiance, or against civil order? Where is there anything in any of my posts suggesting support for anarchy, or whatever it is you're talking about with the "war-lords" or "home rule" reference? You really seem to be making stuff up as you go along, without giving any real thought to it.


You have obviously got a terrible chip on your shoulder about something because you sound like one unhappy bunny. Maybe your wife henpecks you or your children unaccustomed to discipline...i.e. not saluting the flag nor agreeing to the American dream, drive you mad with their unruly behaviour.

What the hell's going on in this forum? Where did all the grownups go? Is anyone who supports mandatory pledges capable of making reasoned arguments to support their position, without resorting to all this ad hom crap?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by LukeT
My first instinct was toward violence, but what was my action? I let him be.

So you didn't act on it. Does that mean it's a healthy instinct?


I showed him more respect than he was showing our country.

Baloney. He demonstrated no particular disrespect to "our country". For all you know, he wasn't giving it a second thought. Do you see how all this crap can lead to such muddled conclusions about what someone else thinks, and to petty concerns over symbolism?


This butthole's act during a demonstration of appreciation for our country was to act out with disrespect.

It wasn't an act so much as a choice not to act like everyone else while, of all things, a song was being played. The more you post, the more you help to make my case.


Anyone who disrespects my country is worthy of my scorn.

If what you described is all it takes to qualify as "disrespect", then your priorities are seriously out of whack.


Some people like WMT1 think uniformity and learning to act as a member of a group is some kind of bad thing. I don't.

If you're going to attribute views to me, get it right. Most of my commentary as been on conformity, and particularly conformity mandated by government. And there is nothing in my posts to indicate that I think "learning to act as a member of a group is some kind of bad thing". It's becoming increasingly obvious that you're not among those would let a little thing like honesty get in the way of a good spin.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by max
Exactly my sentiments on uniforms. I used to be proud of mine. If WMT is so against them I wonder if he thinks sportsmen shouldn't wear them either.......that would put the cat amongst the pidgeons at a football match, especially world cup standard. All the players wearing just what they liked, they wouldn't know who they were passing the ball to!

Good grief, this is pathetic. You were the one who brought up the damn uniforms in the first place. I took no particular position on them. Is the only way you guys can hang in a debate to keep mischaracterizing your opponent's views, just so you'll have something to say?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by max
Luke
Exactly my sentiments on uniforms. I used to be proud of mine. If WMT is so against them I wonder if he thinks sportsmen shouldn't wear them either.......that would put the cat amongst the pidgeons at a football match, especially world cup standard.
All the players wearing just what they liked, they wouldn't know who they were passing the ball to!

[thread sabotage]
And all the little Hitler Youths knew exactly who all the other Hitler Youths were by the way they saluted each other and their uniforms. Without uniforms and heil hitlers, how could you tell a good little Nazi from a bad one? Of course, if the Jews didn't wear their badges, the Nazis wouldn't know who to ostracize and throw into the gas chambers.
[/thread sabotage]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Some people think that free expression and individuality is some kind of a bad thing. I don't. But that doesn't matter. What does matter is the constitution doesn't think it is a bad thing, either. In fact, the constitution protects the rights of individuals to express themselves freely, and the state cannot restrict that, no matter how many people think it is a good thing to do so.



Actually, the state is allowed to restrict expression. Are you saying they can't stop kids from coming to school naked if they feel like it?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by LukeT


Actually, the state is allowed to restrict expression. Are you saying they can't stop kids from coming to school naked if they feel like it?

Decency laws have been challenged. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. However, it's not an open and shut case, no.

I should add: Moreover, an "anti-nudity" rule will hold up only inasmuch as do public anti-nudity laws. A public "uniform" law would not hold up at all.

Originally posted by WMT1


Baloney. He demonstrated no particular disrespect to "our country". For all you know, he wasn't giving it a second thought. Do you see how all this crap can lead to such muddled conclusions about what someone else thinks, and to petty concerns over symbolism?

Everyone knows the custom when the national anthem is being played. It doesn't take a genius to know he was acting deliberately against that custom.


It wasn't an act so much as a choice not to act like everyone else while, of all things, a song was being played. The more you post, the more you help to make my case.

Maybe you need a bigger context. I have attended events in other countries where their national anthem was played, or some other custom was played out. I participated out of respect. If I had decided to ignore it and just "do my own thing," it would have been a slap in the face to everyone there.

The more you post, the more you help to make my case that you have no respect.

It is one thing to be an individual. It is another to be a disrespectful individual. If you want respect, you have to give it.

If what you described is all it takes to qualify as "disrespect", then your priorities are seriously out of whack.

My priorities are quite in order. I don't respect disrespectful people. In some countries, this man would have been arrested, tortured and shot for walking around during the national anthem. Even though I felt hostile toward the man who wouldn't pay respect, my principles overrode my instincts. And my principles are that the man is entitled to act like a butthole. That doesn't mean I have to like him or respect him.

Originally posted by WMT1


If you're going to attribute views to me, get it right. Most of my commentary as been on conformity, and particularly conformity mandated by government. And there is nothing in my posts to indicate that I think "learning to act as a member of a group is some kind of bad thing". It's becoming increasingly obvious that you're not among those would let a little thing like honesty get in the way of a good spin.

The government does not mandate the playing of the national anthem before a ballgame.

What you are not getting is the idea of gratitude and gestures of same. What you are not getting is the grand idea of being appreciative of your country. And since it is all about being grateful for your country, we express it as a country.

You have a problem with conformity? How do you expect a society to function without it?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by LukeT

You have a problem with conformity? How do you expect a society to function without it?

Dude, he's not calling for anarchy. He is just stating that symbolic rituals are not as important as sincere action.

And if he's not saying it, then I am.

The Nazis were great at saluting, wearing uniforms, and standing for their anthem. All signs of great conformity. Didn't make them a great society.

Number 3. (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14893)

WMT1, I don't know what the man in the ballpark was thinking, you are correct. But it is a reasonable guess that he knew what he was doing. He would have to be stupid not to know. I don't care if it was his first ballgame ever.

If you want to be a non-conformist, wear your clothes inside out and walk backwards everywhere. Eat worms.

Not participating in the national anthem is more a political statement than an act of non-conformity.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by LukeT
I showed him more respect than he was showing our country.

Baloney. He demonstrated no particular disrespect to "our country". For all you know, he wasn't giving it a second thought. Do you see how all this crap can lead to such muddled conclusions about what someone else thinks, and to petty concerns over symbolism?

Everyone knows the custom when the national anthem is being played. It doesn't take a genius to know he was acting deliberately against that custom.

Even if that's the case, why should that make any difference to you?


It wasn't an act so much as a choice not to act like everyone else while, of all things, a song was being played. The more you post, the more you help to make my case.

Maybe you need a bigger context. I have attended events in other countries where their national anthem was played, or some other custom was played out. I participated out of respect. If I had decided to ignore it and just "do my own thing," it would have been a slap in the face to everyone there.

The more you post, the more you help to make my case that you have no respect.

Baloney again. I have plenty of respect for things that deserve my respect. The most that anyone could conclude from my posts (that is, anyone not prone to leaping to absurd conclusions) is that I don't have much respect for petty obsession over symbolism.


It is one thing to be an individual. It is another to be a disrespectful individual. If you want respect, you have to give it.

Thanks, but I get plenty of respect from people who understand the things that are worthy of respect.


Anyone who disrespects my country is worthy of my scorn.

If what you described is all it takes to qualify as "disrespect", then your priorities are seriously out of whack.

My priorities are quite in order.

Nope. I got it right the first time. Your previously mentioned instinct (acted on or not) along with the obsession over symbolism reflected in your comments, makes it clear that they are not.


I don't respect disrespectful people.

Um ... doesn't that make you disrespectful? I guess that creates kind of a self-respect dilemma, huh?


In some countries, this man would have been arrested, tortured and shot for walking around during the national anthem.

So basically, your point is that some people take their obsession over symbolism further than you do. Great argument.


Even though I felt hostile toward the man who wouldn't pay respect, my principles overrode my instincts.

If your instinct wasn't based on principle, what the hell was it based on?


And my principles are that the man is entitled to act like a butthole.

Um ... that's not really a principle, it's an opinion.


That doesn't mean I have to like him or respect him.

No, but not doing so would certainly mean you base your respect for others on some rather petty stuff.


The government does not mandate the playing of the national anthem before a ballgame.

What you are not getting is the idea of gratitude and gestures of same. What you are not getting is the grand idea of being appreciative of your country.

What you are not getting is just how tied up all your arguments are in symbolism.


And since it is all about being grateful for your country, we express it as a country.

Apparently not everyone chooses to express it the same way you do. What's the problem?


You have a problem with conformity? How do you expect a society to function without it?

I'm pretty sure I've expressed no problems with conforming to things that are worth conforming to. Conformity for its own sake, or particularly regarding symbolic gestures, is another matter, and I'm sure society could "function" just fine without that particular brand of it.


Not participating in the national anthem is more a political statement than an act of non-conformity.

Or it may be an act of utter indifference. Or it may be an act of protest against symbolism in general, certainly a worthy statement to make. Or it may be something else. But whatever the motivation, where's the harm, other than some offended sensibilities?

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by LukeT
Not participating in the national anthem is more a political statement than an act of non-conformity.

*ding ding ding ding!*

And if there is a single possible form of speach that the 1st Amendment protects moreso than any other, what form of speach would that be?

I recall the quote, "Where liberty is, there be my country."

On the point of appreciation and gratitude, of course you present a surprisingly out-of-character utterly stupid false dichotomy. Is it your contention that one can neither be appreciative or grateful to whatever it is you want people to be appreciative and grateful and and to, without participating in the national anthem?

[max]

the people I've met so far in life who do not respect anthems, governments and usually do not care which country they are in and do not insist their offspring salute flags/symbols have strangely all been ethnic minorities. But I do find that they like to live on the state and have their children educated like everyone else in the country ...for free. Anything free and they suddenly become patriotic and ..they have rights like everyone who salutes the flag. Of course these people bow down to their god and spend hours outside of schools in their places of worship so that is how their offspring are disciplined. And while they are busy and silently making sure they support each other and their beliefs and therefore becoming much stronger, together than the nutcases who weaken a country by their stupid beliefs that they will not bow down to their country, one day the more disciplined amongst us, will have overtaken us and our country.
WMT1 thinks children should have a choice about saluting etc, children should be guided and trained to be able to fit into society, wmt's theory therefore would allow a child to decide if it should go to school or not. I have a friend just like that. Her son from birth virtually was not just allowed he was made to make his own discisions. What he should wear, where they should go for the day, what food they should buy, what toys he should have. he is now 14 a nervous wreck with a nervous twitch on his face. He is at a school for retards and has gone backwards to the extent he sucks on a comforter. The mother still thinks children should have choices. She was never a mother, she put all her responsibility onto a kid, consequently he came to look after her but was never emotionally old enough to deal with it so he opted out of life.
WMT1 are you a parent or a 'friend' to your children?

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by max
the people I've met so far in life who do not respect anthems, governments and usually do not care which country they are in and do not insist their offspring salute flags/symbols have strangely all been ethnic minorities. But I do find that they like to live on the state and have their children educated like everyone else in the country ...for free. Anything free and they suddenly become patriotic and ..they have rights like everyone who salutes the flag. Of course these people bow down to their god and spend hours outside of schools in their places of worship so that is how their offspring are disciplined. And while they are busy and silently making sure they support each other and their beliefs and therefore becoming much stronger, together than the nutcases who weaken a country by their stupid beliefs that they will not bow down to their country, one day the more disciplined amongst us, will have overtaken us and our country.

You mean Nazis? What country are we talking about - Germany or Italy in the 1950's, the USSR in the 1920's, China under Mao? Tell me this is a parody and I'm just missing the joke.

WMT1 thinks children should have a choice about saluting etc, children should be guided and trained to be able to fit into society, wmt's theory therefore would allow a child to decide if it should go to school or not.

And yet your counter to the 'theory' would make it fully justified for children to have been taught to revile and hate blacks at a certain not-so-long-gone time in American history, since that would certainly have guided and trained them to "fit into society". Repeat ad nauseum with the slaughter of the Jews, the killing of the infidels, The Burning Times, The Inquisition, etc.

Wow, what a loverly trade off that is. I'll take the retards with the nervous disorder, and a large order of fries, thank you very much.

I have a friend just like that. Her son from birth virtually was not just allowed he was made to make his own discisions. What he should wear, where they should go for the day, what food they should buy, what toys he should have. he is now 14 a nervous wreck with a nervous twitch on his face. He is at a school for retards and has gone backwards to the extent he sucks on a comforter. The mother still thinks children should have choices. She was never a mother, she put all her responsibility onto a kid, consequently he came to look after her but was never emotionally old enough to deal with it so he opted out of life.
WMT1 are you a parent or a 'friend' to your children?

False dichotomy, anyone? We're apparently having a sale today on logical fallacies. Somebody call Doctor X, for goodness sakes; the man could have a field day here.

Made to make all choices for one's entire life vs not permitted to make any choices for oneself...what a sensible menu of options :rolleyes:

[max]

who said children should hate blacks? I'm saying they should love their country....cos no other buggar will and while you are busy retarding your children, others will take over. What a numpty you are. The trouble with this country at the moment is because no one 'belongs' and there is no discipline. We are all being oooooooh soooooo politically correct, and English, and fair, that we are not noticing the enemy within creeping up on us. The front page of the Daily Mail today says it all. And when all your children grow up and don't know what the word loyalty means, because you brainwashed them not to be loyal. what will you tell them when they are forced to go down the road to pray under a totally different regime........in a couple of hundred years of course. All you do gooders, politically correct people are ruining the future for your descendents. Believe me, nobody else will care for America if Americans don't. There is enough space on this planet for us all at present but one religion intends to take over the whole planet. People like you stand by and let them and that's how they are doing it bit by bit.
That's why the race card is played all the time. That's why there are now 'no'go' areas for white/Brits in parts of the UK. How has this happened? How can I be an outcast in some districts in my country. How did Harlem happen. Do you think Brits would be allowed a no go area for blacks/asians? we would be run in and charged with inciting racism how come that doesn't work the other way round. Why am I never right in my own country now? These people are laughing at us.....their social security payments come from Allah not the hard workers of this country!
Some stand on street corners joyous about 9/11
Go and retard your children then if you think that is the answer.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by max
who said children should hate blacks? I'm saying they should love their country....cos no other buggar will and while you are busy retarding your children, others will take over. What a numpty you are. The trouble with this country at the moment is because no one 'belongs' and there is no discipline. We are all being oooooooh soooooo politically correct, and English, and fair, that we are not noticing the enemy within creeping up on us. The front page of the Daily Mail today says it all. And when all your children grow up and don't know what the word loyalty means, because you brainwashed them not to be loyal. what will you tell them when they are forced to go down the road to pray under a totally different regime........in a couple of hundred years of course. All you do gooders, politically correct people are ruining the future for your descendents. Believe me, nobody else will care for America if Americans don't. There is enough space on this planet for us all at present but one religion intends to take over the whole planet. People like you stand by and let them and that's how they are doing it bit by bit.
That's why the race card is played all the time. That's why there are now 'no'go' areas for white/Brits in parts of the UK. How has this happened? How can I be an outcast in some districts in my country. How did Harlem happen. Do you think Brits would be allowed a no go area for blacks/asians? we would be run in and charged with inciting racism how come that doesn't work the other way round. Why am I never right in my own country now? These people are laughing at us.....their social security payments come from Allah not the hard workers of this country!
Some stand on street corners joyous about 9/11
Go and retard your children then if you think that is the answer.

Hi Max, I am pleased there is an honest Brit who understands the plight of his country and all the west posting at the forum.

What is happening now, in the name of political correctness, is the Balkanization of the west. It may seem "cool and fashionable" to the folks pushing it and their gullible college student supporters, but what it really means is that western states are simply creating conditions of terror for future generations of western citizens.

JK

[Plutarck]

Come On Down to Fallacy Fred's Fabulous Fraternal Order of Fallacies - We Will Approve YOUR Credit!

Originally posted by max
who said children should hate blacks?

Perhaps you missed the "not-so-long-ago" part. To shamelessly steal the device: You see that little thing over there, way off on the horizon? That's the point, and you missed it.

I'm saying they should love their country....cos no other buggar will and while you are busy retarding your children, others will take over.

Oh my, someone doesn't love their country - off to The Ministry of Love with them, ASAP!

The reader will note the lack of agreement with previous statements, for instance:

And while they are busy and silently making sure they support each other and their beliefs and therefore becoming much stronger, together than the nutcases who weaken a country by their stupid beliefs that they will not bow down to their country, one day the more disciplined amongst us, will have overtaken us and our country.

The "bow down" part does not seem equivalent to "love", but perhaps the author has a very different idea of what "love" means than I do.

What a numpty you are. The trouble with this country at the moment is because no one 'belongs' and there is no discipline. We are all being oooooooh soooooo politically correct, and English, and fair, that we are not noticing the enemy within creeping up on us.

Of course I notice them - those damn filthy jews!

I'm sorry, but I am up to my eyes in irony of just how fully you have captured the spirit of Fascism, without even noticing it. The belligerant nationalism, the demand for subserviance to the state, the not-quite-entirely-explicit jabs at various ethnic groups being freeloading leaches and those who think and behave otherwise are surely now - or will become - mentally deficient or ill - I assure you that if in person I would be in a full and proper storm-trooper salute.

For further illustration, I direct you to the attachment to this post.

The front page of the Daily Mail today says it all. And when all your children grow up and don't know what the word loyalty means, because you brainwashed them not to be loyal. what will you tell them when they are forced to go down the road to pray under a totally different regime........in a couple of hundred years of course.

Oh, well that'd be my great great great grandchildren, at least, and I'd be long dead of old age - if not finally beaten to death by The Shelaylee Of Stupidity™ (proper spelling pending). A mighty slow creep.

Those damn kids, they never did understand the whole "self-interest" or "mutually beneficial cooperation" thing very well...kids these years. I knew I should have beat them more often.


...oh, are we still being serious? This would be such a good joke...

All you do gooders, politically correct people are ruining the future for your descendents. Believe me, nobody else will care for America if Americans don't. There is enough space on this planet for us all at present but one religion intends to take over the whole planet. People like you stand by and let them and that's how they are doing it bit by bit.

Yes, and clearly to offset this we must ensure that the children are significantly brainwa...trained and guided to 'love' their country, and apparently The One True God, and his son Jesus Christ. Otherwise who will stop those filthy sand monkeys and desert apes from destroying us all? Will someone, please, think of the children?

That's why the race card is played all the time. That's why there are now 'no'go' areas for white/Brits in parts of the UK. How has this happened? How can I be an outcast in some districts in my country.

Maybe it has something to do with:

the people I've met so far in life who do not respect anthems, governments and usually do not care which country they are in and do not insist their offspring salute flags/symbols have strangely all been ethnic minorities. But I do find that they like to live on the state and have their children educated like everyone else in the country ...for free.

...nah, probably not.

How did Harlem happen.

According to http://www.harlemmtmorris.org/history.htm:

THE DEPRESSION

The Depression of 1929 brought all new construction and building maintenance to a halt. A community that was becoming the leading Black metropolis of the world was, at the same time, rapidly declining into an area of extended slum neighborhoods.
However, Morningside Heights, Hamilton Heights and Washington Heights did retain a higher level of maintenance, in part due to the influence of major institutions in these areas.

The mood of the 1930s was characterized by community demands for improved housing conditions, better social welfare, higher standards of health care and more educational opportunities. Political pressure resulted in legislation for several capital improvement programs funded by city, state and federal agencies. Under the Roosevelt Administration, the WPA Program was especially effective in physical development projects. The Harlem River Houses, 557 units of low-rise housing, completed in 1937, were Harlem's first public housing project built with federal assistance. It remains today one of the best maintained public housing complexes in Harlem.

In 1944, one of Harlem's first master plans was produced by a team of architects and planners headed by William Lescaze. Focused on Central Harlem between 110th and 125th Streets from Morningside to Fifth Avenues, the plan laid the framework for the present superblock public housing strip between 112th and 115th Streets, extending from Lenox Avenue to the Harlem River.

URBAN RENEWAL AND ITS IMPACT

The Urban Renewal Act of 1949 raised the hope with its promise to provide decent housing for every American family. In the decade that followed, however, slum clearance programs resulted in the relocation of as many, if not more, families as they housed, establishing at the same time a pattern of monolithic architectural design in overwhelming superblock housing developments with few design amenities.

In part, as a result of previous slum clearance policies, the 1960s were characterized by a period of community suspicion and concern, as well as a desire for control over and a change in the approach to urban planning and development. Although the middle of the decade saw a large number of new urban renewal projects designated in Harlem, often at the request of involved community groups, large areas are still unaffected by such plans, with the result that much decay has continued unchecked.

I'm guessing that wasn't the answer you were looking for. Harlem was becoming a kind of "black capital of the world", then came the depression (caused arguably by the government - the central bank, in particular, for failing to properly manage the money supply), then came a lack of good government involvement, then came insufficient good government involvement, and then finally came Very Bad government involvement (massive housing projects - considered by many to be one of the top ten stupidest moves in the last century in america) along with lack of good government involvement (the lack of the enforcement of the rule of law has ensured a kind of reversion ot tribalism, with all its tribes (gangs), honor codes (emphasising respect), and blood feuds) AND more very bad government involvement (The War On Drugs). Sounds like a government cluster-**** to me - but it is all probably just because the negroes did not sufficiently love their government; perhaps a stay in The Ministry of Love will fix them up right.

Do you think Brits would be allowed a no go area for blacks/asians? we would be run in and charged with inciting racism how come that doesn't work the other way round.

I would blame the closet racists for that one - radical hard-left "even Ralph Nader would have a problem with these people" liberals who's activism is for the sake of activism and preserving "culture" and "heritage" (without any regard for the suffering guaranteed therein), not for actually bettering the lives of people. But that's just a theory.

Why am I never right in my own country now?

An unkind man might suggest that you are never right in any country, for that matter - but being a more civil, genteeele type, I would not dream of it.

These people are laughing at us.....their social security payments come from Allah not the hard workers of this country!
Some stand on street corners joyous about 9/11
Go and retard your children then if you think that is the answer.

"If I had, a choice between these two,
You know I'd absolutely have to choose the one with the shoes." - The Presidents Of The United States of America


The aforementioned attachment:

[Doctor X]

Somebody call Doctor X, for goodness sakes; the man could have a field day here.

You rang?

Seriously, I got busy and fell behind this topic. I generally dislike posters who post "I-have-not-read-any-of-this-so-let-me-pontificate-on-it-anyways" posts that restate other's arguments.

Given the recent 9th Circuit Court decision, I will simply state that the intention of the Congress by in the 1950s was to insert religion into the Pledge. Children are, indeed, forced to say the pledge in that they feel "wierd" or "wrong" if they do not participate in an activity their peers participate in.

As I often ask--and probably someone here has posed--would proponents of "under God" support "under Allah" or "under Buddha . . . Buddah . . . the Sidartha Guy" depending on the location?

"That's silly!"

Not really.

Forced allegiance is no virtue.

--J.D.

[gnome]

Originally posted by LukeT
I don't know where this puts me, but last summer when I went to a local baseball game, they played the national anthem before the game started. As we all stood there with our hands on our hearts, and those of us old enough to know took off our hats, there was this one greasy-haired, granola-eating, tree-hugging, soap intolerant, SOB walking through the bleachers in front of us on his way to who-knows-where. I wanted to bash his little, pinched, patchouli sniffing, crooked nose in.

Wow!! The guy was walking along simultaneously eating granola, hugging a tree (carried under his arm no doubt) and sniffing patchouli at the same time...! Talented, even if he disrespects his country.

</cheap shot>

My real points:

Could you tell so much about him just by looking? Or did your anger at his disrespect cause you to infer certain things about him? Maybe not. I mean if the guy was in tie-dyes with "I heart trees" stamped on it, or whatever, you've got a good case. I'm just curious.

[gnome]

I also notice the linked article (as with most articles about this) misstate the consequence of the ruling--that students cannot say the pledge at all.

Isn't it perfectly legal to have the pledge in its original form?

[Doctor X]

gnome:

Thank you!

I could understand if the conservative Fox News reported it this way, but EVERY organization is miscasting the debate in this fashion.

--J.D.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by max
the people I've met so far in life who do not respect anthems, governments and usually do not care which country they are in and do not insist their offspring salute flags/symbols have strangely all been ethnic minorities. But I do find that they like to live on the state and have their children educated like everyone else in the country ...for free. Anything free and they suddenly become patriotic and ..they have rights like everyone who salutes the flag. Of course these people bow down to their god and spend hours outside of schools in their places of worship so that is how their offspring are disciplined. And while they are busy and silently making sure they support each other and their beliefs and therefore becoming much stronger, together than the nutcases who weaken a country by their stupid beliefs that they will not bow down to their country, one day the more disciplined amongst us, will have overtaken us and our country.

Wow. I almost missed this stuff. I think a clearer picture is emerging.


WMT1 thinks children should have a choice about saluting etc, children should be guided and trained to be able to fit into society, wmt's theory therefore would allow a child to decide if it should go to school or not.

Well, your credibility was just about shot before this post anyway. You're just kinda sealing the deal.


WMT1 are you a parent or a 'friend' to your children?

As this is irrelevant to anything I've posted, it's none of your damn business. What is relevant is that it's not the state's place to tell me how to raise them, or to determine where their loyalties should lie, or how they should express those loyalties.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by gnome
I also notice the linked article (as with most articles about this) misstate the consequence of the ruling--that students cannot say the pledge at all.

This is true! The students will be hunted down, even to their own homes, their own bedrooms, and forced not to recite the pledge by evil atheists.
:p

[ktesibios]

Getting back to the point, i.e., JK's contention that students should be forced to recite the pledge every day:

I'm amazed. Three whole pages of argument and not a sign that anyone remembers that the question of government-mandated professions of mouth loyalty was decided fifty-one years ago, in the Supreme Court case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette.

The outcome? You can't do it.

Here's Justice Robert Jackson writing for the majority:

"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. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."

Is that clear enough for everyone?

[Advocate]

Originally posted by gnome
Isn't it perfectly legal to have the pledge in its original form?

Its perfectly legal to recite it but it isn't the Pledge of Allegiance anymore. The wording of the pledge was officially changed in 1954, so it would be kind of like flying a 48 star flag. Presumably Congress could change it back, but they have not done so and are not likely to.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Advocate
Its perfectly legal to recite it but it isn't the Pledge of Allegiance anymore. The wording of the pledge was officially changed in 1954, so it would be kind of like flying a 48 star flag. Presumably Congress could change it back, but they have not done so and are not likely to.

Not if you think of it as this ruling having struck down the 1954 law, automatically reverting the official pledge to its original form.

Is there a lawyer in the house? :D

[Advocate]

Originally posted by gnome


Not if you think of it as this ruling having struck down the 1954 law, automatically reverting the official pledge to its original form.

Is there a lawyer in the house? :D

Good answer! I guess then it would depend on whether it is the existence of an official pledge with those words that is being ruled against or merely its recitation in a school.