Pledge of Allegiance to Dissent: An Intolerant ‘Excess of Liberty’?
by Adam Baldwin“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
An Arkansas fifth-grader made news recently by claiming there is no “liberty and justice for all” in America as his reason for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance during his school’s daily patriotic exercises.
Red Skelton could’ve taught him a thing or two:
–
Of course, the Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that as long as such dissent is practiced in a non-disruptive manner a student is acting well within his Constitutional rights — his faulty reasoning for the dissent being irrelevant — and he may not be compelled to participate by either the school, or the state.
Teachers and administrators are strictly prohibited from singling out such peaceful dissent for discipline, admonishment or public ridicule.
Any teacher or administrator doing so should swiftly and forthrightly be subjected to reprimand or discipline including assignment to an appropriate Teacher Quality Enhancement Training program in order to mitigate any future injustices on their part.
The Pledge itself takes all of fifteen seconds to recite — which is likely a main reason most states and public school boards ascribe it for compliance with their respective education codes, policies and regulations — yet the Pledge, as with standardized patriotic exercises, is designated to inculcate patriotic values upon our nation’s children.
These values — i.e., love of and devotion to country — include American Exceptionalism, which secures even the Liberty and human rights to dissent against that very love and devotion.
Contrary to popular opinion however, dissent is obviously not de facto the ‘highest form of patriotism.’
As Socrates warns the ages in Plato’s Republic:
“[D]emocracy has her own good [Freedom], of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution… the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents; and this is his freedom… the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction… above all in forms of government… The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.”
Is it an excess of liberty that incites a fifth-grader to irrational dissent against a pro forma patriotic exercise, and in the process tell his substitute teacher to “go jump off a bridge”?
Perhaps, but that is for his parents to decide, the Supreme Court moots further argument.
There is however a parallel issue that might be worthy of consideration:
Can state and local school boards compel teachers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance in their classrooms?
The Supreme Court held in Newdow v. Elk Grove 2004 that, yes, in fact they can:
Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State… required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students.
Hopefully teachers unions and under-their-thumb school boards won’t exploit this latest attack against the Pledge as a destructive excuse to reject and undermine its original intent, i.e., allegiance to the American Republic in all her glory and the values inculcation thereof.
Hopefully as well, outside political advocacy groups will be barred as sponsors of so-called “Tolerance Through Education” programs that intrude outside Lawyer/Facilitators — without prior parental notification – into classrooms as a means of creating political correctness Pledges of Tolerance that students can be shamed to abide, while concurrently pressured to diminish the traditional Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.
Whenever public schools ignore or revise long-standing Patriotic Exercises policy requiring simply the Pledge, or Star Spangled Banner, replacing those with near meaningless vagaries like “Appropriate patriotic exercises also include, but are not limited to, songs, poems, quotations and discussions related to the development of citizenship in a democracy” one begins to wonder whether rulebooks are any longer worth the paper they’re printed on.
What values should the required daily patriotic exercises in public schools inculcate in American students?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
235 Comments
Good God. When my toddler starts school next year, I'm putting him in private school.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Janice Schreiner and Clyde, Big Tweeting. Big Tweeting said: BigHollywood: Pledge of Allegiance to Dissent: An Intolerant âExcess of Libertyâ?: ̶.. http://bit.ly/7HvHv7 #BigTweet [...]
look for a christian school.
The blurb i saw, the boy said gays and lesbian don't have equal rights… BUT THEY DO!!! They have the same rights as I do… marry a consenting single human adult of opposite sex. SAME EXACT RIGHTS I HAVE. As a heterosexual, it is illegal for me to marry an animal, a child, someone who doesn't want to marry me, more than 1 person or someone of the same sex… As a hetero, I have to follow the SAME RULES.
And as far as tradition, values, morales go. As a society, we must decide to encourage LOVE as Desire.. or as Sacrifice. Let's ask our children which one they'd want us to choose?
Oh and thanks Adam! You rock! I always read your stuff. Because its about our children, and if it wasn't about our children, then fine., let them have cake and eat it and throw it away and throw it around the house…. But no, it is about children. And yes, we must choose the society we believe best…
Mr. Baldwin, I respectfully disagree.
I agree with all your sentiment, but there's a reason it's called a pledge and not an oath, because it's voluntary.
Maybe its a hold over from my old days as a lefty, but we have no right to force people to demonstrate love for their country. Which is exactly the reason I love America.
I'm prouder of the American flag because I have the right to burn it if I wanted – which I only do during respectful disposal. I am prouder of the Pledge of Allegiance because I am not compelled to recite it. And if I had to attend a state designated church, you 'd never see me near it. I believe because I choose to.
I respectfully disagree.
I say we waterboard them until they admit that America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth, whose people are endowed with the glory of God almighty. The Christian one. Then we can make them recite the Bill of Rights (i.e., the Second Amendment), which protects hardworking Americans from the tyranny of the left-wing elitists, unless there's a Republican in office. In that case, we can dutifully ignore the Constitution, since the Republicans keep us safe.
I haven't seen the Pledge of Allegiance from Red Skelton in a long time, thanks for posting.
Mine already is. 11th grade.
Great post, thanks.
Adam, I don't usually agree with your analysis, but you provide the most thoughtful posts on this website.
Anyway, whatever the Pledge's original intent, all it has become is meaningless ceremony and procedure. It does little to foster allegiance or indoctrination–no "ideas" are being communicated by having kids recite it every morning. We only reflect on what it actually means when an incident like this arises, in fact.
"Patriotic exercises" in school obviously walk a very thin line in a partisan America. Children demonstrating loyalty to America is good, but, judging from the reactions on sites like this, demonstrating loyalty it a specific president (even mistrusting him to address students!) is bad? So these sorts of things have to be watered-down vagaries or a lot of people will get very upset.
you could be right. the problem is that our children know A TON about suffering native American Indians (only at the hands of white christians)… but no NOTHING about our Founding Fathers.
so in a world of free ideals I respectfully agree with you.
but in a world where our children are brainwashed (not by our parents) then I'd say… disagree with you. ….COMPLETELY…
Very carefully examine what the school is, it's nature, it's message. Look at the alumni, as well. But that's not always a valid indicator as schools can transform in a mere few years.
There are many, many very expensive, exclusive private schools which are equally as bad as an inner city drug infested public school. It's just hidden better, that's all. Look how the kids are dressed, that's the fastest way to measure the school's ability to command respect and encourage discipline among the student body. Without either of those you have a zoo. Might as well just send your kid to prison and save the time.
Catholic schools are very good, oftentimes. Well rounded education, usually higher than most public schools in aptitude testing. 99% of Catholic schools don't preach religion, believe it or not. They do have mass usually once a week. Or a religion class that probably includes singing. Not exactly a bad thing.
There are many excellent Catholic schools and universities out there and none that I know of that brainwash kids or even preach to them to be a Catholic. But there are many, many secular schools and universities which do brainwash kids into being anti-republican, anti-conservative and a good, loyal liberal.
Thanks for the post!
Home Schooling is an Excellent Choice
Some Home Schooling Info
http://usataxpayer.org/homeschool.asp
Take a look at our government indoctrination schools. They teach our kids a bunch of clap-trap so they will accept it when they become voters. There is no God, praise homosexuals, be politically correct, global warming, embrace illegals, bigger government is the answer to everything. They don't have time for the three RRRs any more, they are too busy turning out idiots that can't speak, write or form a cognizant thought. The government is their god
Perversion in Public Schools!
http://usataxpayer.org/view.asp?Get=schools
Your logic is circular, ron. Let's say it's 1956, all is right in the world, there are no problems in America, the commies are bad, we're good, and those pesky minorities know their place. Let's say you fall in love with a beautiful black woman, you date, you court, and eventually you decide that you want to marry this black woman. You go to the JP, the JP tells you "I'm sorry, you can't get married, marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race." You say "But that's not fair, the government has no right to tell me who I can and can't marry. This is a violation of my rights," and they say "You have the same rights I do, marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex and the same race." This was, in fact, "traditional marriage" last century. But our society changes and we change and we expand the definition, since we realize that there's nothing inherently wrong with two people of different races entering into a RELIGIOUS CONTRACT. It's a beautiful thing when we extend rights (not privileges – marriage is not a privilege) in this country.
As for your definition of tradition, values, and morals, your assumption that gay love is just desire and not sacrifice is ridiculous. I've seen the commitment and sacrifice two gay people in love can show for each other, and it's every bit as valid as the love between heterosexuals. No one needs your recognition, your permission, or your tolerance. And spare me your "it's for the children" malarky…I can point to a ton of heterosexuals who had no business reproducing, and all they had to do was forget the birth control. It always amazes me that conservatives (and I consider myself conservative) would rather the State parent these children when their heterosexual birth parents are unwilling or unfit to, instead of a stable and secure household with two gay parents.
Honestly, I am bitterly sick of this fact.
Let me be frank: If this little fool had done this in the Third Reich of the Soviet Union, he would have been deported to at the very least a holding area for "analysis", and then he most likely would have been sterilized, or more likely SHOT. And his family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, etc, would have been the subject of a massive witchhunt likely to leave a good half of them dead and even more of them in prison for various lengths of time.
Contrast to Imperial Germany, were the arguably more benign leaders would have simply had him locked up without rights to a trial or correspondence, examined the assets and behavior of everyone related to him top-to-bottom before either releasing him or (for repeat offenders) exiling or shooting him.
Or in Maoist China, where he would have been locked up along with his friends and most possible relations, forced to confess to ludicrous if relatively mild charges and to write self-flagellating essays, before being sent off to work in rural communes staffed by paramilitary, ill-disciplined, and ruthless Red Guards without adequate food or sanitation before eventually being let back as an exile who must forcefully endure yet more humiliation and self-flagellation to obtain the barest of recognition as a second-class citizen, constantly looking behind his back in case the local members of the CCP find reason to hammer him again. And then it would get even worse.
And this is before we talk about the Islamist nations of the world, where they would have simply tortured, possibly raped (it isn't homosexual if there is no attraction, or so it goes), and then executed him, most likely his entire direct family (barring circumstances forbidding), a good deal of his extended family, and many of his friends and their families. Before the survivors are placed under suspicion for more-or-less the rest of their lives.
And this SWINE HAS THE NERVE to talk about how there is "No Freedom or Liberty AT ALL in the US?"
Now, unlike most, I actually sympathize with the idea of homosexual partnerships, and even marriages (albeit with the consent of the church doing it), but the optimum words here are AT ALL.
This kid has no idea what the big bad world is like. And if the US has No Freedom or Liberty, than I suppose virtually all the rest of the world has NEGATIVE liberty?
What a knave.
WRONG!!! There is no RACE in the Bible, Christianity, or in marriage. That rule was made by racist people, christians, Darwinists, govt laws. The teachings of Christ have no race component.
You like to compare BAD heteros to GOOD gays… Let's compare BAD parents to BAD gay men who acquire children. Let's compare GOOD loving mothers & fathers with GOOD loving gay men. Let's see which of those two comparisons, children would want to choose from.
But you are right… A MOTHER and A FATHER of a child… ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT. And as a society, we shouldn't hold those two positions in high regard… but lets just religate them to the same lameness & wanton lifestyles of singles and gay poeple, who you claim …SACRIFICE? for each other??? WOW! What! I guess raising kids is religated to gays caring for one another.
AND PLEASE… Conservatives don't immediately start a debate by demeaning the other. "your logic is circular"…. PLEASE….
I have no problem with this kid. I would just treat him the same way he treats his country. I would not hire someone like this or have anything to do with this shallow kid. Maybe the ACLU can hire him but I would never even speak to him. That is my dissent.
Uh.. schizoid… how WRONG you are!!! you forgot COMMUNIST in the brainwashing!!!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Richard Allen, AdamBaldwin. AdamBaldwin said: What values should the patriotic exercises in public schools inculcate in American students? http://tinyurl.com/ygxwly5 [...]
the courts would force you to hire him, have something to do with him, & speak to him!
I guess the kids who make fun of him is showing their dissent and I am glad they are not afraid to let this ungratful kid that he is an outcast. Keep up the great work kid. I predict this kid will either be in Prison where he has to listen to people of authority or he will be dead for running his mouth and showing his dissent to the wrong person. I could care less.
My mistake. It was not "At All", It was for all. Please keep that in mind for my post.
So he wasn't THAT stupid. But this still qualifies. If a Homosexual woman or man is raped or murdered, make no mistake, THERE WILL BE A FAIR TRIAL. If a Homosexual woman or man wants to picket a Mormon church over Prop 8, THEY CAN.
The only issue is what role marriage has to do with this, and while I would argue it is a curtailment of liberty for Homosexuals (albeit due to the churches exercising THEIR liberty to do so), and may be an injustice by marginalizing gays (what about devout Catholic Gays? I know a few of them- hell, most of them I know would make most of the "ultraconservative" fire and brimstoners look like the Anglican Church-, so how do they fit in if they actually want to tie the knot and live according to their vows?
But still, this was over the top. If you tie your allegiance to a nation based on one single fact like that, then one ponders what you will do when you age and it becomes apparent that no place is utopia.
And besides, WHAT is full equality, and how do you judge it? Are gays being denied "full" equality by not being allowed to marry per the private decisions of the religious groups that actually conduct these ceremonies? Perhaps. Are gays, minorities, or women being denied "full" equality if they are paid less or given less profitable jobs? Even if, on a case-by-case individual basis, this would be justified?
Equality without definition is just a rhetorical parlor trick. Almost anyone is in favor of equality. But equality in what? And How?
In the words of Saul Alinsky (who actually COULD get it right once or twice),
"what that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba. Let’s keep some perspective. (xxi)"
A valuable tip for this young man, particularly given the sorry state of the world.
what the heck? why are you even here? oh… the Communist pay you to be here. Well, they shouldn't pay you. They should give you a ration card… to get in line, at 5am on Wednesday morning, that is BREAD day.
Is someone's mind going to be changed just because one rug-rat decides not to do the pledge? Whatever happened to the good old days when children were meant to be seen, and not heard?
Adam,
That video was great. Thanks.
Well said. This nonsense about homosexuals wanting "equal rights" is just that – nonsense. What they want are SPECIAL rights.
LOL, fyi, the Bible isn't one of our founding documents. I don't believe in the Bible, I don't have to believe in the Bible, and I don't have to live my life according to the Bible in this country. But it does have quite a bit to say about race, in fact, it lists an entire chosen people that God alternately plagues or praises, often to the detriment of other races God isn't too keen on. In fact, the Bible pretty clearly says that Jews can't marry non-Jews, and adultery is understood by many Bible scholars to mean miscegenation, so fail for you, bro.
To your second point: I'd wager the kids wouldn't care, and unless you've produced a study showing otherwise, then you're engaging in conjecture. Your third point: I'm not sure you have a third point, but I will say that you're generalizing about gays "wanton lifestyles"…heterosexuals are quite good at wonton lifestyles as well, but the State isn't taking away anyone's kids because they had an affair, or they drink too much, or they're never home, etc etc. In this country, we're not supposed to let identity politics influence policy, and when you generalize that no gay person is fit to be a parent, you're falling into the same identity politics that the left-wing uses when they try to advance hate crimes legislation. Yes, gay people do sacrifice for each other and gay people do sacrifice for their children. Just because you don't have any gay friends and you've never seen them sacrifice for each other doesn't mean that they don't.
Finally, I wasn't demeaning you, I was pointing out a flaw in your thought process. Conservatives ostensibly use reason and logic when debating, and so to debate effectively, we should recognize when our or another's argument is fallacious. Your argument was fallacious. I didn't call you a retard or say you're a bigot or say you should learn how to debate before you open your stupid mouth, I simply said that your logic is circular. Man up.
Patriotism is like sex. You can talk about it all you want, but there's absolutely nothing like the actual deed. You can make kids recite it all you want, and as adults we may feel good doing it, but the place to learn true love of country is to travel it, live in it, and get to know its people.
I'm going to guess you weren't on the debating team?
I've come to the opinion that you're a nut case.
So because a kid feels that there is not justice and equality for all – and is able to produce a reason why – you're going to black list him out of spite?
Nice. Real adult of you.
I appreciate your convivial disagreement.
What values do you think should the required daily patriotic exercises in public schools inculcate in American students?
Do you not agree that school districts are entitled to (and should) direct their employees to lead the Pledge as a requirement of their employment?
Concerning Catholic Gays… at our mass, the priest preached acceptance of gays. And I'm all for that. But what he didn't preach and I was waiting for … was gays acceptance of Christ, their acceptance of his teachings. Homosexuality is an addiction or desire, just like lust, drugs, hedonism, drinking, football, shopping, perversions, toys, fun things, whatever. But none of these are important to the family. That institution of a mother and father sacrificing their lives for their children, the betterment & future of their children. Gays must come to accept what is most important in the teachings of Christ… and it is not their desire for one another… it is the love of sacrifice… FOR CHILDREN. If gays want to live their own lives, fine, we will tolerate it… BUT to change the church, to change society, that has democratically accepted the institution of marriage…. NOT GOING TO STAND FOR IT.
Except that the legal status of a homosexual couple is not equal to the legal status of a heterosexual couple.
That Americans actually believe they're not regarded as a mixture of hypocrite, blind to the rotting corruption in their core and extremist lunatics by the rest of the world only baffles people.
That you, as a country, force through rote and pressure this kind of rabid patriotism on people is disgusting. Are you afraid that if you stopped treating those who dissent badly and stop forcing in on people that they'll realise what your country is actually like?
Most countries have an anthem in school assembly and at sporting events and otherwise patriotism is a personal thing.
Love for your country is worth more when its earned, not indoctrinated.
For the sake of argument, by what process do you think the definition of marriage should be changed (if you think it should, that is)?
And,
What values should the required daily patriotic exercises in public schools inculcate in American students?
I'm here because conservatives need to learn some CONSISTENCY. Republicans are losing elections because they don't have any principles. It's just this weird melange of corporatist (not free-market) economics and religious fundamentalist social control. Everyone who's poopooing government tyranny nowadays sat idly by while the previous administration ravaged our civil liberties, our very founding principles. Republicans could be a strong force for good if they'd lighten up on the culture wars and start practicing free-market capitalism. Instead, they come with a banner of freedom and take away everyone's rights in the process. Learn to Goldwater.
You wanna know something? Jesus never said anything about gay marriage or homosexual relationships at all. It's all in the Old Testament. The one with all the rules people ignore because Jesus said that they no longer mattered, that the only thing that mattered was loving each other.
So using the Bible as a reason for why same sex marriage shouldn't happen doesn't work with Christianity.
Second of all, saying that marriage should follow the rules of Christianity assumes that marriage is a purely Christian concept, that only Christians take part in. It's a ceremony that's part of all religions, and even non-religious people are allowed to marry. To force the ideology of Christianity on these people is unconstitutional, as forcing your religion on others doesn't seem like religious freedom, does it?
And from every article I've read about the subject, it seems that kids growing up with gay parents are just as happy and well adjusted as the average kid, and they wouldn't want to change their parents if they could.
Although I can't stand to see kids that young exhibit such foolish sentiments (undoubtedly the result of indoctrination within the home), I'm not sure I can go along with that. Not that I don't think learning the Pledge and being sincere in saying it is a good thing, but right now I'm rather antsy about public school districts inculcating ANYTHING in our kids.
homosexual couples do not need legal status… but civil unions are fine with me. but why? they can get a contract made which is more binding than marriage? they can join a hospital that accepts gay couples. they can DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. oh noooo, they want MARRIAGE, they want US to accept GAY as the SAME THING as a MOTHER and FATHER. they want our children to not know the difference. WELL, there is a difference.
Indoctrinate our children? Hmmm… let's see… indoctrine to love this nation, a democratic, tolerant, republic of the people…. or to hate this nation… and change it, to feel shame about this nation, its christian heritiage, and to desire COMMUNISM and govt welfare programs and free sex (not really free) and no obligation to do anything…. YAY… that's all open mindedness and not indoctrination by the COMMUNISTS in America… at all!
I think marriage is a religious institution and not a civil institution. I think government should get out of the marriage business entirely. The only reason the federal government is involved in civil marriage is for tax purposes. At the very least it should be left to the states, but frankly, I don't think it's even in the purview of the states.
I don't think there should be required daily patriotic exercises. What makes this country great is that no one requires you to be a patriot. You can hate this country, completely despise it, and you're never required to say otherwise. That's a beautiful thing, and it's unique to America. I love my country dearly, not its government or its geography or even its people, I love its Constitution and I love its value of civil disagreement. If they really want to inculcate American values, then they should teach that we live in a Republic where the rights of the minority can not and will not be trampled upon by the will of the majority, they should teach that diversity of thought and speech are essential to a functioning democracy, and they should teach children that they're individuals who have a right and a responsibility to form their own beliefs.
Actually, i think… the best sex… is intense sex with the woman i have loved for many years. I mean, she can suck a golf ball through a garden hose while juggling! Oiy!!
But I believe we must teach our children to know what to love… for if we don't… SOMEBODY ELSE WILL. And as Adam is explaining… PUBLIC SCHOOLS are replacing the parent… and much to our own damn fault for accepting more govt….
So talking away has really helped me to know… ITS UP TO ME! To teach them the right values. Silence by Christians… is killing us. Conservatives too… SPEAK UP!
BUT THEY ARE INDOCTRINATING OUR CHILDREN. They are being inculcated RIGHT NOW. And it doesn't include… the Constitution, our Founding Fathers, the Judeo-Christian heritage…
What is does include so far is: Native American Indians are victims. All cultures & religions are good, except white christian europe. Can't say Christmas. America is a slave nation.
Catch my drift? you are coming at it with… hey we are brainwashing them, so lets just not do it.. and no one else will….
the reality is our kids are being brainwashed, indoctrinated, influenced by EVERYTHING… so you have to PICK SOMETHING…
Lol.
But truthfully, they don't really push real communism, nor does the American Left in Hollywood, etc.. Because true communism would favor none, embrace all. The American Left, obviously does not subscribe to that philosophy. They favor their own. Period. And those who lead, get the goodies. That's not communism in its true form. That's tyranny (which communism is, but a different form). They want to be in power, lord it over the masses, get the good stuff, make others wait. Same old story.
You have the right to marry who you love, they want the right to marry who they love, yet they don't. It's that simple. That's not equal rights.
If the kid thinks that not saying the national anthem is the best way to go, let the kid be shown on how lucky and privileged he has it going for him to have rights. In other places he would have been kicked in the rear with a bamboo staff or shown nothing but Lindsey Lohan movies in re-runs. Or he can believe in J.R. Bob Dobbs as a religion . Oh and Adam Baldwin your a awesome actor keep it up.
Jews… is a belief, a tribe, chosen people, yes, but NOT A RACE.
Kids wouldn't care about who their REAL mother and father is? Never, in their lives?
Just because heteros fail to keep up the vows of marriage, doesn't mean we should change dumb down marriage? You act like wanton lifestyles are victimless…. they are not, they are wrought with victims. If you can accept your lifestyle & your loved ones as hedonistic… then so be it. But for those of us in 31 states who were given the chance to vote, we want a higher goal, a higher purpose.
And your logic isn't circular at all… it just sucks. Children who don't care who their mother and father are… BRILLIANCE!
HOLD ON ANON… i gotta scour through New Testament… be right back!
Adam,
I also thank you for the post. It was really great!
That is your opinion for your Church, and I honestly couldn't give a damn one way or the other so long as nobody starts chopping necks about it. But since I have a perverse desire to play Devil's Advocate in religious debates….
"Homosexuality is an addiction or desire, just like lust, drugs, hedonism, drinking, football, shopping, perversions, toys, fun things, whatever."
Which leads one to one crucial question: if we define "desire" to mean both homosexuality (being attracted/doing/whatever someone of the same sex, regardless of one's feelings or actions) with (presumably heterosexual) lust (ie merely being interested in the carnal aspect of said relationship,), doesn't that logically dig a permimeter large enough for Heterosexuality (even loving, Biblical heteosexuality) to fall under (again, Homosexuality is who you are doing regardless of one's feelings, lust is why you are doing someone)? Since presumably both lustful Heteosexuals and loving Homosexuals fall into that catagory, could we not assume the same for loving Heteosexuals? And even if we agree that the church canon accepts Heteosexuality as just, is this truly stating that it is not an addiction, or merely that it is the accepted addiction?
"Gays must come to accept what is most important in the teachings of Christ… and it is not their desire for one another."
Of which the same could be said for heterosexual Christians. Has that ever stopped them from doing so? And do they necessarily have a special exemption because of the "go forth and multiply" part of the covenant?
"BUT to change the church, to change society, that has democratically accepted the institution of marriage…. NOT GOING TO STAND FOR IT."
Historically, you have not much to stand on. Like it or not, for centuries, religions have been forced to reform or at least change, dating from the Reformation to the "Great Awakenings" here in North America. Unless you really, REALLY dig in and draw the line, the popular pressure will usually force a compromise. And even digging in is no guarantee of success. Like it or not, that's the historical record for a good part of the past two millennia.
All I can say is that NONE of the great lessons I've learned about America were learned inside a classroom, so this devotion to the idea that saying the Pledge automatically makes good citizens has always been bunk to me.
And congrats to you and the missus. ;-D
i know you wont believe this.. but i flipped my new testament open… and was 1 page away from Ephesians 5:22… booooyah… what it says is about husband & wife… not husband & husband.
concerning non-christian marriage… what gay marriage religion in history are you referring to?
concerning religious freedom… well no one is forcing marriage on gays. & if hospital visits are their biggest concern… or taxes? then address that. but you know… the poeple have voted on this. over and over…
every article you read? EVERY ONE says kids are fine with gay parents? well heck, lets just do away with the shackles of marriage and let kids roam around with any adult. why dont we just make vat kids? form them from vats. make clones n stuff… whole armies of kids!!! F those parents. we dont need'em… bah!
Jews are a religious group, a tribe, and a race. They are a nation chosen by God to enact his will on this earth. That's why you're a Jew if your mother is a Jew no matter what. You can never un-Jew yourself if that matrilineal racial aspect is present.
Dumb down marriage? Why do you assume that it's dumbed-down? I didn't say anything about wanton lifestyles being victimless. My argument is that it's wrong to assume that gays have wanton lifestyles. They don't any more than heterosexuals do. And if you're going to use these moralistic concepts in your evaluation of policy, then why don't we just ban divorce? It's pretty clear in Leviticus (you know, the don't be gay don't eat shellfish chapter) that a marriage after a divorce is a state of perpetual infidelity. If you're using the Bible to justify policy, then for Darwin's sake, be consistent about it! But luckily in this country, your bronze-age mythology has nothing to do with my contract rights. So, I'll ask, if you're campaigning against gay marriage, will you also campaign against heterosexual divorce?
Well I say we don't need "patriotic exercises" at all. Read Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism"
The pledge was written in 1892 and only had the words "under God" added in 1954.
And why do people on here feel that this kid should shut up and take it, and appreciate how good he has it because he would be treated worse elsewhere? What are you thinking? I believe some of you would support him if he said he wouldn't do the pledge because he felt Obama was misleading the copuntry or he hated Nancy Pelosi. This kid is showing the grown-ups what is wrong with the treatment of different people in our country and is getting shat upon. He is a reall American.
Maatkare —
I agree in part and disagree. Are you a parent? You make your kids say 'thank you' until they learn the meaning of it and know to say it on their own. You don't teach them to say 'thank you', they won't as adults. You must inculcate the 'value' of saying 'thank you.' You do this in children through demanding that they say it.
You married? Treating your wife as though you love her and she's the most important person in the world is crucial (i.e., the deed), but so is saying "I love you and you're the most important person in the world."
Both deeds and words are crucial.
Most grade school kids are of an age where they don't even understand the pledge or give any consideration to what it means. I think it's fantastic that this kid actually put some thought into the words he's being told to recite as though they mean something to him – he's exercising his constitutional rights, and I think it's fantastic that one so young has come to his own informed conclusion and is so dedicated to his cause.
And my understanding of the 'go jump off a bridge' comment was that it came after four days of harassment from the substitute teacher. Wasn't a smart thing to say, wasn't a respectful thing to say, but it wasn't unprovoked.
Blind patriotism helps no one. Plugging your ears and tearfully avowing that this republic is the greatest country on earth gets you absolutely nowhere. This kid has a point, and it's a good one – he's brought up issues of racism, sexism, religious discrimination, and, to his eyes, the biggie – the right of two consenting adults to stand before their loved ones and their higher power and declare faithfulness and love for each other. With so much wrong in the world, how backwards do you have to be to besmirch love? With the divorce rate at 50% among church-sanctioned, traditional-definition marriages, you've got your work cut out for you to convince anyone that it's the gays who're threatening the sanctity of marriage.
There's a reason why ten year old kids can't vote, drink, gamble, marry, or operate motor vehicles: They're stupid. I don't care how smart your own 10 year old kid is compared to other 10 year olds, he still hasn't developed the tools he needs to make reasonable and intelligent arguments about anything. Kids have simplistic minds and live in a fantasy world based more on what they want it to be, rather than what it is. In other words, they're like liberals, only cuter. And what kind of monster would argue with a sweet little kid? That's why the lefties like to wheel out the tots out to preach their gospel and push their agenda.
Apples to oranges my friend. Conservatives are consistent, Republicans are not. The two political ideologies are not always one and the same.
No one stops homosexuals from having ceremonies or entering into legal arrangements.
What they want is to force their morals on those of us who do not agree.
YES! No fault divorces are lame! Its harder to get out of a car purchase than it is a marriage.
Jews are semitites… but there are many non jew semitites or whatever that term is. but as a christian… i overrule OT with NT.
what i want is for our society to teach children that marriage is the most important & difficult thing there is. and it is about raising children, dedicating one's life to the opposite sex mom/dad and to the children. what is happening is that we are dumbing down marriage with no fault, gay, polygamy, sex, wantoness and teaching our kids that as well.
you all keep telling us christians to stop indoctrinating our kids… all the while plastering up your sexualizing billboards and govt run anti-christian public schools.
and for Darwin's sake, lets use eugenics and get rid of any inferior races!!!
"This kid has a point, and it's a good one – he's brought up issues of racism, sexism, religious discrimination, and, to his eyes, the biggie – the right of two consenting adults to stand before their loved ones and their higher power and declare faithfulness and love for each other."
Well, you apparently went to the same school as Skippy, because everybody has that "right". Even gays. Try it, and see if anyone stops you. However, if you want your marriage recognized by the state, you have to meet certain conditions. You mentioned two of them: "Consenting" and "Adult". Can you name some other conditions? And for extra credit, explain why we should "besmirch love" by having any conditions at all. You will be graded on style and grammar.
WAIT A MINUTE!!! please find me a state marriage license that has LOVE as a requirement???
i know they have these things:
adult
consenting
human
single
opposite sex
there are considerations for criminal record, disease, blood tests, etc..
but nothing on LOVE.
can you find that for me? thanks.
oh and check Romans 1:26… concerning homosexual & hedonist lifestyles. pretty rough. For no God in your knowledge really does mean you can do anything you DESIRE… and so should your children… ESPECIALLY in your house.
You're right… I think I should shut up.. forever and ever because of your opinion… of me.
oh that reminds me… gotta tell my wife how i love her more now than all the days before…
This stupid little kid not only understands the concept of liberty and justice for all, but can point out how we're failing to meet that standard. This stupid little kid also understands that citizens in a free society use protest and civil disobedience to guarantee the rights of others. That's not only smart, that's American smart.
Excellent point, and no to both for me; but I would add the codicil that personal relationships (thank, I love you, etc.) are very different than concepts like love of country and can't really be taught by the same methods–ie expressing love to another person or saying thanks creates immediate feedback with another human soul with an immediate response; loving America is a little more of an abstract idea in that America never says 'I love you back,' or 'you're welcome.'
This is elementary school, not college. Elementary school kids aren't supposed to make courageous political statements in order to get out of class and impress CNN talking heads. As long as I am paying for his education, he should sit down and shut up so he can be taught how to think and reason.
If our kids don't say the Pledge of Allegiance… then they will say something else. Whatever it is… they will say something.
We must choose… what they say… or someone else will.
I for one, really really love the Pledge of Allegiance. And America. And Christianity. And all that this great nation is, has been, and with courage like Adam's and ours, will continue to be.
I'm not sure if this will help, but I'd like to make an attempt to clairify HollywoodRon's point. It is the church's teaching that the only proper arena for sexual acts is within the confines of marriage. We teach that sex has a twofold purpose: the bonding and comfort of the couple, and the bringing forth of new life. The two purposes MUST be present, to try and remove one or the other is not the proper order God has for sexuality. This includes- homosexual sex, sex outside of marriage, contraceptive sex and even self-stimulation (trying to evade the filter here!). Like it or not, agree with it or not, the church has the EXACT same rules for homosexuals and heterosexuals- respect the power of the bonding and procreative nature of sexual intercourse. Yes, you are free to love whomever you wish of any gender, but sex needs to be kept at it's intended purpose.
Now, you may not agree with this teaching, that's fine with me. I only wish to explain where we're coming from and that we have no special standards for homosexual couples that unmarried (and married) heterosexual couples aren't held to as well.
start the revolution and take bastards 10 miles out to sea
Teachers can compel kids to memorize and recite the Gettysburg Address, a Dr. King speech, or the lyrics to "Obama hmm hmm hmmm". What's wrong with the Pledge of Allegiance? It's not like the kids are going to be legally held to the oath. No one is going to slap handcuffs on them for burning a flag when they're at UC Berkeley because they broke a pledge they made in Mrs. Morrison's third grade class.
Can't marry your own daughter or sister, either.
And it's "whom."
"No one needs your recognition, your permission, or your tolerance."
Really? Then I guess you guys owe the Mormons an apology, because they've been getting a lot of flack for not recognizing, permitting, or tolerating what you've been shoving down everyone's throat for the past 40 or 50 years.
Oh great and powerful Joey, thank you for coming here to teach the conservatives. I am humbled by your very use of Caps Lock. Yes, I have been waging a "culture war" and your side hasn't. How blind I was. But my eyes are now open. I only hope that one day I am worthy to wipe the progressive spittle from your wise lips.
I am, your servant.
You know, I hate Sharia law, but it's nice to see that Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists can agree on *something*. I'm not the one who believes in inferior and superior people, Yahweh has that on lockdown. And by the way, I had to learn intelligent design in high school biology. I didn't learn evolution…you know, SCIENCE, until I was in college, where they don't treat you like you're an idiot. Anyone who makes comments conflating eugenics with evolution (correlation is not causation) obviously doesn't understand evolution or eugenics, and judging by your comments, I get the feeling you don't understand a lot.
Funny, isn't it, that a person becomes a "progressive thinker" in about the 5th grade. Think of all the money liberals have wasted on those college degrees they're always bludgeoning people with.
"Most grade school kids are of an age where they don't even understand the pledge or give any consideration to what it means."
But: "This kid has a point, and it's a good one – he's brought up issues of racism, sexism, religious discrimination, and, to his eyes, the biggie – the right of two consenting adults to stand before their loved ones and their higher power and declare faithfulness and love for each other."
What kind of kid doesn't understand the Pledge, but can grasp the above litany of never defeated leftist bogeyman (sorry, bogeyperson)? This makes absolutely no sense.
This reminds me of when I was in High School in 1990. One day someone decided to have a contest to see who knew the last line of the pledge of allegiance. I answered "and Justice for All" to which I was told that I was wrong. According to my teacher she had determined the last line was really " You may now be seated". In her mind I guess the first line was "please stand".
The prize was for a correct answer was some free pizza. I demanded that I also should get some since I was right and they were rewarding ignorance.
Yep, and they deserve the flack. They don't need our recognition, permission, or tolerance either. That's how it works in a free society. The difference is that the anti-gay marriage groups act like *their* rights are being trampled on simply because the state recognizes a right for others that they don't agree with.
Spare me the tortured heterosexual bull. I grew up in an evangelical family, where I was reminded daily that my soul is destined for eternal damnation. I grew up in a school system where I was called a faggot in front of teachers who responded "don't act like a faggot". I grew up in a town where any dissent, any worldview that isn't Christian fundamentalism, gets you taunted or beat up, COERCED. This country is against coercion, and no gay person has ever coerced you into being tolerant of gays. You don't know jack about oppression, so don't act like the 95% of people who are heterosexual are somehow being oppressed just because someone's relationship is recognized by the state. I only shove things down gay people's throats.
In high school (1986), I refused to say the pledge of allegiance. Back then, I was bullied by the eliets of the school. I was threatened, assulted and debased in every way a fat teenager could. Jocks, rappers, rednecks, metal heads. Everybody was on my ass. And what did the princeipals do? NOTHING! Jocks were just sent on their way with not even a cross word from either their coaches or administration. So I took my own protest. I refused to say the pledge. I felt I recived no justice. So since the PoA didn't apply to me, I didn't have to say it.
And I payed a dear price. I remained silent, sitting at my desk, not disrupting. My parents were called, my mom smacked me on my face for not saying the pledge. My father grounded me. I was sent to in-school suspension. And the bullying got worse! Eventually, they relented and for the rest of my senior year, while I was continually writen up, I stuck to my guns.
AND I WOULD DO IT AGAIN IN A HEART BEAT!
Although, today I am a different man. I love this country, I honor the men who died to give me this freedom. And I will say the pledge at any time, for the love of my country.
But I agree with this kid. If he doesn't want to say the PoA, he shouldn't. That is the price of freedom. Not just to protect what we say, but also to protect us when we want to be silent. A condition of citenznship shouldn't be reciting a pledge.
So, good luck, young man. You'll pay a heavy price too. And in about 10 to 15 years (took me 14 years), you'll relize that you were a horse's a$$ for making such a stand. That's called growing up.
Stay strong.
Welcome to the team.
Actually, the kid's argument for his courageous, selfless act of getting out of class and becoming a TV celebrity and hero to liberal bloggers was:
1. "Gays and lesbians can't marry". His premise was false. Gays and lesbians can marry. They just can't marry members of the same gender. Neither can straights. So it's not an issue of equal rights. Gay COUPLES don't have the same rights as STRAIGHT couples, but the Bill of Rights only guarantees individual rights, not couples rights – something he'd know if his teachers and his parents weren't purposely keeping him dumb.
2. "There's still a lot of racism and sexism in the world" – Yep. Most of it is in Africa and the Middle East. But the pledge is to our "Republic for Which it Stands". While there are bound to be racists and sexists in a population of 307 million, institutionalized racism and sexism is prohibited by law. So once again, the kid is spouting cliches without thinking.
He'll make a great Democrat congressman one day.
No, this kid understands the concept of "cosmic justice".
Poor heterosexual 95% of the population. You guys sure have it rough what with all us gay folks keeping you down. Why, we have the audacity to talk about our loved ones just like you do, we probably don't even have the common courtesy to pretend we're straight! There's even one of us on the tv! It's like apartheid all over again, what with us making you get gay married and all. I sure am glad that I'm homosexual, or I might have to face angry glances and people questioning my humanity and beatings by roving gangs of heterophobic men.
You do know that Republicans just won gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, don't you?
What values do you think should the required daily patriotic exercises in public schools inculcate in American students?
Excellent and respectful question. To be honest, I don't want any government entity to inculcate any American student. I would prefer they concentrate on reading, writing and arithmetic and leave raising of children to the parents. I believe the reason there are so many dysfunctional families is directly responsible because of government intervention.
Do you not agree that school districts are entitled to (and should) direct their employees to lead the Pledge as a requirement of their employment?
For that I would defer to the local tax payers supporting the schools. It's their money, if they want it, majority rule.
Again a very nice post Adam. The Red Skelton pledge is something that I’ve seen most of my life, amazing.
There is a difference between wanting to say it and being forced to say it.
That's my point.
I have no problem with children being taught what to say, but if some one says 'I don't want to' what right do we have to say you will do it any way?
That's not what America is about. Conformity is easy. It's freedom that's hard.
Jesus Christ never said that loving each other was the only thing that mattered. Of course it's important, but it's not the only thing that is. He also said that it was more important to love and serve God than it was to love and serve one another, that if we loved Him, we would keep His commandments (yes, including the ones outlined in the OT), and that we should strive to be perfect according to His dictates, not our own. He taught that we should take care of one another and love each other, but not at the expense of our worshipping the Lord and obeying His will, rather than our own.
There is a difference between the Jewsish LAW (where the whole shellfish/indentured servitude for children aspects come in, the law that Christ declared was no longer necessary) and Jewish DOCTRINE, which remained the same. The law was meant to prepare the people for the Savior, and once He came, following those practices was no longer necessary. But the teachings still stand, those never changed. The commandments are still commandments, not suggestions or guidelines.
Republicans lost all five special congressional elections. And considering the campaign Corzine ran, not to mention his administration, New Jersey is pretty unsurprising.
The Tea Party movement is beginning to look like your typical WTO protest: lots of different people with lots of different agendas angry about a lot of different things; too many Hitler posters, too many Stalin posters; no nuance, no reasoning, no principles. Republicans would have a real movement behind them if they stopped demonizing people and got back to their roots: balanced budget, lower the deficit, fewer taxes, strong money, less regulation, no corporate welfare, smaller government. The social issues only matter because old people vote. In twenty years, social conservatism will be moot when conservative voters realize that the government isn't a tool for social engineering but a guarantor of rights.
Well said! That's it, in a nutshell!
"If the minority, and a small one too, is suffered to dictate to the majority, after measures have undergone the most solemn discussions by the representatives of the people, and their will through this medium is enacted into a law, there can be no security for life, liberty, or property; nor, if the laws are not to govern, can any man know how to conduct himself in safety."
GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to Major-General Daniel Morgan
[...] here: Pledge of Allegiance to Dissent: An Intolerant ‘Excess of Liberty’? This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
awesome reply, dude.
Thanks Adam! We plan on homeschooling when we have our kids, and here's yet another incident that supports that decision (as if the NEA pimping Alinsky wasn't enough).
"Teach the children quietly for someday sons and daughters will rise up and fight while we stood still…"
(cont.)
This fight over gay "marriage" is proving Washington right. In Washington DC, you have a well-connected minority of mostly White Democrats of the homosexual lifestyle prevent residents like me from voting on marriage:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?i...
The irony is that these are the SAME Democrats who warn Black people of those "evil Republicans" trying to steal their voting rights.
Up in Maine, homosexual activists are hurling hate speech and even death threats at Maine residents simply because they voted for traditional marriage:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/05/left-wing-th...
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/10/climate-of-h...
Such hypocrisy by homosexual activists has caused many Americans to reject the PC nonsense and fight for their liberty.
This kid is lucky he lives in the United States of America where he is able to refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. If this little nitwit lived in a communist country he would not have this choice. The liberty, justice and freedom we have in this country makes that possible. I wonder what he thinks of Venezuela, gays sure have the rights there, NOT. Why does this kid think it's right to change the sanctity and meaning of marriage? What about the rights of those that believe marriage is between a man and a woman? I have no problem with civil unions. What about women's rights in muslim countries? They have no rights. I bet this kid would have no problem singing songs in honor of barack obama. Why don't our public schools teach the greatness that is the United States? Our freedom is precious and it's under attack from within our own country. How sad that this kid does not know and respect the fact that he lives in the greatest country on earth, for now……..
I don't suppose you've ever heard "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" before. There's never been any expectations on my part that anybody (or even this country) would ever thank me for 32 years of service in the Army, yet so many people do. When I hear it, I always feel a bit embarrassed – I never really thought of it that way. I don't and have never expected thanks. I did it because it was the right thing to do, and because I didn't see many others willing to do it when it needed to be done. Do I really expect anything in return? Only to be able to live my life the way I see fit, and it looks like those in control now wish to deprive me of that. This would include (as far as the education system goes) teaching my children to respect their fellow citizens and this country in accordance with the Constitution and the law, instead of indoctrinating them to serve and keep in position those (or the party) currently in power.
Times have changed! When we emigrated to Boston when I was a little girl, my teacher was flabbergasted that I didn't know the Pledge despite my extremely thick English accent (go fig). I learned it very quickly, though, & it soon became a fond ritual. Later, like a lot of teenage immigrants, I went through a phase where I didn't think it applied to me, & I stood respectfully, but didn't recite it. I was not eligible to be a citizen at the time, so it didn't make sense to me. I grew out of that phase, too.
I hope this kid's analytical skills grow before he tries for law school, because his interpretation of the Pledge is a smidge off. "And to the Republic for which it STANDS…with liberty & justice for all" does not imply that America is a perfect bastion of equality right now. Sheesh, some folks couldn't even vote yet when the Pledge was written. But it does STAND for an ideal of liberty & justice for all toward which America keeps moving ever forward. Just keep working at it, kid. Don't give up on your country; it's the best one ya got for liberty & justice!
Also? "Racism & sexism in the world" hardly can be blamed on America. In law school, the kid will need to learn to specify, or someone's gonna shout "Objection!" more emphatically than you have.
What values should be inculcated? Well, when I was in school, there was a citizenship grade. If you were a loud mouth who disrespected teachers & other students, that grade dropped, & it affected ones overall GPA. Do they not have this now? I think if kids' grades were affected by their lousy behaviour, they might grow up to be better citizens (or resident aliens, as the case may be), & we'd hope, there'd be less jerks.
There's a fine line between education and indoctrination. Sadly, all I've been hearing are bad examples of teachers not teaching but indoctrinating. "He is a reall American" in your mind and feelings because he was saying what you believe. Children, particularly the youngest ones are in schools to learn first, then as they get older they can then make value judgments based on what they learn in school, out of school and in the home. Fifth grade? Eleven years old? I daresay he doesn't have enough life experience to use value judgments to make that statement.
Homosexuals cannot picket a Mormon church. To do so means they are attacking a group based on their religion and according to the liberal orthodoxy that would be a hate crime.
You are wrong about Jesus and the Law. In Matthew, Chapter 5, verse 17 and following, Jesus tells the people that he has not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them. It is true that a lot of the rules in the Old Testament were current to the time and the people, but no where does it say they were all to be tossed out. The problem was that the teachers of the Law were coming up with so many man-made rules, not God's law. Actually if we were to obey the basic 10 that God laid out at the beginning we would probably have a much more beautiful world.
First, I'm pretty sure that Washington was talking about a moneyed aristocracy, so if we're going to use that quote to apply to any minority, then I can just as easily say it applies to Creationists on school boards who would teach kids a narrow and scientifically unsupported view of natural history, or corporately-funded leaders who fetter our money away on wars and welfare, subsidizing some industries and blocking free-market competition in others. You're using this quote completely out of context to defend a point that's irrelevant to the topic Washington discusses.
Second, how does recognition of gay marriage affect your liberty? Can you seriously not see the hypocrisy in preventing two people from one certain type of contract that recognizes their relationship, while saying that they're infringing on your liberty? In a Republic, you don't have the right to vote on everything. You're not allowed to vote away another person's intrinsic rights. Democracy is often antithetical to liberty.
Well, add me to the list, Cardinal, I'm going to embarrass you by thanking you for your service as well! ;-D But did you join because you were made to recite a pledge as a child, or because of your awareness of the world outside the classroom? I just feel that true patriotism comes from what we experience in _actual_ America, not what's taught in school.
Would you ostracize homosexuals that voted in favor of California's Prop. 8 as "sexual-preference traitors'?
Or something…
You don't believe that ALL gays vote against traditional marriage laws, do you?
In regards to the special elections, you pick and choose your battles given finite resources. The two major losses in Jersey and Virginia speak volumes. The bamster actively campaigned for both. I love when libs try to preach civility and reason forgetting their own actions the prior eight years.
Prompt reply took you 45 minutes to research washington?
I've never met a gay person that was against gay marriage. Never. Whether "traditional marriage" advocates recognize it or not, their entire position is based in discomfort with homosexuality. There's no other substantive reason to be against gay marriage. No one talks about lost tax revenues when gay couples can file jointly. No one says waiting rooms will be too packed when gay people can visit each other in the hospital. The only reason to be against gay marriage is because you're uncomfortable with gay people. And people who self-identify as gay aren't usually uncomfortable with gay people. Now, I'm not saying that everyone who's against gay marriage is a rabid homophobe on par with Hitler. I have many members of my family and many friends who love me and are good people to me and yet are uncomfortable with me being homosexual. But every argument against gay marriage basically boils down to "I don't want my children knowing about gay people" or "I don't want my marriage 'watered down' by gay people" (as if divorce hasn't accomplished that) or "Marriage is an institution ordained by God for one man and one woman". There's no reason in a republic with a separation of church and state to disallow gays from marrying each other, and everyone who is against gay marriage is against gay marriage because somewhere inside them they are uncomfortable around gay people or believe in a religion that considers homosexuality a sin. We do have a separation of church and state, however, and Judeo-Christian morals are not the whole of our law.
I wouldn't ostracize anyone for any belief that isn't rooted in pure hatred, i.e. Nazism. I understand that aversion to homosexuality is deep-seated in our culture, and so I give a lot of people a lot of passes. But the law is above our simple personal preferences, and even our religious beliefs.
Thank you for that as well – I never know the best response. I of course made the decision to join when I was old enough to know better. In my case, I first got into ROTC in college, but dropped out and first enlisted when I was 22 years old. Four years later, I went back to college, got my degree and commission and went back in. But the pledge of allegiance is one of the things that you learn as a child and you continue to learn about as you go along. Words have meanings, and as you progress in life, you begin to understand them better and understand their meanings more fully. What one learns in school is not just facts and figures but how to think and how to reason. I didn't appreciate it at that time because I was too young, but as I learned more, as I progressed – in and out of school, I was able to compare what I had with what I saw that others not in this country didn't have – freedom, liberty, basic human rights, opportunities – and put a value on them. To me it was worth protecting through military service. I would say I learned much of that in school, but also learned a lot from my parents and through experience out of school as well. It's the sum of one's life experiences that make a person what they are, and school is a valuable part of it – and yes, learning the pledge of allegiance as well.
Haha, if you're that interested, I took a shower and ran out for smokes and a bottle of wine. 'Nother fun night, eh?
what is the world coming to when kid's can act like jerk's.
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Pledge of Allegiance to Dissent: An Intolerant ‘Excess of Liberty… (tags: article editorial culture patriotism liberty) [...]
I love when people assume that if you don't parrot Republican party talking points you're a dirty liberal. The left wing and right wing are both controlled by corporate interests – they're two sides of the same coin. The government expanded and expanded and expanded under G.W., but no one on the right was screaming tyranny four years ago. Clinton handed him a budget surplus for God's sake, and he still spent us into the ground! Of course Democrats are doing the same thing, but at least they're honest about it. They tell you up front that they're gonna tax and spend. The Republican leadership spends and spends, and the deficit G.W. got rolling is going to be a national security issue in the future. The world isn't as simple as left and right, and the definition of both of these positions are controlled by the moneyed interests. We'd all be a lot better off if we stopped looking at people as conservative or liberal and expected our leaders to present consistent philosophies and work within the boundaries of our Constitution.
Sir, beautifully stated. Thanks again.
>"I've never met a gay person that was against gay marriage. Never."<
Echoing Pauline Kael? In any case, they do exist… icky as that might be to you.
Respectfully, I must disagree with your assertion that folks against homosexual marriage are a lumpen mass of homophobes bent on discrimination.
Perhaps you've overlooked the simple fact that hetero-marriage and homo- "marriage" are not the same, and cannot [bio]logically be the same.
We are where we are, in reality. So, what process do you suggest the American people use to change (or not) the current legal definition of marriage?
You can project shame upon those with whom you disagree on this issue, but that isn't and hasn't been a persuasive tact.
You can do better…
I'm afraid your reference is lost on me. I don't find it icky, in fact, I'd love to hear a gay person's perspective on why marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. I just haven't. And I know a lot of gay people. And I've gotten into arguments with gays before on why I think that instead of passing gay marriage laws, we should simply pass laws that get the government out of marriage. It's not something they think about in those terms, and that's one of my problems with the way issues are presented to voters.
I'm not saying at all that hetero and homo marriage are the same, but there are many marriages that aren't the same, but are fully recognized by the state. Hindu marriages, Jewish marriages, Christian marriages, certainly Islamic marriages. Episcopalians already marry gay people, why is a heterosexual Hindu marriage protected but not a gay Episcopalian marriage? My point is that marriage is 100% a religious and social institution. No person should be coerced into recognizing or not recognizing any marriage. My intention was not to project shame on anyone, and I believe I made that quite clear. My point was simply that in every argument I've seen against gay marriage seems to be rooted in a discomfort with homosexuality. And many people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality aren't ashamed of that, as I'm sure you've seen in these comments. Neither do I believe that discomfort with homosexuality makes someone an evil homophobe, which I also made clear in my post.
The reason I make this point is not to shame anyone into being less homophobic. Frankly, from a policy standpoint, I don't care how homophobic anyone is. They have a right to their beliefs. The reason I make this point is because this discomfort with homosexuality is not a good enough reason to deprive someone of their rights. If you want to get biological about it, then a barren woman and a man are in the same position as two homosexuals. The intent of marriage in society is not simply procreation. We recognize the rights of the infertile and the aged to marry, so the biological component is moot. This is an idea whose time has come. I stand by my assertion that the only opposition on this issue comes from people who are socially or religiously uncomfortable with homosexuality, but I do not believe that social or religious discomfort makes one a gay-bashing homophobe any more than I believe social or religious discomfort should decide matters of law.
Let me comment this discussion as an outsider: Some claim that he is lucky to live in the US where you claim he actually has this choice, instead of <insert evil country here> here he would <insert harsh punishment here>.
Yet most people here seem to hate him for his choice. He doesn't behave like everyone else, so he's a <insert insult here>. You also stated that he will face the consequences for his non-comformity (at school, at home).
So he either behaves like everyone else or he becomes an behated outcast. Doesn't sound like freedom of choice to me. And isn't absolute conformity a sign of a communist country?
If teachers don't have the right to tell their students what to do, then I'd like the 20 or 30 hours that I spent in detention during my high school years back.
Freedom of choice doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of those choices. And Freedom of speech doesn't mean you shouldn't be responsible for the words you speak.
Reciting words [however holy and/or worthy] does not increase liberty, justice or anything else.
Also…compulsion? How does that differ from indoctrination? We rightly stood against compulsion in Fascism and Communism [and still do, wherever it occurs]. Most of us would stand against religious compulsion, I think. How does compulsion in patriotism differ?
I would say it's really astonishing that this verdict/precedent was ruled during World War. When any nation is trying to keep their people as nationalistic, ready for battle as possible, United States permits Americans to be against their most founding document? That is ballsy devotion to freedom of individual.
But what does it say about a society that does not tolerate diversity? "You're like us or you are out". And no, not imprisoning him at once is not a sign of tolerance.
He is free to choose to behave however he wishes. f he doesn't wish to say the Pledge, he is free to decline. We are free to dislike his behavior. We are also free to disassociate ourselves from him and others like him if we disagree with the opinions he/they are spouting.
If it's something he feels truly passionate about, facing challenges to his beliefs will only strengthen them. He will also learn a life lesson that many adults haven't learned: that there are consequences for our behavior. One consequence of taking a stand is that often, you're forced to stand alone.
That is not intolerant. To tolerate something means to put up with it, it doesn't mean to support it in every possible way. We are putting up with his behavior, because it's legal and he's free to choose for himself. He's not being hunted down or imprisoned or anything of the sort for his behavior. However, we are not supporting it, and we are not required to do so. We are also taking a stand. Are you, or this boy, required to support us? No, of course not. You can disassociate yourselves from us as much as you wish.
No, you're here to setup strawmen and knock them down.
Oh and project your own flaws upon those icky conservatives you dislike so much.
Finally, I'm smarter than a fifth grader.
Everything you said, Joey, yes yes yes. I was beginning to feel like I was alone as both a conservative and a Republican. I hardly recognize my party anymore.
I work in a school system where the kids stand up every morning before any of them are even remotely awake at 7:10am, and recite our Pledge. Out of 2000 student, I would venture to guess that if I asked each of them if they put any thought into what it was they were saying, they would most likely say no. They just stand up and say it because we require it of them every single morning.
Let me say that I love my country and have no issues with the Pledge being said in our schools, but I applaud a little kid who actually took the time to think about what the Pledge meant to him personally. Don't we want our kids to be critical thinkers? The ultimate goal for children is to grow up to be independent and positive contributors to their communities. As a country, if our predecessors didn't question things that didn't seem right or fair, then I can't imagine where we would be today.
That is why I love this country so much, because it allows for this exact scenario.
Thank you. This story calls to mind another that I read about a man who immigrated to America after WW II. As a child he saw an old man beaten up by Nazis because he had refused to salute their flag. He vowed that he would never be compelled to salute any flag, and after surviving the war he came to America to begin a new life in a land of freedom, where no one could be compelled to vow allegiance to something that they didn't believe in. Though he loved this country, he steadfastly would not salute the flag as a matter of principle. There is much more to serving your country than reciting a pledge. How many who say the pledge really mean every word? As many as recite marriage vows, only to break them later? I think this child has been led astray in his thinking, but he still has the right to not say a pledge to anything.
Sorry, but w/o a doubt that kid was coached to say that by his dad. He stated he knows "lots of gay people." Oh Really? At 10? How does he even understand the act of sex, much less homosexual sex? Give me a break! He also stated he wanted gay marriage "for the whole world" to be legal before he pledged allegiance to the Am flag. Yeah, good luck with that you little turd. Call up Iraq and see if they are skippy with that idea, wont you? He is gonna get his hiney beat regularly in middle school.
Funny how all you are supporting the words written by an avowed socialist. The Republic has been dead for over 150 years, Lincoln murdered it. I pledge allegiance to God, not the idol of a piece of cloth.
He expressed his respect of his country when he understood that in this great country he had the right to stand up and voice his opinion. The fact that a child knows or feels comfortable enough to stand up for something he believes in, says more about the freedoms we have here than anything else. You said it yourself, he is lucky he lives here because he can do what he did. So why now is everyone so enraged? He was practicing his rights, and now many are bent out of shape at the audacity of this child exercising his rights…Don't we want our kids to be critical thinkers?
There's an easy answer for any parent worrying over public (or private) school inculcation, or lack thereof. Boy Scouts.
The Boy Scouts still recite the pledge, still teach patriotism through the Scout Oath and Law, and even wear the American flag on their uniform (gasp!). In fact, in order to earn the highest rank, a boy scout must earn three "citizenship" merit badges (Citizenship in the Community, …the Nation, …the World).
I don't have any daughters in Girl Scouts, but my sister is a GS leader and she tells me that patriotism is integral in that organization, as well.
Now on to Adam's questions: yes, I believe a school can demand a teacher led the Pledge, and I look forward to the articles, lawsuits, posts about whiny teachers that that will spawn. No, i do not believe this kid knows what he's talking about, I believe his parent(s) pushed this. And yes (don't think this was asked, but one of my pet peeves), I think schools spend too much time on PC subjects and not enough time teaching the three Rs.
Take out the part that was added ex post facto in 1954 and I have no problem with it. That's the "one nation under god" part.
He has neighbors and friends of the family that are gay…so yes, at age 10 he can know "gay people." His parents didn't shelter him or teach him to hate those who are different. They chose the route of love thy neighbor instead (you know…the Bible, good moral stuff). When you meet a heterosexual couple, do you immediately think about them having sex? I would hope not. Neither does he I imagine. So he doesn't need to know about the great intimacies that exist within a couple he meets. Relationships are much bigger than just sex.
I guess I have a hard time with an adult (deep South Mother and Grandmother) who could call a child a turd, simply because he has an opinion (and that is all that it is) that differs from your own. I hope your grandchild one day when allowed to have his or her own opinion in a freedom of speech country, won't be called ugly names by a grown adult.
I started in public schools then moved to a catholic system in the 3rd grade, i was behind in every subject.
Schizoid_Mann hits a lot of the points right on the head. But really the Christian schools are the way to go, they are the best schools in my state (Nebraska).
I'm getting tired of the "Clinton had a surplus" myth. The Clinton "surplus" was a result of two things: an economic bubble (which caused an increase in tax revenue) that burst in early 2000 (the Net Bubble, anyone remember that?) BEFORE W. Bush was even elected, the economy was starting to recover from that bubble in early autumn of the next year and then another crash occurred, something about Wall Street being shut down for a week, this incident then caused increased Federal spending for some odd reason while with a rough economy which tends to lead to deficit spending…
Yes, in later years the Republicans were overspending and expanding the Federal Government's purview, and folks like the ones here were angry about it. It's one of the things that led to such massive losses in 2006 and 2008 for the Republicans.
That said, you're selectively ignoring fact, especially concerning the Governor races. Then again, since you're likely not local to the races, you don't know any more detail than what the media tells you. Virginia, as folks know, was shifting towards Democrats heavily, our last two Governors were Ds and we went heavily for Obama in the last presidential election. This was a BIG DEAL, and many Ds in VA (and around the country) were convinced that Virginia had turned blue for good, and things here were touted as ways to make inroads in other traditionally Conservative areas, etc. The fact the D lost here, and in a margin not seen in a VA Gov election in decades, is a sever blow to that false idea. I can't comment on the special elections or the NJ race because I know little of the details involved, and generally try not to comment on the details of races I know little about.
Well said.
i also agree with your assessment of the argument above, logic should be taught early, but it must not be on the test that everyone teaches too.
I like some of your arguments but you can hardly look at liberals as consistent. Their views of the 1st and 2nd amendments are perfect examples of this.
More thoughts…
Here's an example for you. A person could attend Church [say] every week and recite the creed, regular as clockwork. In some countries, it was [is] a required part of the liturgy. They could do that 52 weeks a year for 50 years. Does that on its own make them a Christian? Most Christians would say 'no'. [But if you think otherwise, chip in]. So reciting alone doesn't cut it; it's understanding, making a response and having the words become meaningful and real to you. To know God personally. To find a living relationship with God behind and beyond the words. IMO, same goes for the Pledge of Allegiance. Understanding, a movement of the heart, true education and a connection with the Soul of America.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, we've had civil unions for homosexuals in the UK for some years now. And I live in a country which still has a strong connection between the Christian church and state [at the moment....]. Them having equivalent rights to heterosexuals hasn't threatened, debased or nullified my marriage.
Though apparently in Texas the Republican Greg Abbott has done just that [GG]. Erm…oops
?
http://www.dallasvoice.com/instant-tea/2009/11/18...
Fine, I just hope someone teaches kids like this the irony of their America hating attitude, while tolerance is being heaped upon them in gigantic proportions. Second, I hope they are not too shattered when they realize, as free as they are to dissent, we are also free to completely igore and marginalize them if we choose, and yes even vocally oppose them if we choose…..freedom cuts both ways. You have a right to your oppinion, and to express same. You do not have a right to not have your expression result in severely negative effect on your life.
Hopefully he will learn these things while he is still young and stupid, before his actions can do him real harm, if he still wishes to disdain America after he knows there may be a price…….good for him, be free.
Personally, I would like to see the Pledge of Allegiance go away and instead have citizens pledge their allegiance to the Constitution. The Pledge is contrary to our founder's beliefs in that they did not form a perpetual Union. The States are only bound together as long as the contract (constitution) binding them, is followed by all parties. As it currently stands right now, we are a far cry from what the Framers gave us that any state would well be within its right to leave the Union if there is not a correction.
While people might not want to acknowledge this fact, we live under a far more tyrannical government than King George. Unfortunately, one is hard pressed to find any politician willing to stand up and try to correct where we have gone wrong.
EDSKI
I respectively call you a liberal twit!
if he does not wish to show his love of america and it's history – if he wishes to 'miss the point' of saying it because he disagrees so be it – he can wait in the hall
and that shouldn't be a problem because then he won't have to a chance to disrupt the children who's parents don't hate america it's value system and it's history…
have a wonderful day…
A "swine" and a "knave", eh? You do realize that you are speaking about a ten year old boy who just like the rest of us when we were his age will show impetuous behavior for the sake of what he perceives as defending good? Oddly enough though you are responding to this boy with similiar behavior made worse because you are supposed to be a mature adult while he is a child.
um ed THEY ARE CHILDREN CHILDREN SAY THEY DO NOT WANT TO DO ALL SORTS OF THINGS FROM TAKING A BATH TO EATING SPINACH – Obviously you're not a parent haven't taught and have no idea what you're talking about…
you swear allegience to this country when you move here and are granted citizen ship – have you ever seen a swearing in of citizens I DOUBT IT – 99% OF THOSE PEOPLE KNOW MORE ABOUT AMERICAN HISTORY than today's high school graduates…
so ummm – a CHILD CAN AND SHOULD BE GIVEN STRUCTURE AND IT'S NOT INDOCTINATION WHEN YOUR A CITIZEN OF THE COUNTRY – YOUR A TWIT
The Pledge isn't among the founding documents of our Republic. I think it speaks well of our country that even during one of our most difficult wars the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution were upheld. I personally have little problem with the Pledge, but some do who find that it violates their religious beliefs. Hence the 1943 ruling by SCOTUS. Follow the link Baldwin provided and you'll see even more than this was involved.
Well if it's true that youth is wasted on the young, maturity is overrated for adults (or at least some of them).
So IOW schools get to overrule parents only when it suits your own political agenda? I seem to recall the boy's father sitting next to him in the CNN interview. So apparently you agree with Hillary Clinton and it apparently does take a village to raise children, parents be damned.
What's the difference between the Left and the Right again?
You mean like how Republicans bring babies onto the floor of Congress and use them in a ventriloquist's act to oppose ObamaCare? I mean I'd love it if it actually worked and ObamaCare was tanked but the hypocrisy here is just glaring…
"So, good luck, young man. You'll pay a heavy price too. And in about 10 to 15 years (took me 8 years), you'll relize that you were a horse's a$$ for making such a stand. That's called growing up."
Awesome reply! The last line here is apparently something that a few posters here skipped.
Agreed 100%.
…Besides the fact that I think that he is a "real" American, instead of a "reall" one.
"The Pledge isn't among the founding documents of our Republic."
And your point? A pledge of alegiance in one way or another was quite common dating back to the Revolution, it was only far later that we actually adopted anything like a uniform code. So your point?
" I think it speaks well of our country that even during one of our most difficult wars the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution were upheld."
Same here. It just doesn't mean I have to have it go without comment. That is, after all, my right.
" I personally have little problem with the Pledge, but some do who find that it violates their religious beliefs."
And that is fine, so long as the individuals in question follow through with it. If they do not, they can simply leave. This nation is not a free camping ground, nor should it be. It took blood and sacrifice to preserve, and it will take yet more as time goes on. If those individuals or the child in question have an issue with that, I suggest emigration to the Netherlands is always an option.
Better make it quick, though, before the Islamists become the majority.
And again, just because it is within the Constitution does not mean it is patriotic or right, see the Vietnam protestors.
Hence the 1943 ruling by SCOTUS. Follow the link Baldwin provided and you'll see even more than this was involved.
You obviously completely missed the point.
This child is one of FEW to go beyond merely parroting words he has been taught to say, and, in virtue of this actual analysis of the words of the pledge, he has unearthed what he views as an inconsistency.
This kid ought to be lauded, not just for his brave support of homosexuals (in an area of the country where anti-gay sentiment runs VERY strong), but for the fact that, even at such a young age, he is asking questions and considering things analytically.
Funny you should mention the Scouts. I really do think you should read the link that Baldwin provided about the 1943 ruling:
…The resolution originally required the "commonly accepted salute to the Flag," which it defined. Objections to the salute as "being too much like Hitler's" were raised by the Parent and Teachers Association, the Boy and Girl Scouts, the Red Cross, and the Federation of Women's Clubs. Some modification appears to have been made in deference to these objections, but no concession was made to Jehovah's Witnesses. What is now required is the "stiff-arm" salute, the saluter to keep the right hand raised with palm turned up while the following is repeated: [snip]
Failure to conform is "insubordination," dealt with by expulsion. Readmission is denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile, the expelled child is "unlawfully absent," and may be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians are liable to prosecution, and, if convicted, are subject to fine not exceeding $50 and Jail term not exceeding thirty days.
"A "swine" and a "knave", eh?"
To be fair, that was because I misread the quote, where he said "No freedom and justice FOR all", and thought it said "No freedom and justice AT all." I later addressed the point, and had I noted earlier, I would probably have been less fiery in this comment, though not by much.
"You do realize that you are speaking about a ten year old boy who just like the rest of us when we were his age will show impetuous behavior for the sake of what he perceives as defending good?"
Perhaps. It is just that you do not know how I was when I was ten, and even back then I knew the value of actually DOING some bloody research and keeping things in perspective. If that boy cannot do the same, age should be no defense for him.
" Oddly enough though you are responding to this boy with similiar behavior made worse because you are supposed to be a mature adult while he is a child."
Obviously, you do not know how old I am. And I will also point out that my behavior is hardly worse, given the fact that I actually bothered to do the bloody research, and I just choose not to stand for it. When a kid does something stupid, it is hardly unconstitutional to call him out for it. That is how they learn. And the language used does not matter as long as it is valid. And I have seen nothing of the sort to indicate it was unwarranted.
If the boy cannot handle that much, he should stick to coloring books. Because the very LAST thing people such as myself needed at that age were these useless sentimentalists with all the emotion in the world and no sense in using it. If that strikes you as harsh, tough. Because I honestly believe that a harsh verdict is necessary in this case.
A Gay Man's Case Against Gay Marriage:
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2004/05/A-Gay-Mans-...
Once again:
By what democratic process do you suggest the legal definition of marriage be changed (that hasn't already been tried)?
If people were only allowed to marry others of the same gender, you wouldn't say that straight people were being discriminated against? THEY CAN GET MARRIED– JUST NOT TO THE PEOPLE THEY LOVE.
I have noticed that arguments against gay marriage are the weakest and most "grasping-at-straws" that I have heard on any issue. It's poorly, POORLY-concealed prejudice.
From Baldwin's Newdow link, Rhenquist states:
I do not believe the phrase “under God” in the Pledge converts its recital into a “religious exercise”… Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase “under God” is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: “From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God.”
Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.
… the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase “under God,” but with the phrase “with liberty and justice for all.”
But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase “under God” somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the First Amendment can respondent’s claim succeed, where one based on objections to “with liberty and justice for all” fails.
The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase “under God” cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.
In the context of patriotic exercises in public schools (incl. the Pledge), I agree with Rhenquist's citation:
H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: “From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God.”
I would ask you when that concept changed, and what changed it?
See also Justice Thomas' concurrence:
Through the Pledge policy, the State has not created or maintained any religious establishment, and neither has it granted government authority to an existing religion. The Pledge policy does not expose anyone to the legal coercion associated with an established religion. Further, no other free-exercise rights are at issue. It follows that religious liberty rights are not in question and that the Pledge policy fully comports with the Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZC2...
I find it ironic, in this case, that all school boards commence their official public meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance.
I disagree.
Rote learning of things like the times tables, state capitals, etc. is effective.
So why not with patriotic exercises such as the Pledge?
It is the supplemental learning and values inculcation following the fifteen seconds of Pledging that should reinforce the meaning of American patriotism in students.
>"So these sorts of things have to be watered-down vagaries or a lot of people will get very upset."<
The only folks whose 'upset' becomes worrisome are, in my view, classroom teachers/on site administrator/principals and their union thugs who coerce/fool districts school boards into diluting or not enforcing their patriotic exercises policy so that teachers can implement whatever they deem 'patriotic'.
I.e., “Appropriate patriotic exercises also include, but are not limited to, songs, poems, quotations and discussions related to the development of citizenship in a democracy.”
That could lead to almost anything.
A teacher could deem the song "Barack Hussein Obama, Mm… mmm… mmm" a patriotic exercise.
Or something…
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.
[...] tweet (go figure!). And one of the first things he twittered about was an article he had posted for Andrew Breitbart’s blog, Big Hollywood. It leaves little doubt about where the actor, not the character, stands on a few issues of the [...]
I admit I attended grammar school when dinosaurs still roamed the earth. I did attend Catholic school and got a stinking education.
Problem was during WWII real men opted for a military uniform, even conscientious objectors went into medical corps or Chaplin’s assistants; cowards took up the robe, but only for the duration.
They were lousy teachers and I suggest any parent check out all schools and their staff.
Some Catholic schools may have far too many children for one teacher and teachers with little aptitude for teaching.
A child’s education is far too important to be left to educators alone.
This 10 year old kid has more guts than any of the front pagers here put together.
So,let me get this straight, conservatives stand for individual rights…as long as no one is too much of an individual?
And why does Adam Baldwin care about the Pledge anyway? Could it be because he's secretly a …..
SOCIALIST!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56320,00.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo54….
Ok…I'm not sure what your point is here. As I said, I personally have no problems with the PoA nor with its use in public schools. On this the Rehnquist Court was correct that it is not unconstitutional yet one cannot be compelled to recite it per the 1943 ruling which also was proper. If you're trying to imply that I sympathize with the leanings of Newdow, you are wrong. Newdow is a pompous, self-serving windbag whose opinions on the matter were rightly dismissed as erroneous by SCOTUS.
EB, trust me when I say that you should put your kid in private school regardless of any of these kinds of social issues. He/she will receive a far superior education than anything the public schools in general can hope to do. Two words to Google: partial products. Even basic math has taken a nosedive.
Another place to learn true love of country is to live somewhere else, travel outside the USA and see how good we have it. Until you do, you can not appreciate how wonderful the US is.
"And that is fine, so long as the individuals in question follow through with it. If they do not, they can simply leave. "
Any yet you lack the competence to carry out such an intent nor, ironically, does the Constitution compel recitiation of the PoA or religious conformity in order to be a citizen of the USA. Indeed, if I had to choose between the boy's refusal to recite the PoA and your statement here I would side with him any day of the week. I don't even have to agree with the boy to be able to say that his stand is far more in keeping with the Constitution than your words above.
"Better make it quick, though, before the Islamists become the majority."
Theself-inflicted problems are the Dutch are not my business.
"And again, just because it is within the Constitution does not mean it is patriotic or right, see the Vietnam protestors."
Indeed. Yet, there is a thin line between patriotism and jingoism. Guess which side your words place you on? He is a child, what's your excuse?
But is anyone running to the Republicans because they're the party of new ideas, or are they just scared of what the Democrats are doing? The right doesn't have a clear, consistent platform to deal with the issues that are facing us, the Democrats do (it just sucks). So now we have this situation where the right wing is *incredibly* reactionary because they're letting the Democrats control the conversation. And when the right has something to say, it's not about the rampant corporate welfare (Cash4Clunkers, AIG, every bank ever), it's this absurdly xenophobic hit job material. Were you really outraged by ACORN? I wasn't. Did you really think Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslin? I hope not.
I hold my party to a higher standard than its performance since the religious right took over. It seems like as soon as the religious right took over, this party went from being the party of small government, the party of Goldwater, to the party of tin-foil hats. Our party and our country deserve a better conversation than Glenn Beck's weepy brand of connect-the-dots conspiracy theories. I could care less about races if the Republicans aren't giving us real solutions to energy independence (drill baby drill doesn't cut it), pollution, a failing monetary system, a gargantuan federal government, endless wars, corruption, and the continued disregard for our Constitution. If they don't have anything to say about these issues, if they can't think past the next election cycle, I say to hell with the party and hope that a consistent political ideology that recognizes the danger of a centralized national government rises from its ashes.
I'm not local to the races I mentioned, so you're very correct in your assessment that I'm dependent on the national media for information regarding NJ and VA. Here in Texas, though, we have Rick Perry running his mouth like he's Patrick Henry because Texans resoundingly disapproved of his NAFTA superhighway that would've confiscated hundreds of thousands of acres of private land and wiped out entire Texas towns. And opposing him we have Kay Bailout Hutchinson, who's so far up the ends of the corporate political machine that she can taste the filet mignon. We deserve leaders who don't have to resort to fear-mongering to oppose the Democrats because they offer better solutions than the Democrats. And the clowns in the Republican leadership don't.
You do realize your analogy is based on a fantasy. Yes there were a lot of bad Jim Crow laws in 1955 however not being able to marry a black woman was not one of them. As to marraige, the reason for marraige is to promote the idea that children are raised by their biological mothers and fathers. The institution of marraige most likely predates the rise of our species 90,000 years ago (homo sapiens sapeins) and was practiced by Homo Erectus and Neaderthals who did not show an intellectual capacity to understand sophisticated concepts of goernment or religion.
Two people of the same sex cannot get married by definition of what marraige is and what an arbitrary governemnt states is not relevant. Marraige is about identifying their father and mother to a child. To try to argue otherswise is nonsence. Try to explain to me what the legal rights will be to a child born to a gay partner as compared to the biological father. I do not think it is even possible to decipher the best approach for a court in this scenario.
I think the problem here is that the conversation is so tightly controlled that when you criticize one wing, everyone assumes you're in the pocket of the other. I certainly don't find liberals consistent, at all. The Democratic party is so far gone it can't be saved. Their values have become antithetical to our founding principles. The Republican party has certainly lost its way, but I think something can be salvaged from it, especially if the true small-government faction can redirect the conversation from these petty Fox News issues like ACORN and birth certificates and back to a solution-oriented approach towards governance. You're very right in your assessment that liberals practically ignore the first and second amendments, but we had conservative leaders defending torture! Cruel and unusual punishment! That's what this conversation has come to. And it's eroding the moral authority that made this country a force for good in the world.
We need something better than this conservative/liberal tribal warfare. It's a distraction that allows moneyed interests to control our conversation and ultimately our government. The labels don't even say anything about an underlying belief system. My conservative friends call me a liberal and my liberal friends call me a fascist. We can do better if we get away from these labels and recognize the diversity of opinions and solutions in this country. The Democratic/Republican duopoly only increases the size of government, it never decreases it, and when the Republican party is in control, Republicans magically seem to forget that they're the party of smaller government.
Times have changed! When we emigrated to Boston when I was a little girl, my teacher was flabbergasted that I didn't know the Pledge despite my extremely thick English accent (go fig). I learned it very quickly, though, & it soon became a fond ritual. Later, like a lot of teenage immigrants, I went through a phase where I didn't think it applied to me, & I stood respectfully, but didn't recite it. I was not eligible to be a citizen at the time, so it didn't make sense to me to say it. I grew out of that phase, too.
I hope that kid's comprehension of the Pledge grows, too, or he's going to have a hard time in law school. "For which it STANDS" does not mean "for which it IS". America is a country that continuously evolves. At the time the Pledge was written, not everybody could vote. Was it any less valid then? America STANDS for liberty & justice for all, more than many other countries can claim, and it moves ever forward (we hope) toward actual liberty & actual justice for all (who were not convicted of a felony).
Also, "racism & sexism in the world" are hardly America's fault. Stating that this is somehow applicable to the Pledge of Allegiance to the US flag is part of what other countries see as wrong with America…World Police. So let that one go, son. Narrow your scope, or you will face more emphatic objections in court than you did here.
As to your final question, when I was in school, there was a citizenship grade that contributed to ones overall GPA. Therefore, if you were a snot nosed little brat who mouthed off to teachers & disrespected other students, your citizenship grade, indeed your whole grade, went down. Inculcating kids with patriotic rituals certainly can't hurt, and giving the option for non-citizens to respectfully observe seems fair. But creating a free for all where every yahoo gets to come up with a version of patriotism can only lead to dodgy, irritating things like folk songs & hippie hootenannies & kids starting discussions with "but no, 'cos what if I'm all like…" ACK.
I am patriotic and like to support my country and I think it is OK to sing God Bless America, say the Pledge of Allegiance, hold my hand over my heart and be silent at the baseball game when they sing the Star Spangled Banner usually by someone the butchers it but not intentionally.
For what ever reason you (i use the proverbial you here) do not like these things and don't want to but instead of just being quiet and not saying anything you have to make a big show of your unwillingness in what appears to be a veiled attempt to ridicule those who do.
So if I say anyhting against your "show" mocking what I beleive then all of a sudden I am the one intruding on your rights and should now have to remain quiet. Seem like a double standard, you'll forgive me for sitting that "dance" out.
Actually, anti-miscegenation laws were on the books in most US states until 1948, when California repealed its anti-miscegenation law and several other (non-Southern) states followed suit. The laws were only finally struck down by Loving v. Virginia in 1967, and 16 states had to repeal their anti-miscegenation laws. These were enforced, by the way, and I recommend you read up on them, because they're an important part of our history. Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 is especially interesting since it was written by admitted eugenicists and enforced through a complex dataset of public records.
http://www.facinghistorycampus.org/campus/rm.nsf/...
I realize that the current definition of marriage between a man and a woman, and I see no problem in changing that. You fail to address my question that if marriage is an institution wholly for procreation, what about the aged and infertile? Do they deserve to get married, if there's no chance they'll ever have children? Just because human beings have behaved a certain way for tens of thousands of years doesn't mean that we can't change the way we behave. Before the Enlightenment, men bought their wives and owned them like property (and this still happens today), does that mean it's a valid behavior? Should we retain this definition of marriage just because it's what we've done before? Tell that to your wife.
Your final point is interesting, and so I'll pose an alternate scenario. Say two lesbians adopt a child. Both bond with the child, both consider the child their child, and the child bonds with both of the mothers. But the lesbians' relationship heads south (as many relationships do) and they decide to split up. Now, only one of the couple actually adopted the child since there is no legal recognition of their relationship, and she decides that the other mother has no right to see the child whatsoever. Is that right? Their legal rights would've been the same if there had been legal recognition of their relationship, but because only the adoptive parent has legal rights to the child, she can bar the other parent from seeing the child. The reason we have courts IS to figure these things out, and a court would be able to decide which parent is more fit for custody, as they would do in any heterosexual couple's case. But instead, the non-adoptive parent would be outright barred from seeing her own kid, who probably loves and misses her. That's an injustice.
Relegate marriage to a social institution and remove government privileges associated with marriage. It's not a popular position, probably wouldn't win any elections, but it is a consistent, small government solution.
If he has a problem with liberty and justice for all, he should be addressing countries where liberty and justice for all does not exist. Our freedoms and liberties in this country make it possible for this whiny twit to grandstand like this. Twit needs to see real oppression so he can be grateful for what he has in this country.
Well you are right about those laws a surprise to me because I am sure there were mixed race marraiages before 1967. The literature on the Web states there were 67,000 in 1970 in the US (it was wiki) so either it was wrong or their were 67,000 mixed race marraiges from 67 – 70.
I do favor civil unions for same sex couples with rights defined in advance. This is still not a Marriage which implies that there are reproductive rights. A husband has rights to a child born to his wife even if it is not his biologically. With a same sex couple, the biological father has rights and responsibilities. These distinctions must be defined and they have to be handled differently based on the sex of the couples. Furthermore why would a civil union among two gay people stop one of them from being married in the case of a child being conceived? The distinction is made to protect the child not the parents. There is a difference between a gay relationship and one that ends up producing children. If you define the two relationships as different you can justify laws bent to those situations. If you do not then legally one cannot make a distinction even if you define said distinction as "fair".
Here's a question for you in your scenario is an adopted child treated differently from one whose mother was one of the women.
There were, but like a lot of issues with race, the laws were enforced sporadically and varied state-to-state and likely town-to-town. It's not the case that there were no mixed-race marriages before 1967…Ohio repealed its anti-miscegenation laws in the late 1800's, but many states rewrote or passed new anti-miscegenation laws as the eugenics movement gained steam in the early 1900's. Loving v. Virginia overturned anti-miscegenation laws in only sixteen states: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming repealed theirs in the 40's and 50's (http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap07.html). In twenty states there were mixed-race couples who were legally married, and it's very likely that in the other thirty, some counties would enforce the laws and some wouldn't. That's not even taking into account the issue of how these governments decided who was what race and why, which is very messy and lacks science.
You raise an interesting argument, but I believe your premise fails on several accounts. First, what you are proposing is that law should apply to people differently based on their gender, which I do not find a particularly conservative argument nowadays. If we can treat people differently because they're of a different gender, or if we can treat situations differently because of the genders of two people, then we're opening the door to hate crimes legislation and government-enforced affirmative action. The law should behave the same way for all people, regardless of their sex or gender. I would argue that if "a husband has rights to a child born to his wife even if it is not his biologically" then so too would a lesbian mother have rights to a child born to her wife even if it is not hers biologically. If the couple splits, then just like with a heterosexual couple, the court should decide who will get custody. The biological mother doesn't always get custody because she's not always fit to be the parent, and the children of gay and lesbian parents deserve the same scrutiny towards the fitness of the parents, regardless of who carries the child or whose name is on the adoption papers.
Second, I believe what you're proposing is yet another "separate but equal" solution to what is basically a social issue, and I do not say this to conflate your argument with racism (because I understand there is a distinction between the hateful Jim Crow culture of the previous century and modern opposition to gay rights), but to point out that it is born of the same flawed logic that assumes law should treat one identity group differently than another identity group. To your question, whether or not an adopted child would be treated differently from one whose mother was one of the women, I would ask why it matters if the parents are gay or straight? When it comes before a judge, the question is exactly the same for every judge: Who is going to be the more fit parent? The mother? The father? In fact, I would argue that the kid's interests are better served when the court doesn't have to automatically assume that the birth mother is the more fit parent. If justice is blind to race, sex, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, then I don't see why we should codify treating one race, sex, gender, religion, or sexual orientation different from another, whether it's to their perceived benefit or actual detriment.
There is a huge difference between a teacher telling a student to behave and do their home work, and telling them to pledge allegiance to something.
The Pledge of Allegiance means nothing if it's not voluntary. If some one is forced to say it, it's becomes nothing more than saluting Fidel Castro.
Do it or else.
I respectfully disagree with your labeling me a liberal twit, unless you're referring to the classical liberal ideology. In which case I respectfully disagree with only the twit part.
But I do agree, I see no infringement on their rights to spend the time out in the hall while the rest of the class recites the Pledge.
Obviously you have no idea who I am and what I believe, but are more than willing to make pass judgments with benefit of knowledge, which in my opinion puts you squarely on the left.
I have been a parent for over 16 years, I have two God children, I've been an uncle for nearly a quarter century, and have just officially become an great uncle for the first time – though I've always been a great uncle.
I've been dealing exactly with these types of issues for years. Do I send her to a public school where she and I are forced to deal with the state with little choices, or do I send her to parochial school and we deal with their rules? What can they compel her to do and what's an infringement on her civil rights? Most of the discussions usually fall under the category of dress code violations.
As a parent I understand what my responsibilities are, and I refuse to surrender them to the school, the Church or the state. I will take care of those, and I will not accept any interference from any organization.
Let's play a little game I like to call 'what if?'
What if, over the next few decades, immigration into America turns into a flood, and the vast majority of them are Muslims. And thanks to democracy, they gain majorities in local, state, and federal government. (Please note, this is not in any way an insult to Muslims, I've chosen them for the example purely because their traditions and beliefs are different from Christianity.)
What happens if they vote to replace the Pledge of Allegiance with a Pledge to Islam?
Would you still have the same opinion>
My opinion is its just plain wrong to compel some one to do something against their will, provided they are not breaking any law.
Demanding they pledge allegiance to a concept they most likely don't understand, and for that reason, may not agree with only compounds the infraction.
How is forcing some one to pledge allegiance to something any different for forcing people to salute Mao?
For the act to mean anything, it has to be voluntary.
Very true…who knew that among our many great accomplishments as a nation, the softness of our toilet paper was also supreme??
My opinion is its just plain wrong to compel some one to do something against their will, provided they are not breaking any law.
Bet your kids love eating candy bars & donuts non-stop and NEVER brushing their teeth. Or, going to school, learning their multiplication tables, reading about the founding documents, learning the state capitols, going to bed at an appropriate time, learning to do without the television….
So essentially what you are saying is that Big Government is just peachy-keen as long as it is in your favor? And tell us again how this paternalistic attitude about government is any different than that found on the Left?
Could not agree more Ed, trying to prohibit flag burnings or force people to say the pledge is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Trying to force or influence people into doing the Pledge, and forbidding flag burnings is a violation of the 1st amendment and should not be tolerated under any circumstances by people who claim to love the constitution.
Kids have limited understanding.
That's what makes them kids.
This kid undoubtedly did not come up with this on his own. He's hearing it at home.
So what is *sad* here is the adults, and there are a lot of them including a whole lot of adults who think patriotism is fabulous, don't understand that when we *inculcate* patriotism or any other belief system in our children we're establishing a pattern that the child uses to measure the world.
"Liberty and Justice for all" isn't true… it's an ideal.
IDEALS are important.
The ideal that we hold is what brings the child later, as an adult, to the understanding that a lack of liberty or a lack of *justice* for someone for some reason is wrong.
The same is true of the equality and principles of liberty in our Constitution. Those things weren't *true* of the US since slavery existed, but they are what allowed us to understand that what we believed was right and important wasn't in line with slavery and allowed our nation to end the practice.
EdSki, I have no problem with someone refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
I do, however, have a problem with someone refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance while attending a state-funded school. As someone who pays for that child's education, I have no desire to pay to educate those who do not pledge allegiance to this country.
Homeschooling is an option, especially when the kids are so young. Watching them make the connection between letters and sounds and working out reading is as much fun as watching them take their first steps. It isn't hard, but you have to be committed.
You're welcome!
Reciting times tables will teach you that 6 times 8 is 48, but it won't teach you why. I love and am loyal to America not because I had to recite a verse about liberty and justice, but because I understand the liberties that my country celebrates and the justice that it uses to protect those liberties. That took actual learning.
Also, I'm a teacher and I have not yet received my union thug. I must be doing something wrong.
The marriage issue has been voted on several different times, and so far, the people have voted against it. Isn't this the point of a republic/democracy, that the people have a right to vote on issues? One problem I have with same sex marriage not being legal is benefits if a partner is severely injured. Right now, hetero couples must be married to get these benefits, while same sex don't.
On the patriotic issue (which is what this article is really about) I feel that the pledge doesn't mean much to American youths anymore. They spew out the words, not really paying attention to what they're saying, and probably don't know what half of it means. I've even seen kids put the wrong hand on their heart. I suppose you could say the same for the national anthem. They both should, in my opinion, give a feeling of pride, like,"Yeah, this is my country. We took on the British, and won darn it!"
However, I must argue that it is not required. You don't have to say it, but it is respectful to stand up.
So true.
Things kids learn in school:
All Germans and Russians are evil, just because of the WW I, WW II, and the cold war.
Only blacks and hebrews were ever slaves.
The Greeks and Romans were dumb because they used the gods to explain things.
The Mona Lisa was the greatest piece of art ever created by man kind.
"LOL, fyi, the Bible isn't one of our founding documents."
The words OT, NT, Bible, God, Christian, etc., however, are referred to by name in nearly all our original founding state constitutions back then.. The word Trinity is mentioned by name as God both America and England worshipped when both signed the treaty of Paris in 1783. And Jefferson and other founders wrote laws that punished sexual sins be it polygamy or homosexuality.
The Bible did not allow Jews to marry those specifically who might lead them to idolatry. It had nothing to do with race. When Moses married a non-Jew, and was scorned for it be his siblings, God took Moses' side and punishied his siblings.
"It's pretty clear in Leviticus (you know, the don't be gay don't eat shellfish chapter) that a marriage after a divorce is a state of perpetual infidelity. If you're using the Bible to justify policy, then for Darwin's sake, be consistent about it! But luckily in this country, your bronze-age mythology has nothing to do with my contract rights. So, I'll ask, if you're campaigning against gay marriage, will you also campaign against heterosexual divorce?"
Because Christians live by the NT rules now. Not the OT. The NT supercedes the OT in Christian doctrine.
"You wanna know something? Jesus never said anything about gay marriage or homosexual relationships at all. It's all in the Old Testament. The one with all the rules people ignore because Jesus said that they no longer mattered, that the only thing that mattered was loving each other.
So using the Bible as a reason for why same sex marriage shouldn't happen doesn't work with Christianity."
Jesus also never said anything about kidnapping, polygamy, incest, etc., of which are condemned in the OT. So you really want to claim His non-statement about an issue means he supported a person's right to do it with God? Bogus argument by you.
And you are just downright wrong to say Jesus did not say anything about marriage is not for people of same sex to get together with.
While He might not directly addressed the issue of gay marriage, what He said was relevent in the the synoptic gospels- He said marriage is between man and woman, and it was God's design from creation.
So to say Christ did not speak to this issue of what marriage is is a lie.
Yup. Your mileage may vary.
I'm just saying that if you compare public secular schools today with catholic schools today, chances are the catholic school will come out way ahead in terms of quality of ed, lack of indoctrination – I know that sounds odd, considering it's a religious based school and christians are pretty much all pigeonholed into the evangelical, fundamental 'christian right', and there are those out there like that, but, catholic schools are very different animals, indeed. Anyway, that's the facts as I've learned them.
Once again, your mileage may vary.
If you are talking about WWII, a time when most men volunteered for service, education was not a liberal bastion of mind control experimentation funded by taxpayer dollars, and Hollywood was a responsible institution that knew its influence on the public, you are definitely talking about a different era, an era when public schools were by far, outstanding and actually taught subjects, compared with today.
I think it would be a worthwhile project to create a website which listed schools and described their 'leanings', highlighting the good schools and promoting them. Also, the bad ones would get some much needed publicity to hopefully clean up their acts, since many parents don't have a clue what johnny is learning or unlearning. We can see from CNN, since they provided the studios, that kids are being taught how to be Obama youth, singing the praises of our leader. Never thought I'd live to see that, but there it is.
That's right. Too young for this kind of world judgement to be his own thinking. He's been manipulated in what to think, not how to think. Big diff.
The Japanese have become world innovators in technology, robotics, computing, art, design, literature, music, science, mathematics, and, of course, the martial arts, by doing exactly what you say doesn't work: repetition and practice.
Mastery and understanding of any skill is only accomplished through practice. There are no shortcuts.
Sure, kids repeating the pledge isn't going to make them experts on the concept of freedom, but it's a good beginning that should at least begin. And that's kind of the point. They at least get this, to follow or not, to believe in or not, but they get exposed to it early. Aren't we always told by the Left that 'exposure' to important concepts, like gay marriage, like sex education, is so very, very important. Aren't we also told that 'bringing attention to (insert the cause)' is vital for the public to understand the issue?
Well, I happen to think the ideas behind democracy and furthering it, and nurturing it, are exactly the cause that needs attention brought to it, precisely the issue that needs exposure, particularly to the eyes of our children who take it for granted almost as much as the Left.
By removing these early instances of exposure, when exposure means everything, you send the message that it's not worth learning, that the country has no use for such a foundation, no strength in these ideas, no unity, no history. That America is only a bunch of celebrity and gossip sound bytes, TV shows and cool music strung together in one long post uploaded onto Facebook, Myspace or YouTube; (wait a minute, that's exactly what it's become!
and archaic documents are irrelevant to our present day existence. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is precisely those archaic documents which are needed in precisely times like our present day.
To those who say, a socialist wrote it, so what? I don't care if a Martian wrote it. It doesn't matter one iota who wrote it. The meaning is what's important, not the byline. Good grief, does it always have to be personal? I don't care if Michael Jackson's great, great grandfather wrote it. The words are what is important here; the meaning. I've read some of the most moving, most profound words of praise of Americans written by Japanese in Japanese. Does that mean it doesn't count? I'd say it counts more! I'm sure a lot of people have American flags that were made in China, the Philippines, or Korea. Again, so what? Domestic job issues aside, does the origin of the factory make it cease to be an American flag? Of course not. If so, then folks, you better get out all your gadgets and toys and start throwing them into a big trash heap.
The bottom line is, the kid was coached, manipulated and wheeled out to the press. Fine, whatever. Sick parents.
I say, take 'under god' out of the pledge and make it mandatory, no choice, that's right, no choice. Say it, or get suspended. Keep not saying it, and there's the door. Expulsion. A rule, a school rule, keep breaking it, like smoking in the boys room (cue music), or getting in your seat when class starts, or not dealing drugs in the hallway, or not sleeping with the teachers, or not shooting your fellow classmates with automatic weapons, and all the other charming habits our disgruntled youth seem to be up to these days. If they're gonna be riotous, gonna be disruptive, gonna be allowed to pass and graduate without even being taught how to read or do a simple quadratic equation, then at least require of them the friggin' 15 seconds to say the pledge. Then at least we'll get something back from our tax dollars into education. 'cuz as it stands now, we have all the problems and none of the benefits and no pledge, and these kids are not going to know how to pump gas, let alone run the country when it's their time to do so. You never know, the pledge might be the only thing that actually penetrates and inspires one of them to run for office someday. Stranger things have happened.
There ya go. It's so very true. I don't have kids (yet) but I teach about 500 a week. All girls. You better believe you need to make them do something until it becomes a habit.
And the old saying, good habits are harder to learn than bad ones is also very true.
Your last point reminds me of Chuck Heston's story on how his wonderful marriage stayed strong all those years.
Four words, was his reply. Four simple words he learned that kept it all together. Do you remember what they were?
You're wrong about one thing: There was plenty of criticism of G.W. Bush. Rush Limbaugh criticized his administration extensively. Plenty of others offered up scathing indictments of his astounding lack of Conservativism.
Let's change the part of the Pledge that refers to "under God," right on through to the end.
The new wording I would like to see: "…one nation, under Jesus our Savior, who was murdered by Jews and disrespected by Muslims, with liberty and justice for all those of us who see it the same way."
On the other hand, we got by without the words "under God" for the first 62 years the Pledge existed. Oddly enough, God didn't even punish us for leaving Him out. Neither did he punish us for the fact that, not only did the Pledge leave Him out, but the Pledge was written by a Socialist, who wanted more than anything for the government to own the means of production. (Pledge written in 1892 by a Socialist; the words "under God" added in 1954)
I enjoyed reading your comment.
The problem is, most people think the term "Free Speech" refers only to popular speech, the kind of speech with which most everyone agrees. Nothing could be further from the truth. Popular speech needs no protection; only unpopular speech is likely to be unfairly punished.
The kid was well within his rights, as were you. Wrong or right isn't the issue here.
I'd say you're missing the point.
Firstly, it's not about whether his views are correct. It's about his right to refuse to say the words.
Secondly, how lucky is it to live in a country where people you don't even know rail against you for an act of asserting your Free Speech rights?
Many here assert hs has no right to do what he's doing.
That is a far cry from saying, "Ok, do it if you want, but you'll have to face consequences."
Do you object to kids becoming Christians simply because that's what they learned at home?
No? I thought not.
Do you also object that many kids become Christians because they learned it at home?
And learned it with no real understanding, just parroting what they've been told?
No? I thought not.
I agree, well said. School isn't the place to instill love of country, love of God or any religious or political principles. There is plenty to learn, plenty enough to fill the little tyke's days without pledging allegiance to the U.S. government.
Our government sucks, as do all governments. Certainly, most of, if not all the other governments in the world suck worse. Still, we need to judge ourselves by our own potential (where we seem to be perpetually found wanting), not compare ourselves to some lame-assed banana republic.
Tack.
Fritter.
OMG.
(lol)
Let's change the part of the Pledge that refers to "under God," right on through to the end.
The new wording I would like to see: "…one nation, under Jesus our Savior, who was murdered by Jews and disrespected by Muslims, with liberty and justice for all those of us who see it the same way."
On the other hand, we got by without the words "under God" for the first 62 years the Pledge existed. Oddly enough, God didn't even punish us for leaving Him out. Neither did He punish us for the fact that the Pledge was written by a Socialist, who wanted more than anything for the government to own the means of production.
(Pledge written in 1892 by a Socialist; the words "under God" added in 1954)
And if he were sticking up for Christianity in school, because that's what he'd been taught at home, you would still deplore his actions?
No? I thought not.
As a person who doesn't pretend to know everything absolutely I try to take advangage of thoughtful blogs like this one to expand my frame of reference, so that I can draw my own conclusions. Mr. Baldwin, your words seem well thought out, informed, and passionate. I have one thought to share today, and it isn't specifically related to this post. It's a pattern I see in your comments, the 8 or so I have read this evening. This pattern is one of absolutes. Anyone who makes an argument in absolutes automatically makes me cautious. We are talking about politics, about social issues, about raising our children and the differences between cultures. Rarely can solutions be found in absolutes when we're discussing these topics. I have a great deal of respect for the passion that leads to these blogs. If your purpose is to simply state your position and move on, perhaps giving others something to consider at the stame time, your blog meets those goals in my opinion. I think it is an excellent starting point for contemplation, contemplation that need to be rounded out by listening to others' thoughts on the same topics. Thank you for putting yourself out there.
Brother Animal Mother….this will give you goosebumps…old WB cartoon about "Old Glory".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utkBu-mqi-c
Well…if you the patience to wait for a reply you might actually get one. If you want to answer your own questions, like you just did, that's fine too.
Which is it?
Good stuff there, JanyeLinderman. Thanks for the Lew Rockwell link. I hadn't visited it in some time, had, in fact, forgotten about it until you posted it. Another point about Lincoln, told to me by a historian, was that he was very taken with mysticism. I'd like to learn more about that.
Well, ummm, perhaps I was a bit tasty, I mean hasty.
All right, I'm controlling myself, getting patient, no, really, I am.
OK, good, now I'm patient. I await your answer and offer up my sincerest apologies for answering prematurely on your behalf. Would you still deplore his actions, had he stuck up for Christianity in school, because he'd been taught that sort of thing at home?
Apparently you fail to understand the difference between me compelling my child to obey my rules and me approving of a school compelling my child to act in a manner prescribed by the state.
How about if I work to get a law passed that says you have to wear clean underwear, and to make sure you comply you have to wear them on the outside so the police can check?
That would be a law, and you sound like you're all for following laws. So I guess you'd be fine with that, right?
My child doesn't attend a public school for this exact reason, I won't tolerate some mid-level, unknown bureaucrat in Albany, blindly decreeing she is a tool of the teacher's unions.
She attends a parochial school, where she is compelled to attend Mass on occasion. And it's my decision she attends there, so I give my approval for this.
This is me as a parent consenting, not a prisoner in the public system forced to accept what ever the government deems appropriate.
Perhaps it might be wise to take a moment and remember just what the Pledge of Allegiance actually says.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, under God, with liberty and justice for all.
I – Me, myself, who I am, what I believe in, and what I want to accomplish, me.
Pledge – Not just promise, not try to do, not think about squeezing it in, I pledge.
Allegiance – I'm pledging to a statement, or a code.
To – I'm pledging allegiance to something.
"The flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible…"
With liberty – which means people have freedom to make their own decisions, and live their own lives
And justice – not only will I not force people to live according to my rules, we will use justice to make sure that doesn't happen
For all – and that means every one, whether I agree with them or not. Including those that don't want to say the Pledge.
The very Pledge itself says you not only won't force people to say it, but you will defend their right not to.
When I say a pledge, II take the words I say seriously. It's not just some words kids are supposed to rattle off on queue. It's a statement of beliefs. And if you don't believe it, don't say it.
What a beautiful, moving film clip. We have forgotten so much since Red strode the stage.
By the time I was in fifth grade, I could think pretty well for myself. I didn't need mindless indoctrination by rote repetition of some abstract pledge that no teacher ever bothers to explain or to discuss with critical thinking. You may disagree with this kid, but at least he's smart enough to recognize that no daily recitation will wish away real injustice and inequality in our society. Wouldn't it be the patriotic thing to demand greater social justice? Wouldn't that do more for our country than blind obedience?
"Kids have simplistic minds and live in a fantasy world based more on what they want it to be, rather than what it is." Sounds like Sarah Palin to me.
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2009/11/video—la...
All democrats should watch this. There was no terror attach at the Texas base. All Muslims are peaceful.
How long are you going to buy this bull—- ?
Hopefully the Dems understand the sarcasm.
Go, Adam! You're the best!
Pledging allegiance to a flag is different from pledging allegiance to a country.
Do you really expect children of all ages – K-12 to fully understand the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance? Reciting words does not automatically equal truly pledging yourself and your allegiance to a country.
Luckily for us who chose not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the Supreme Court rule that we as students do have the right to refuse to say it.
"The bottom line is, the kid was coached, manipulated and wheeled out to the press. Fine, whatever. Sick parents."
A child makes a decision that words in a pledge he's saying 5 times a week are words that he doesn't believe in and so he decides to stand up (or in this case not stand up) for his beliefs and exercise his right *not* to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and you easily dismiss it as the kid being coached?
As someone who decided not to recite the pledge when I was in 4th or 5th grade, I kind of resent your assessment. Luckily, I had teachers who understood my rights and never tried to coerce me into saying the pledge. But if someone had tried to force me? I would have stood by my right to refuse and my parents would have supported me.
I have only seen part of one of the interviews that the kid did, with his father sitting silently next to him, but having watched his father during his interview, I feel very confident when I say that the father never forced or convinced his child not to say the pledge. He was just there to make sure his kid was protected and the interview supervised.
I feel like you are implying that children can not make a decision like he did on their own and you make this statement – three short sentences long – without anything to back it up and in the same breath push it aside.
Having and exercising the right to refuse to say the pledge isn't the same thing as getting rid of it altogether. I believe the Pledge of Allegiance is important and should be part of school life, but I still believe that students should have a choice in whether they recite it or not. I am most emphatically against making the pledge mandatory – with or without "under god".
And just for reference, I am a 25 year old graduate student getting her M.A. in International Affairs with a concentration in U.S. Foreign Policy with the intent to work as Foreign Service Officer in the State Department. I can pump gas as well.
I can also assure you that even though I do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance, I am still a very patriotic person.
Two points.
1) Just because someone chooses not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, does not mean that they do not believe or "tie their allegiance" to their nation. I will admit to not having seen much of this kid and his interviews, but I have not seen him state anything about not believing in our country or not being faithful to it. Simply put, there are words in the Pledge of Allegiance that he does not believe in, so he has chosen to exercise his right not to recite it.
I personally have exercised this right since I was in 4th or 5th grade, but it never had anything to do with my allegiance to the country. My allegiance has always been with the U.S.
2) Things like Prop 8 and parts in state constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a woman have nothing to do with religion. They have to do with legal benefits that are associated with a marriage license. Having a religious marriage and having a marriage license from the government are two separate things. Many heterosexual couples have one without the other. So homosexuals are being denied "full" equality (as you put it), not by religious groups, but by the government. When you go to City Hall, you don't have to have a religious leader marry you in order to get a marriage license. You have to comply with the eligibility requirements, have both people present and agree to it, and pay money. That's it. No religious decisions involved. The government doesn't care.
The only part where religion is involved is the part where religious people take exception to the idea of homosexuals gaining the right to say they are married because they have a legal document which is called a marriage license. If this non-religious document was called something else, I sincerely believe there would not be as strong an objection to homosexual couples gaining the right to have one.
And before we someone else mentions, a civil union does not grant the same rights and benefits (or responsibilities) as a marriage license does. There are differences. It is not equal (though it is separate.)
He was trying not be heard, but his substitute teacher took exception to it.
· 6 hours ago
"The bottom line is, the kid was coached, manipulated and wheeled out to the press. Fine, whatever. Sick parents."
A child makes a decision that words in a pledge he's saying 5 times a week are words that he doesn't believe in and so he decides to stand up (or in this case not stand up) for his beliefs and exercise his right *not* to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and you easily dismiss it as the kid being coached?
Yes, I do.
As someone who decided not to recite the pledge when I was in 4th or 5th grade, I kind of resent your assessment. Luckily, I had teachers who understood my rights and never tried to coerce me into saying the pledge. But if someone had tried to force me? I would have stood by my right to refuse and my parents would have supported me.
Swonderful.
I have only seen part of one of the interviews that the kid did, with his father sitting silently next to him, but having watched his father during his interview, I feel very confident when I say that the father never forced or convinced his child not to say the pledge. He was just there to make sure his kid was protected and the interview supervised.
So you are assuming as well, then? I don't see how your observations, simply by watching part or all or every interview on the subject qualifies you to be 100% certain. You are not. So you are guessing. Well, so am I. There, we both guess.
I feel like you are implying that children can not make a decision like he did on their own and you make this statement – three short sentences long – without anything to back it up and in the same breath push it aside.
My intellect is my backup, my reasoning my quantifier and my judgement my decision. If you have difficulty with it, or you require me to cite some longwinded, longer than three sentences, that is, explanation in a monograph, you're in for a long wait. I'd suggest having something to eat.
Having and exercising the right to refuse to say the pledge isn't the same thing as getting rid of it altogether. I believe the Pledge of Allegiance is important and should be part of school life, but I still believe that students should have a choice in whether they recite it or not. I am most emphatically against making the pledge mandatory – with or without "under god".
how do you feel about math, chemistry, reading, writing? Do you think if we gave the option to not take it (wait, we already do), opt out students wouldn't flock to that choice? I would have. Thank goodness I had teachers who made me do my work when I was too young to understand its importance. And my parents would have supported the teachers, they did!
"Schizzy, do you sums!You'll thank us later." I did and I do, every day of my life.
And just for reference, I am a 25 year old graduate student getting her M.A. in International Affairs with a concentration in U.S. Foreign Policy with the intent to work as Foreign Service Officer in the State Department. I can pump gas as well.
Well, let's hope you broaden your understanding of what a pledge is when you are posted overseas. If you assigned a Japan spot, you may be working under me. We'll look forward to your introduction to the Hino Maru and what that means to Japanese.
I can also assure you that even though I do not recite the Pledge of Allegiance, I am still a very patriotic person.
Well, I hope so. I'm curious, did you mention you do not salute the flag or stand for the Pledge in your application as an FSO? I have my suspicions you did not, but I won't answer for you, I'll await your reply.
PS: what took so long to reply? I sincerely hope it did not take that long to compose your answer, if so, well, I'll paraphrase Orson Welles' in Citizen Kane: "C'mon kid, I asked them a lot faster than that when I was a young reporter"
Sorry for the double post, I was having issues replying.
“So you are assuming as well, then?”
Yes, I am, and I don’t have a problem saying that. I suppose my real problem with your statement is that, to me, it reads like it is fact – that it’s been proven that this kid was coached in his actions. I am also tired of all the people who seem to be automatically dismissing his actions because he’s a 10 year old kid.
“How do you feel about math, chemistry, reading, writing?”
We seem to perceive the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom differently. You seem to view it primarily (at least in terms of this discussion) as a tool to teach patriotism to students – another subject to be learned in the classroom and so should be a mandatory requirement.
I think that the pledge should be done in class and I think participation should be greatly encouraged. I also think that it should be entirely voluntary. And I think that is part of the lesson of the Pledge of Allegiance. That in our country we have rights and one of those rights is the right of a student to refrain from reciting the pledge. It is part of the freedoms granted to us as someone who lives in the U.S. Students start saying the pledge in kindergarten (at least when I was in school), so they’ll have been reciting it for at least a few years before they even realize that they have the option not to recite it. Even when they know, they still have the teacher expecting them to say it and the rest of the class around them reciting it. The students who choose to refrain from saying the pledge are usually few and far between.
Even with the option of refraining to recite the pledge being available, I was almost always the only one in my classroom who did not recite the pledge. Even with the knowledge that they could “opt out”, students still chose to say it. There was no mass exodus from the students.
“Well, let's hope you broaden your understanding of what a pledge is when you are posted overseas. If you assigned a Japan spot, you may be working under me. We'll look forward to your introduction to the Hino Maru and what that means to Japanese.”
I understand what a pledge is and I understood it before I ever lived overseas. (I have lived in the Netherlands and South Korea.) I am also familiar with the Hinomaru. And I do hope to work in Japan at some point. (I guess this means I shouldn’t ask you for a recommendation, though.)
“I'm curious, did you mention you do not salute the flag or stand for the Pledge in your application as an FSO?”
I actually do salute the flag and I have always stood for the Pledge, even though I did not recite it. And I don’t remember there being a question about the Pledge of Allegiance on the application, but maybe that comes later in the process.
“what took so long to reply?”
I have only recently become aware of Adam Baldwin’s articles here as I just started following him on twitter. I have been going back and reading some of his earlier articles and today I read this article and its comments.
First, I think adults spending time judging a child like this is kind of pointless. The child will always lose. The problem I see is that this child is an idealist. He views the world in absolutes as many children his age will. How many times have parents had to explain white lies to other adults because of the need for social space. What maybe said in private is not always what is said in public. We could all tell people exactly how we feel about them, but then we might paint ourselves into corners based on initial impressions and misunderstandings. So this kid hasn't learned that life is rife with holes. Sometimes things are unfair. Sometimes things are slow to change.
I do also feel it is strange when adults who should realize this, point out other countries would torture or imprison this child (and perhaps his parents) and regret that he is not treated that way here. He is exercising his rights, just like Neo-Aryans or Klan members. We defend their rights to protect our own. So we should protect this boy's right to be a misguided idealist and teach him better. Right now, I think his stand is really brave for a child his age. He faces peer pressure, ostracism, adult disapproval (now on a national level). Better to work with a child like this to show that kind of courage in a more productive arena.
You must be logged in to post a comment.