NationStates Jolt Archive

She seems to think she can, and I'm very prepared to directly disobey that order tomorrow, but I can't remember if it was that I don't have to say it legally, or I don't have to stand for it. I'd rather not start something and then find out I'm the one who's wrong. She's foreign I think, and might not understand what's supposed to happen.

Also, it's first period and I'd rather just sleep. :p

They can't make you say it, but I don't know about standing.

No she cannot. Plus there's something morally wrong about making children make a pledge to any nation.

Depends how strong she is

She seems to think she can, and I'm very prepared to directly disobey that order tomorrow, but I can't remember if it was that I don't have to say it legally, or I don't have to stand for it. I'd rather not start something and then find out I'm the one who's wrong. She's foreign I think, and might not understand what's supposed to happen.

Also, it's first period and I'd rather just sleep. :p
You don't have to legally stand for it, but there is a difference between law and what your teacher says. If it's a rule in your class, she isn't breaking the law.

Oh, and some hard evidence would be nice. You know, just in case.

She seems to think she can, and I'm very prepared to directly disobey that order tomorrow, but I can't remember if it was that I don't have to say it legally, or I don't have to stand for it. I'd rather not start something and then find out I'm the one who's wrong. She's foreign I think, and might not understand what's supposed to happen.

Also, it's first period and I'd rather just sleep. :p

Eh be a man and just do the stupid pledge. I mean for Christ sakes, It's just a 30 second pledge that you can mouth your way through, and a part of being a man is doing things that you don't want to do. Consider this to be good exercise for other things that you don't want to do later on in life.

In 2006, In the Florida case Frazier v. Alexandre, No. 05-81142 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2006) "A federal district court in Florida has ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, even though the law allows students to opt out, because they can only do so with written parental permission and are still required to stand during the recitation. Cameron Frazier, a student at Boynton Beach High School, was removed from algebra class after he refused to follow his teacher's instructions to recite the Pledge or stand during recitation." [3])

There you go, it's district but I think it should be applicable across the board - check Wikipedia 'pledge criticism' for more.

Yes and no. She really can't make you do anything. But if you disobey you'll probably get in trouble. And if you contest it with the school you'll lose, and unless you have thousands to spend on lawyers you'll lose legally too.

The law doesn't matter, the guidelines and shit doesn't matter until someone persistently calls them out. Just because the law says something should happen one way doesn't mean it will. You're school will do what they want to you, and there isn't shit you can do about it.

So don't worry about if she can or not. They're your "authority", and they have the power to fuck you over for their own pleasure, regardless of what the rules actually are.

If you don't want to get in trouble, stand for the damn thing, ignore it, and sit your ass down. If you're big on principles, then sit and see what happens.

It's up to you. You can do what you want either way and they'll fuck you over either way.

Oh, and some hard evidence would be nice. You know, just in case.

The Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/) was an example of the Supreme Court saying that schools are allowed to limit free speech if it interferes with discipline, or the learning that is supposed to occur. However, your teacher will probably come up with a reason not saying it interferes with discipline, and unless you want to make a case of it, there's not a lot you can do.
Honestly though, I think Wilgrove has offered the most reasonable advice: swallow your pride, get up and say it. Treat it like exercise to help you wake up, if that makes it any better.

Eh be a man and just do the stupid pledge. I mean for Christ sakes, It's just a 30 second pledge that you can mouth your way through, and a part of being a man is doing things that you don't want to do. Consider this to be good exercise for other things that you don't want to do later on in life.

I couldn't disagree more - being a man, or woman, or human being, is to stand, not for the pledge, but for what you believe is right against opposition.

Although the motives, sleeping through the pledge, may not be honorable as such, it's totally right to say that one shouldn't be forced to say any pledge to a nation as such - it smacks of totalitarianism.

I couldn't disagree more - being a man, or woman, or human being, is to stand, not for the pledge, but for what you believe is right against opposition.

Although the motives, sleeping through the pledge, may not be honorable as such, it's totally right to say that one shouldn't be forced to say any pledge to a nation as such - it smacks of totalitarianism.

Either that or is smacks of someone trying to be "rebellious". The whole teenage thing, you know.

There you go, it's district but I think it should be applicable across the board - check Wikipedia 'pledge criticism' for more.

Awesome, that's just what I wanted to see.

I couldn't disagree more - being a man, or woman, or human being, is to stand, not for the pledge, but for what you believe is right against opposition.

Although the motives, sleeping through the pledge, may not be honorable as such, it's totally right to say that one shouldn't be forced to say any pledge to a nation as such - it smacks of totalitarianism.

Exactly. My sleeping motives are only secondary anyways, on the occasion I'm not inhumanly tired, I still don't feel I should have to do anything for it. It directly opposes my goal of completely eliminating any remaining blind patriotism from myself.

Oh, and fun fact: My presumably foreign born spanish teacher is the one making this an issue, while my U.S. History teacher doesn't care at all. In fact, I have never seen anyone doing the pledge ever in that class.

Eh be a man and just do the stupid pledge. I mean for Christ sakes, It's just a 30 second pledge that you can mouth your way through, and a part of being a man is doing things that you don't want to do. Consider this to be good exercise for other things that you don't want to do later on in life.

That has to be the worst reason to say the pledge that I can think of.

However, my suggestion is stand but do not say the pledge. It is what I did all through school. There is nothing wrong with showing respect to others who do choose to say it (the standing part) but also deciding not to say it yourself. Be prepared to explain why, if someone asks. You might find that others in your class will be supportive, if you state your case well. NOT standing is pointedly disrespectful, and you really should consider what statement you are trying to make. However, if you feel not standing says something important and you are willing to fight for the right to do so, then go ahead. If you are only not standing because you would rather sleep, my suggestion is, stand up.

I couldn't disagree more - being a man, or woman, or human being, is to stand, not for the pledge, but for what you believe is right against opposition.

Although the motives, sleeping through the pledge, may not be honorable as such, it's totally right to say that one shouldn't be forced to say any pledge to a nation as such - it smacks of totalitarianism.

I agree, but there is a fine line between civil disobedience and just being unwilling to follow the rules. If you have told your teacher that you do not agree with the pledge, and are able to explain why, you're doing what you think is right. But it sounds like you just don't want to follow an admittedly pointless and arbitrary rule, unless you explain why you don't.

Either that or is smacks of someone trying to be "rebellious". The whole teenage thing, you know.

If not for a little rebelliousness, we'd all still be slaves.

If nothing else, if a decision has not been made in your state on this, you get a legal case with your name attached, and not for heinious crime, but for standing (down) for your rights.

That alone makes it worth it.

Because words mean so much anyway. :p

If not for a little rebelliousness, we'd all still be slaves.

If nothing else, if a decision has not been made in your state on this, you get a legal case with your name attached, and not for heinious crime, but for standing (down) for your rights.

That alone makes it worth it.

And if it makes it to the Supreme Court, my last name gets put in history books!

I never stood because I was too lazy to get up. When a teacher criticized one time for not standing I said it was for a political reason even though I just didn't feel like standing.

I stopped saying it after freshman year in high school. I just moved my mouth, but nothing would come out.

I stopped saying it after freshman year in high school. I just moved my mouth, but nothing would come out.

I think that may be an illness.

*injects you with patriotism*
*plays star spangled banner and wraps you in a flag*

A "real man" would stand up and fart the pledge.

I think that may be an illness.

*injects you with patriotism*
*plays star spangled banner and wraps you in a flag*

Indeed. As someone with a doctorate in Amerilove (hence my title: New Limacon, A.D.), I advice you spend an disclosed amount of time at the Guantanamo Resort. The Cuban air will clear your head, and the forced enemas don't hurt, either.

I think that may be an illness.

*injects you with patriotism*
*plays star spangled banner and wraps you in a flag*

Same problem :D *Is immune to blind patriotism*. I'm a patriot all together, but I refuse to say the pledge with the current office in power. Plus, I had to play the SSB in marching band, and during the Foot Ball games even in the freezing rain/snow. Eventually, even then I stopped really playing and just made random noises to mess it up. Probably why I never got another "A" after freshman year in band.

And if it makes it to the Supreme Court, my last name gets put in history books!

Totally - for any talk of respect etc., you'll probably get as much criticism from patriotic classmates, but you can point out that it's perhaps more patriotic to stand for the values of America, which is freedom to choose and not to blindly repeat a homage to nationalism through force.

Larry Flynt: Why do *I* have to go to jail to protect *your* freedom?

Aside from you not getting enough sleep at night (kinda like me I'll admit), why don't you want to say the pledge? The motive behind it can make all the difference.

Aside from you not getting enough sleep at night (kinda like me I'll admit), why don't you want to say the pledge? The motive behind it can make all the difference.

It's blind patriotism, something which I am vehemently against. Believing my country is better than any other country in any manner without hard evidence is completely counterproductive to the advancement of my country in anything. Submitting myself to my country via the pledge is only going to make that worse.

They can't make you stand up or say the pledge. The school officials will probably badger you about it pretty hard but once the matter goes over their heads it'll get dropped pretty fast.

You can always drop out of school anyways if push comes to shove.

And if it makes it to the Supreme Court, my last name gets put in history books!

You would be forgotten in a matter of minutes in today's world.

Oh boy, this may be a tricky one. If it was a religious problem, it would be much more easily excused. The thing about pledges is that they're designed to make people loyal to their country. I say keep your mouth shut and if you get pestered about it, give them your reasons.

You would be forgotten in a matter of minutes in today's world.

Except for the kids in freshmen civics class. I'd be the bane of unstudious test takers for years to come.

It's blind patriotism, something which I am vehemently against. Believing my country is better than any other country in any manner without hard evidence is completely counterproductive to the advancement of my country in anything. Submitting myself to my country via the pledge is only going to make that worse.
You can do what I do, which is convince myself that it's not the real United States I am pledging allegiance to, but the ideal one, the one described in the pledge that is indivisible and has liberty and justice for all. Maybe it's self-denial, but then again, I've never really heard anyone say what the pledge means. My interpretation seems as good as anyone else's.
You would be forgotten in a matter of minutes in today's world.
Who would be forgotten?

You can always drop out of school anyways if push comes to shove.

No thanks. I currently go to the best public school this side of the Connecticut River. If I dropped out, I'd be going to the worst school this side of the Connecticut River.

It's blind patriotism, something which I am vehemently against. Believing my country is better than any other country in any manner without hard evidence is completely counterproductive to the advancement of my country in anything. Submitting myself to my country via the pledge is only going to make that worse.

I do not remember the pledge as blind patriotism. In fact when I was in school they taught what it meant and why we do it. We had kids even back then that wouldn't say it just to be defiant. They did however stand when the rest of the class did just not to look like a clown.

I figure if you make a big issue about it then you will bring a lot of negative attention to yourself. If you are in fact trying to get attention like it sounds, do something cool. Do donuts in the school's front lawn in the morning. Yeah you will get suspended for a bit but you will be the talk of the school in a not so negative manner. Get it?

No thanks. I currently go to the best public school this side of the Connecticut River. If I dropped out, I'd be going to the worst school this side of the Connecticut River.

I have to know: Which side? East or West? (Ledyard was mine...)

Who would be forgotten?

Someone trying to be defiant about the pledge. When I saw forgotten I mean a few moments after any media attention. That is a big if with the media attention too.

This is kind of a boring issue..

Why don't you set fire to the flag?
With a home-made flamethrower.

Post pics.

Oh, and fun fact: My presumably foreign born spanish teacher is the one making this an issue, while my U.S. History teacher doesn't care at all. In fact, I have never seen anyone doing the pledge ever in that class.

Here's the thing - it may be that she's doing this, not for the purpose of swearing allegiance, but as an act of asserting control over the class in the morning. It's similar to teachers saying 'good morning classroom' and everyone replying 'good morning Mrs Smith' or whatnot.

So her own reasons for demanding this may be different to demanding a pledge of allegiance to the United States.

You can stand you ground, and I'd say you're perfectly entitled to but in coming to a solution, it's perhaps better to approach her alone and explain your reasons, point out that it's not done in your history class and wonder whether there's a better way of starting the lesson.

There's rebelliousness and there's avoiding a pointless conflict by being stubborn I suppose.

I'd simply check her reasons for demanding it - pledge, or formal start to class.

I do not remember the pledge as blind patriotism. In fact when I was in school they taught what it meant and why we do it. We had kids even back then that wouldn't say it just to be defiant. They did however stand when the rest of the class did just not to look like a clown.

I figure if you make a big issue about it then you will bring a lot of negative attention to yourself. If you are in fact trying to get attention like it sounds, do something cool. Do donuts in the school's front lawn in the morning. Yeah you will get suspended for a bit but you will be the talk of the school in a not so negative manner. Get it?

There are probably 50 people in a school of 1200 that stand for the pledge. For most I'm sure it's apathy, but for a good number it's political.

I have to know: Which side? East or West? (Ledyard was mine...)

East.

snip
I'd simply check her reasons for demanding it - pledge, or formal start to class.

It's at the end of class, so that's probably not the issue.

This is kind of a boring issue..

Why don't you set fire to the flag?
With a home-made flamethrower.

Post pics.

Set a Mexican flag on fire instead. Hold back anyone stopping you by throwing frozen burritos at them. You will bring all sorts of attention to your school. While you are at it burn a UN one too while wearing one of those Kofi Annan is a criminal t-shirts.

Someone trying to be defiant about the pledge. When I saw forgotten I mean a few moments after any media attention. That is a big if with the media attention too.

Doesn't matter if it's forgotten in the mind, it's there, set on stone as it were, as precedent for future rulings.

Aside from that, it may be forgotten by the majority but he himself, his family, kids and grandkids won't forget it as he drones on ad nauseam at the dinner table about his 'fight for justice' when he's old and senile :)

There are probably 50 people in a school of 1200 that stand for the pledge. For most I'm sure it's apathy, but for a good number it's political.
.


If that is the case then it wouldn't be much of an issue if you told the teacher no. You would be just acting like the rest of the kids. You should play a reverse role here and demand that everyone stand and recite it so you can hear them. Get in front of the class yelling "I can't here you!"

She seems to think she can, and I'm very prepared to directly disobey that order tomorrow, but I can't remember if it was that I don't have to say it legally, or I don't have to stand for it. I'd rather not start something and then find out I'm the one who's wrong. She's foreign I think, and might not understand what's supposed to happen.

Also, it's first period and I'd rather just sleep. :p

Legally, they can not force you to say it. I had a teacher state that if you do not want to say it that's fine but requests that you stand.

Legally, they can not force you to say it. I had a teacher state that if you do not want to say it that's fine but requests that you stand.

My band teacher had a problem with it. Luckily for me, while we shared the same class room, he wasn't my morning meeting/homeroom teacher. All he could do is glare at me and I'd smile right back.

If that is the case then it wouldn't be much of an issue if you told the teacher no. You would be just acting like the rest of the kids. You should play a reverse role here and demand that everyone stand and recite it so you can hear them. Get in front of the class yelling "I can't here you!"

Heh. If I really was vying for attention, I would probably do that.

Actually, the biggest issue here is that the other spanish teacher in the room is a war veteran from the Gulf War. To exasperate that, he was in the same squad as my uncle.

Should make for an interesting event.

Heh. If I really was vying for attention, I would probably do that.

Actually, the biggest issue here is that the other spanish teacher in the room is a war veteran from the Gulf War. To exasperate that, he was in the same squad as my uncle.

Should make for an interesting event.

I am a Gulf War veteran too. I know I have been joking around with you so far about this because to me it is a young kid trying to prove a point. The reason I went off to war was to protect peoples freedoms. I know we are talking Kuwait which is not a democracy but they have the freedom to choose because of people like myself your teacher and your uncle. So my point is that I think you should do what you think is right here. The pledge is not what makes you patriotic. It is that you believe in the freedoms that the US gives you. So do what you think is right and maybe remind your teacher what I just mentioned here.

i think that before a blatant protest, you need to asses your reasons for doing so. if you just want to piss a teacher off, and get in the school paper, mabe you should just do the pledge.

however, here are a few good reasons to protest it:

if you are from a forien country and wish not to pledge to the US.

If you are an atheist (wich seems most likely in this forum) and disagree with the "under god" part

if you just want to make a point on freedom of speech or some other civil liberty.

but before making any rash action, i would consult your student handbook. (or student grievances policies) i actually began a small student protest at my high school by accusing a teacher of infringing upon my student rights. we have a hall-pass/planner that has a section on student rights, and i called him out by reading wich ones he had denied me. it really pissed him off, and those who openly supported me scored a detention.

check your rights, you would be suprised to know what what you are allowed to do, as required by the district office.

I am a Gulf War veteran too. I know I have been joking around with you so far about this because to me it is a young kid trying to prove a point. The reason I went off to war was to protect peoples freedoms. I know we are talking Kuwait which is not a democracy but they have the freedom to choose because of people like myself your teacher and your uncle. So my point is that I think you should do what you think is right here. The pledge is not what makes you patriotic. It is that you believe in the freedoms that the US gives you. So do what you think is right and maybe remind your teacher what I just mentioned here.

I wish this guy had the same opinion as you do, but I doubt he does. He used to be my football coach, let's just say he's not very open to opinions other than his own.
There's a reason we're going to be 0-10 this year, even though we're going to states in almost every other sport.

Eh be a man and just do the stupid pledge. I mean for Christ sakes, It's just a 30 second pledge that you can mouth your way through, and a part of being a man is doing things that you don't want to do. Consider this to be good exercise for other things that you don't want to do later on in life.

No.
NO ONE is obligated to say the pledge, period. It is unconstitutional in that it interferes with religious belief -- there are groups that simply may not swear allegiance to anyone or thing but God, and therefore this interferes with their observance. Unconstitutional for some means unconstitutional for all; no one must pledge.

However, even though she is not within her rights, per se, to make you stand, it would be the respectful and adult thing to do.

Have you tried actually discussing this with the teacher?

my science teacher that i exercised my student rights against is a football coach as well. He doesnt think very highly of us students, and he used to teach in what he reffers to as "the ghetto." He was not compliant to my student rights, but after a talk with my pricipal he listens alitle more to me and the other students.

you shouldnt worry about how other people will see your protest, just do what you think is right.

in my opinion, i think that if you live in the US, you should say the pledge. its respectfull to those who have died to give you the right to protest about silly things like this. as for standing, its an added show of respect.

Have you tried actually discussing this with the teacher?

No, what are you, reasonable?

Forcing a kid, or anyone, to make a pledge of alligience to any nation is fascism and against human rights.

Recall: you're a student. Mommy and daddy signed away your rights as part of enrolling in school, BEYOND the fact that you are currently a minor anyways. If the class rule is that you must stand, you must stand. However, they cannot enforce actually stating the pledge.

Forcing a kid, or anyone, to make a pledge of alligience to any nation is fascism and against human rights.

A little over the top but I believe Kat basically laid it out a few posts back.

Hello!

I believe this boils down to a first amendment issue. Freedom of speech. By not saying the words and not standing you are sending your own message, through lack of speech. If you really believe in what you are doing, you shouldn't worry what your teacher will do. What is the worse that will happen? She might send you to the principal's office? Out of curiousity, why don't you believe you should say the pledge of alligiance or stand for the flag? Just curious. I hope it works for you!

No, what are you, reasonable?

Ever thought about starting a discussion in maybe the schools newspaper or some other venue that you can talk with other students about this?

No, what are you, reasonable?

Well I would try that first. If you just spring it on the teacher and he reacts badly in front of the whole class it will probably be a million times more difficult to get him to back down later on.

And if he says no to you privately, you can still seek administrative help without publicly embarrassing the guy.

No.
NO ONE is obligated to say the pledge, period. It is unconstitutional in that it interferes with religious belief -- there are groups that simply may not swear allegiance to anyone or thing but God, and therefore this interferes with their observance. Unconstitutional for some means unconstitutional for all; no one must pledge.

However, even though she is not within her rights, per se, to make you stand, it would be the respectful and adult thing to do.

Very well said.

Very well said.

I should hope so; I deal with it every year as a high school teacher. I do ask that people who do not wish to recite the pledge simply stand and be quiet for the duration of it.

Incidentally, I have zero problem with pledging myself, HOWEVER.... I do not recite it, I merely stand and face the flag, because I am cognizant that leading the pledge would place additional pressure on my students.

Well I would try that first. If you just spring it on the teacher and he reacts badly in front of the whole class it will probably be a million times more difficult to get him to back down later on.

And if he says no to you privately, you can still seek administrative help without publicly embarrassing the guy.

Hmm, that's probably the right thing to do. The thing is, I don't want to say anything until I absolutely have to. Which in all likelihood will be when she tells me to stand up when it's going on.

Hmm, that's probably the right thing to do. The thing is, I don't want to say anything until I absolutely have to. Which in all likelihood will be when she tells me to stand up when it's going on.

In which case, you quietly stand this time, then go and speak to her privately afterwards. No one (who agrees with your point of view) is going to object to you being respectful, but if you raise a stink without at least trying to make your point in a gracious way, you will only get grief for it (from those who do not agree).

But I still say that standing and not saying the pledge is a better way to go in the long run. It is the same way I deal with prayers if attending a church service with a friend or loved one. I am not a member, so I don't participate, but I can still show respect for those who do. Even though I object to the pledge for reasons having to do with what it asks of me, I can still understand and accept that others feel differently about it, and I don't need to make it difficult for them to do what they believe to be proper and right.

A few years ago, I would stand for the pledge but not utter a word. Nowadays I just leave out the "Under God" part since I believe it is unconstitutional (and I'm not even an atheist). I stand for the national anthem, and sing along if asked to.

I consider myself a patriot, but to me that is not to say that I think my country is inherently superior, it is just loving my country. Country, not government. Why would I love the current administration when they are fucking it up?

No one is required to stand or say the pledge of allegiance. Your teacher cannot make you. Though she can probably be a real asshole about it. This is not a totalitarian country. We have freedom to choose here.

Hmm, that's probably the right thing to do. The thing is, I don't want to say anything until I absolutely have to. Which in all likelihood will be when she tells me to stand up when it's going on.

I can see why you'd rather avoid the whole thing if possible. But if these really are your convictions, you'll have to stand up for them at some point in your school career anyway.

I imagine it would be easier for both parties on a private one to one basis.

I'm mostly for this not out of protection of rights but more a hope that we'll soon have a video of UNITIHU shouting 'Don't tase me bro' as he's hauled out of school :p

My advice, when the pledge comes on, and she tells you to, openly, and loud enough to be heard, but not overtly so, in a calm and cool manner say something like "It goes against my political beliefs, and thusly I will not do so.", that way, if it comes down to a you said she said thing, you have witnesses that can say that you explained why you're not.


I'm actually not surprised you don't hear about this kind of thing more often, or maybe I just don't listen to the news that reports on it.

I've only ever been reprimanded once for not standing, and it was by a guy that was'nt even my teacher at the time.

I use to say the pledge when I was little, than as I entered High School I'd just replace words to entertain myself, and eventually in my Sophomore year I just stopped standing and saying it, was'nt until my 2nd senior year (I screwed up by not having the last three credits I needed) that the reprimand, which was really him just leaning over the table/desk and telling me I should/need to.

My elementary school required the Pledge. I did it like everybody else.

My middle school was in England. No Pledge.

My high school didn't require it, though a couple of girls in my freshman class did it on their own.

I think my real objection to the Pledge is not the "Under G-d" part. It is the "Flag" part. Since when do we pledge our allegiance to a piece of fabric? Why don't we do what soldiers do, and pledge allegiance to the Constitution?

Allow me to present my modified version of the Pledge:

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the Republic which it unites, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

THAT I could say every day if I was required to. I like that the focus would be on the Constitution, not the flag.

Of course, if I move to Israel (which I may), this all becomes academic.

She seems to think she can, and I'm very prepared to directly disobey that order tomorrow, but I can't remember if it was that I don't have to say it legally, or I don't have to stand for it. I'd rather not start something and then find out I'm the one who's wrong. She's foreign I think, and might not understand what's supposed to happen.

Also, it's first period and I'd rather just sleep. :p

I never did, I don't feel right making an oath to a force that could change tos erve ideals I don't believe in, I am for the US at the moment, but that could change, and I feel an oath would be more than I can safely commit to for life, when it is something I have almost no direct control over. A few other people in my class did not stand either, no teacher ever mentioned it... but you have the specific legal right to not stand (or speak), so long as you don't disrupt it or show direct disrespect. The reason I have always heard was given in a religious perspective, but perhaps you have political motivation, and what matters is that you indeed have motivation, regardless of it's source, so you have the protected right to sit silently, and respectfully while your classmates make a pledge that will be on the whole more meaningless than meaningful I'm sure. I myself used that 60 seconds to say a short prayer for America, for it's goals, ambitions, and administration, and that I would be able to support them in good conscience... but that is a pretty far cry from pledging allegiance to America....

i don't think so, but you should do it anyway, it takes like 30 seconds
i did it everyday in high school, its no big deal

She seems to think she can, and I'm very prepared to directly disobey that order tomorrow, but I can't remember if it was that I don't have to say it legally, or I don't have to stand for it. I'd rather not start something and then find out I'm the one who's wrong. She's foreign I think, and might not understand what's supposed to happen.

Saying it - choose.
However, standing while all other people in the same room are standing, is the only thing to do if you want to behave politely. Just like when the teacher, or someone else, enters the room. Politeness goes a long way.

You should stand up and do the Nazi salute for teh lulz.
http://bkmarcus.com/blog/images/flags/pledge.jpg

Like.....someone said a bit back, she's just trying to maintain her place as head of the class. If you just exaplin why you don't want to say the pledge and ask to be allowed sit through it you'll be grand.

She seems to think she can, and I'm very prepared to directly disobey that order tomorrow, but I can't remember if it was that I don't have to say it legally, or I don't have to stand for it. I'd rather not start something and then find out I'm the one who's wrong. She's foreign I think, and might not understand what's supposed to happen.

Also, it's first period and I'd rather just sleep. :p

Is she armed?

Is she armed?

She's a high school teacher, of course she is.

Just remember guys, when you say the pledge your saying a socialist motto (Bellamy).

They still do that in US? Stand and sing for the pledge?

They still do that in US? Stand and sing for the pledge?

I don't think they sing, but apparently it's fairly common.

I don't think they sing, but apparently it's fairly common.

My mother, raised in South Africa in the sixties, had to do the same in High School.

She told me, that she found it very confusing; 'cause she was (and still is) Belgian and that she had to swear to protect the country and stuff... :)

I’m born in South Africa, Vanderbylpark, but they returned to Belgium when I was one years old.

Fleeing for apartheid.

My mother, raised in South Africa in the sixties, had to do the same in High School.

She told me, that she found it very confusing; 'cause she was (and still is) Belgian and that she had to swear to protect the country and stuff... :)

I’m born in South Africa, Vanderbylpark, but they returned to Belgium when I was one years old.

Fleeing for apartheid.

I don't know if Ireland ever had any kind of pledge, but I've never been asked to say one, if one exists.

She's a high school teacher, of course she is.


:mp5::sniper::mp5::sniper::gundge:

And don't you forget it!


(Oh wait, you're not talking about me, are you? It'd be swords and bows, anyhow....) ;)

:mp5::sniper::mp5::sniper::gundge:

And don't you forget it!


(Oh wait, you're not talking about me, are you? It's be swords and bows, anyhow....) ;)

I wasn't, but I think I remember you telling us about how you scared some guy stealing your car(or something, I think) by threatening to introduce him to one of your arrows :p

Reasons not to Fuck with Kat:
She's a mod
She'll arrow you in the face
She's a teacher.
She's a mod!

I don't know if Ireland ever had any kind of pledge, but I've never been asked to say one, if one exists.

Didin't the orginal Irish Consitution (I don't know if its been modified or not) have a sort of pledge-thing at the start of it?
All I know is that saying a pledge in N.Ireland would cause riots. Maybe thats why I find the idea of a pledge really weird, seeing as I live in a country where the idea patriotic unity never exsisted.

Didin't the orginal Irish Consitution (I don't know if its been modified or not) have a sort of pledge-thing at the start of it?
All I know is that saying a pledge in N.Ireland would cause riots. Maybe thats why I find the idea of a pledge really weird, seeing as I live in a country where the idea patriotic unity never exsisted.

Nah, the preamble has a bit of a 'We love god and we're Irish and we pwn' thing going on.
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,

Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Say your a states' rights person and take political offense to the 'One nation indivisible' thing.

They still do that in US? Stand and sing for the pledge?

no we don't sing it, we recite it with are right hand over our hearts

Say your a states' rights person and take political offense to the 'One nation indivisible' thing.
Well it is pretty indivisble. I don't tihnk any state has ever successfully seceded.
no we don't sing it, we recite it with are right hand over our hearts

Yeah, that.

Makes me glad to be British, no silly pledges on a morning. We used to play cards.

OK, on the one side, it's pretty reprehensible that they make you do this.

On the other hand, there are probably better ways to spend your teenagerhood than being 'non-conformist' and not saying your silly pledge. Your teacher will probably think you're just being a wanker, as will most people around you.

OK, on the one side, it's pretty reprehensible that they make you do this.

On the other hand, there are probably better ways to spend your teenagerhood than being 'non-conformist' and not saying your silly pledge. Your teacher will probably think you're just being a wanker, as will most people around you.

umm...Yootopia...this deals with STANDING during the pledge and not actually saying it.

Oh boy, this may be a tricky one. If it was a religious problem, it would be much more easily excused. The thing about pledges is that they're designed to make people loyal to their country. I say keep your mouth shut and if you get pestered about it, give them your reasons.

The original exemptions were won by Jehovah's Witnesses IIRC but the principle applies to anyone: nobody can be compelled to say the pledge.

To the OP: if you're serious about this, I recomend talking to the nice people on the Internet Infidels' Separation of Church and State Forum (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=67). It's full of lawyers who know the relevant US laws like the back of their hands and can quote all the cases you need to know.

well i suppose he has already made his decision and has stayed seated or not.

but really


dont be a dick. you stand up when everyone else does, stand still and quiet with your hands at your sides saying nothing, and sit back down with the rest of the class.

Eh be a man and just do the stupid pledge. I mean for Christ sakes, It's just a 30 second pledge that you can mouth your way through, and a part of being a man is doing things that you don't want to do. Consider this to be good exercise for other things that you don't want to do later on in life.

Because 'being a man' is all about taking it in the ass?

Oh, and some hard evidence would be nice. You know, just in case.

The seminal case is West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624), 319 U.S. 624 (1943). I'd read it and take a copy in to your teacher.

This part is particularly good (emphasis added):

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.

Eh be a man and just do the stupid pledge. I mean for Christ sakes, It's just a 30 second pledge that you can mouth your way through, and a part of being a man is doing things that you don't want to do. Consider this to be good exercise for other things that you don't want to do later on in life.

Being a man is sacrificing one's fundamental freedoms? Good thing our Founders were not "real men." :rolleyes:

You don't have to legally stand for it, but there is a difference between law and what your teacher says. If it's a rule in your class, she isn't breaking the law.The law does not stop at classroom doors. It only stops at the borders of your country.

The law does not stop at classroom doors. It only stops at the borders of your country.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Schools are allowed to limit free speech as they see fit, if they can prove that it interferes with the duty of the school. So, if by not saying the pledge he is being disruptive, then his teacher can make him say it. If it is a rule in his classroom, then the teacher has already made clear she believes not saying the pledge is disruptive. This is up for debate, I certainly see no reason how standing and remaining silent makes a scene, but his teacher thinks differently. Maybe there's something about the classroom I don't know that she does, I'm not willing to say it's completely arbitrary.

The Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/) was an example of the Supreme Court saying that schools are allowed to limit free speech if it interferes with discipline, or the learning that is supposed to occur. However, your teacher will probably come up with a reason not saying it interferes with discipline, and unless you want to make a case of it, there's not a lot you can do.
Honestly though, I think Wilgrove has offered the most reasonable advice: swallow your pride, get up and say it. Treat it like exercise to help you wake up, if that makes it any better.

Your reading of Tinker v. Des Moines (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkljcNiJHyQYBMOZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE4Y2FxZzZtBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0gwMjhfOTQEb ANXUzE-/SIG=1358mmsln/EXP=1193511004/**http%3a//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3fcourt=us%26vol=393%26invol=503), 393 U.S. 503 (1969), is almost the opposite of the actual meaning of the case. The principal in Tinker was required (and failed) to show the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.

Moreover, West Virginia v. Barnette (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624), 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is the applicable case. No official may require a student to say the Pledge. This would also apply to making someone stand for the Pledge.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Schools are allowed to limit free speech as they see fit, if they can prove that it interferes with the duty of the school. So, if by not saying the pledge he is being disruptive, then his teacher can make him say it. If it is a rule in his classroom, then the teacher has already made clear she believes not saying the pledge is disruptive. This is up for debate, I certainly see no reason how standing and remaining silent makes a scene, but his teacher thinks differently. Maybe there's something about the classroom I don't know that she does, I'm not willing to say it's completely arbitrary.

No, actually, she can't make him say it. She might argue the disruptive thing, but she would certainly lose. And standing silently has long been an acceptable alternative to the actual recitation.

Interestingly, if they were studying the pledge, she could make him write a paper or give a speech about it, but she cannot force him to pledge it.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Schools are allowed to limit free speech as they see fit, if they can prove that it interferes with the duty of the school. So, if by not saying the pledge he is being disruptive, then his teacher can make him say it. If it is a rule in his classroom, then the teacher has already made clear she believes not saying the pledge is disruptive. This is up for debate, I certainly see no reason how standing and remaining silent makes a scene, but his teacher thinks differently. Maybe there's something about the classroom I don't know that she does, I'm not willing to say it's completely arbitrary.

Did you actually read Tinker?

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

...
The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749.

In the present case, the District Court made no such finding, and our independent examination of the record fails to yield evidence that the school authorities had reason to anticipate that the wearing of the armbands would substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students.

...

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. (emphasis added)

It is far from enough for the teacher to simply declare failure to stand is disruptive. There has to be evidence that not standing would "materially and substantially interfere" with school discipline.

Your reading of Tinker v. Des Moines (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkljcNiJHyQYBMOZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE4Y2FxZzZtBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0gwMjhfOTQEb ANXUzE-/SIG=1358mmsln/EXP=1193511004/**http%3a//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3fcourt=us%26vol=393%26invol=503), 393 U.S. 503 (1969), is almost the opposite of the actual meaning of the case. The principal in Tinker was required (and failed) to show the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.
I think that's basically the same thing as what I said. "If speech does not interfere with education, schools cannot limit it" is the contrapositive of "if schools can limit speech, it must interfere with education." I realize that wasn't the purpose of the case though, in fact, I think it would be more effective to bring up that case as a reason he shouldn't say the pledge. I just meant that he was well within in his rights to not say the pledge unless it interfered with school discipline, and if there is a rule stating you must say the pledge, the teacher has to have some reason. Very likely it's a bad one, that would never stand up in court, but a reason, all the same.

Moreover, West Virginia v. Barnette (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624), 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is the applicable case. No official may require a student to say the Pledge. This would also apply to making someone stand for the Pledge.
This was a salute to the flag, which I take to mean pledging allegiance physically (and, let's face it, in a more Naziesque kind of way). I don't think that applies to standing, though. As other posters have said, standing is respectful to those who are saying the pledge, but isn't actually pledging allegiance. It's more of a "I'm going to respect the rules of the school" gesture than "I will pledge allegiance to this country" gesture.

Did you actually read Tinker?

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

...
The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749.

In the present case, the District Court made no such finding, and our independent examination of the record fails to yield evidence that the school authorities had reason to anticipate that the wearing of the armbands would substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students.

...

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. (emphasis added)

It is far from enough for the teacher to simply declare failure to stand is disruptive. There has to be evidence that not standing would "materially and substantially interfere" with school discipline.
I am not saying he is causing a disruption by not saying the pledge! But I don't go to his school, I don't know anything about his classroom except the little he has told us, and I don't really know why his teacher makes people say the pledge. As I keep saying, if it causes a disruption, then he cannot not say it and claim it violates his rights. Everyone seems to be assuming that it does not cause a disruption, and I'll admit, I don't see how it could. But just as a real court would not make a decision based on the limited information he has given, I am not willing to say he is within his rights, or he is not.

Eh be a man and just do the stupid pledge. I mean for Christ sakes, It's just a 30 second pledge that you can mouth your way through, and a part of being a man is doing things that you don't want to do. Consider this to be good exercise for other things that you don't want to do later on in life.

Remember children, be a man - knuckle under to authority at every tun and never stand up for yourself. Nothing could be more manly. What wonderful advice.

waaaaaaa!!! my teacher makes me pledge waaaaaa!!! i don't want to stand up for 30 secs waaaaaaaa!!! quit crying you fucking baby. you might as well be a fucking terrorist. go pray to allah you spoiled brat.

No.
NO ONE is obligated to say the pledge, period. It is unconstitutional in that it interferes with religious belief -- there are groups that simply may not swear allegiance to anyone or thing but God, and therefore this interferes with their observance. Unconstitutional for some means unconstitutional for all; no one must pledge.

However, even though she is not within her rights, per se, to make you stand, it would be the respectful and adult thing to do.

I don't see how sitting quietly and allowing the others who wish to do so to stand and pledge without hindrance is any less respectful.

I think that's basically the same thing as what I said. "If speech does not interfere with education, schools cannot limit it" is the contrapositive of "if schools can limit speech, it must interfere with education." I realize that wasn't the purpose of the case though, in fact, I think it would be more effective to bring up that case as a reason he shouldn't say the pledge. I just meant that he was well within in his rights to not say the pledge unless it interfered with school discipline, and if there is a rule stating you must say the pledge, the teacher has to have some reason. Very likely it's a bad one, that would never stand up in court, but a reason, all the same.

This amounts to little more than a presumption on your part that the rule must have a valid reason behind it merely because it exists.

Given Tinker and West Virginia v. Barnette, the legal presumption is to the contrary.


This was a salute to the flag, which I take to mean pledging allegiance physically (and, let's face it, in a more Naziesque kind of way). I don't think that applies to standing, though. As other posters have said, standing is respectful to those who are saying the pledge, but isn't actually pledging allegiance. It's more of a "I'm going to respect the rules of the school" gesture than "I will pledge allegiance to this country" gesture.

You are making a distinction here that the courts have refused to make. It is no more permissible to make a student stand during the Pledge than it is to make them say the Pledge. Both are violations of free speech. E.g., linky (http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Legal%20PDfs/Frazier.pdf) (pdf, pages 23-25.)(citing numerous cases on point).

in my opinion, i think that if you live in the US, you should say the pledge. its respectfull to those who have died to give you the right to protest about silly things like this. as for standing, its an added show of respect.

Another advocate of showing respect for those who died to preserve your rights by NOT exercising said rights. Sadly I don't even find it ironic anymore.

no we don't sing it, we recite it with are right hand over our hearts

Or in the case of one of the children I worked with (I worked as a classroom aid in special ed rooms back in Denver) over our tummys.

waaaaaaa!!! my teacher makes me pledge waaaaaa!!! i don't want to stand up for 30 secs waaaaaaaa!!! quit crying you fucking baby. you might as well be a fucking terrorist. go pray to allah you spoiled brat.

<looks into crystal ball> I see a close and personal interaction with a mod in your future . . .

This amounts to little more than a presumption on your part that the rule must have a valid reason behind it merely because it exists.

Given Tinker and West Virginia v. Barnette, the legal presumption is to the contrary.
I think that's a fair presumption to make when I know nothing else about the situation. However, I'm the OP knows whether there is a reason for the rule or not, and he can decide based on that.




You are making a distinction here that the courts have refused to make. It is no more permissible to make a student stand during the Pledge than it is to make them say the Pledge. Both are violations of free speech. E.g., linky (http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Legal%20PDfs/Frazier.pdf) (pdf, pages 23-25.)(citing numerous cases on point).
None of these cases were before the Supreme Court or in the OP's jurisdiction. Even if they were, that does not mean the cases they presided over were the same as the OP's. Honestly, I don't think court cases can prove or disprove his, only help it (or not help it). Citing court cases would be useful if we were judging UNITHU v. UNITHU's School District, but we're not. I don't even know where he lives, except it's on the east side of Connecticut.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure the OP cannot be made to say the pledge, and if he was really against it, I don't think the teacher could make him stand, either. But all the court precedents in the world mean nothing if I don't know the actual situation. I know it involves schools and free speech, so I've tried to find ones that relate to that, but none of them says anything absolute. (That is, "Students must always stand for the pledge," or "Students may never be made to stand for the pledge.")

waaaaaaa!!! my teacher makes me pledge waaaaaa!!! i don't want to stand up for 30 secs waaaaaaaa!!! quit crying you fucking baby. you might as well be a fucking terrorist. go pray to allah you spoiled brat.

Congratulations on such a well considered, intelligently thought out and coherently presented first post!








Be sure to ask an adult to help you with the big words in this reply.:rolleyes:

There was a NJ Supreme Court Case that said you don't have to stand. That should set the precedent for the rest of the country.

I have not said the pledge since 7th grade (now in 12th) and have not stood at times, but currently do stand up. I might change that...

Meh, I think the pledge needs an overhaul that changes the target of allegiance from the flag to the Constitution and the principles it embodies as well as the people it protects regardless of color and creed.

Meh, I think the pledge needs an overhaul that changes the target of allegiance from the flag to the Constitution and the principles it embodies as well as the people it protects regardless of color and creed.

There should be no pledge whatsoever.

waaaaaaa!!! my teacher makes me pledge waaaaaa!!! i don't want to stand up for 30 secs waaaaaaaa!!! quit crying you fucking baby. you might as well be a fucking terrorist. go pray to allah you spoiled brat.

You appear to think that this is one of those forums where your anonymity allows you to be abusive and annoying. Such is not the case.

You can follow the rules of our forums, or you can begone. I'll even provide a handy link. I strongly suggest you read through them before posting again.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

There was a NJ Supreme Court Case that said you don't have to stand. That should set the precedent for the rest of the country.

I have not said the pledge since 7th grade (now in 12th) and have not stood at times, but currently do stand up. I might change that...

At least in our high school they don't say the pledge anymore.

if your parents are willing to back up your decision,
not necessarily agree with it,
but back it up as your decision,
they might be able to prevent any detention some overzealous
principle might want to give.


no one should be made to pledge to anything or anyone for that matter.


in my sr year in high school, many moons ago, long before W,
i didn't stand for the pledge during study hall occasionally.
but i think the teacher didn't notice. probably he was facing the flag on the wall.

Awesome, that's just what I wanted to see.



Exactly. My sleeping motives are only secondary anyways, on the occasion I'm not inhumanly tired, I still don't feel I should have to do anything for it. It directly opposes my goal of completely eliminating any remaining blind patriotism from myself.

Oh, and fun fact: My presumably foreign born spanish teacher is the one making this an issue, while my U.S. History teacher doesn't care at all. In fact, I have never seen anyone doing the pledge ever in that class.

Ask your teacher why she wants you to stand. What country is she from?

I'd be willing to bet she comes from a nation thats quality of life is much lower than that of America. I bet she feels greatful to be in America, I also bet that she feels like she should give something back to the country that took her in and let her live a far better life than she could have in her home country.

Yourself on the other hand sound much like a lot of the kids I went to high school with. You are handed everything, you never have to worry about getting a meal on your plate, you never have to worry about not having a home to go back to. America allows you to live a life that most people in the world would dream to have.

Being critical of government decisions is your right as an American. I myself was against the war in Iraq, because I thought that it would increase Iran's power in the Middle East. I think that if the Iraqis or anything group want to raise up and change their country they should. We didn't need to be there.

But now I feel that we need to do what we can to minimize Iran's influence as well as to rebuild as much as we can while we are there.If the Iraqi's are ready to change their views on women and things like that good, if not that is their given right not to.

Are you also one of the people who thinks you should be able to burn the flag?

Well it is pretty indivisble. I don't tihnk any state has ever successfully seceded.

South Carolina
Mississippi
Florida
Alabama
Georgia
Louisiana
Texas
Virginia
Missouri

?

As a teacher in the California school system, it is a rule we have to enforce with having the pledge at the beginning of the day. In the school's I've been in, the students needed to stand, but were not required to actually say or mouth the pledge. They only needed to be up out of their desks. I've been told that it is the law, but I'm not sure if its state or district, nor have I really looked it up. I've never had a student complain, but that's probably because they don't have to say the pledge.

Say your a states' rights person and take political offense to the 'One nation indivisible' thing.

That's actually my second biggest gripe with the pledge (behind the God thing).

Remember children, be a man - knuckle under to authority at every tun and never stand up for yourself. Nothing could be more manly. What wonderful advice.

Or you can be wise and pick and choose your battle.

Another advocate of showing respect for those who died to preserve your rights by NOT exercising said rights. Sadly I don't even find it ironic anymore.


it is ironic, in a way.
but there is a time and place to exercise said rights, and i dont think the pledge meets either prerequisits.

they died so that we could be able to protest such things, but they did not die so that we could protest honoring them for their death.

i am not saying that you should always say the pledge just to honor the troops, all im saying is there should be more reasons behind your protest than simply a jab at the system. it is perfectly fine to protest anything reguarding free speech, but do it because you truly belive that your rights are being violated, not just to make a rebellious statement.

it is ironic, in a way.
but there is a time and place to exercise said rights, and i dont think the pledge meets either prerequisits.

they died so that we could be able to protest such things, but they did not die so that we could protest honoring them for their death.

i am not saying that you should always say the pledge just to honor the troops, all im saying is there should be more reasons behind your protest than simply a jab at the system. it is perfectly fine to protest anything reguarding free speech, but do it because you truly belive that your rights are being violated, not just to make a rebellious statement.

Thank you.

*gives you slice of cheese cake*

Without even looking anything up.. I'd say no.. she can't.. and you should not get in trouble for it. All these folk.. teachers .. principles.. councelors. etc.. no matter who, are still real people with real beliefs. That we think we can seperate the two is beyond me.

Edit: I'm about ripped.. I'm speaking what I mean .. but it's possible . very, that I am not coming across.

South Carolina
Mississippi
Florida
Alabama
Georgia
Louisiana
Texas
Virginia
Missouri

?

Um...they did not successfully seced.

I wasn't, but I think I remember you telling us about how you scared some guy stealing your car(or something, I think) by threatening to introduce him to one of your arrows :p

Reasons not to Fuck with Kat:
She's a mod
She'll arrow you in the face
She's a teacher.
She's a mod!

Actually, it was five guys breaking into my brother's car; he reacted before thinking and ran out there. Five guys with screwdrivers closing in on my brother got to see me throw open an upper story window, lean out with my recurve, and tell them at least one of them was going to play William Tell with me unless they backed the fuck off.

Thank GOD they didn't test me on it. Even field points could have seriously killed someone.

Ask your teacher why she wants you to stand. What country is she from?

I'd be willing to bet she comes from a nation thats quality of life is much lower than that of America. I bet she feels greatful to be in America, I also bet that she feels like she should give something back to the country that took her in and let her live a far better life than she could have in her home country.

Yourself on the other hand sound much like a lot of the kids I went to high school with. You are handed everything, you never have to worry about getting a meal on your plate, you never have to worry about not having a home to go back to. America allows you to live a life that most people in the world would dream to have.

Being critical of government decisions is your right as an American. I myself was against the war in Iraq, because I thought that it would increase Iran's power in the Middle East. I think that if the Iraqis or anything group want to raise up and change their country they should. We didn't need to be there.

But now I feel that we need to do what we can to minimize Iran's influence as well as to rebuild as much as we can while we are there.If the Iraqi's are ready to change their views on women and things like that good, if not that is their given right not to.

Are you also one of the people who thinks you should be able to burn the flag?

I am one of those people. I take it you are not?

Even field points could have seriously killed someone.
Is it better to be seriously killed or frivolously killed?

Is it better to be seriously killed or frivolously killed?

Equally bad, I suppose -- I just didn't want to kill anyone, period. ;)

Or you can be wise and pick and choose your battle.

Why?

I say fight ALL injustices, not just occassional ones....

That's actually my second biggest gripe with the pledge (behind the God thing).

My problem is with the whole "pledge allegiance" part.

My problem is with the whole "pledge allegiance" part.

I find it funny that people (especially Christians) pledge allegiance to a flag.

Actually, it was five guys breaking into my brother's car; he reacted before thinking and ran out there. Five guys with screwdrivers closing in on my brother got to see me throw open an upper story window, lean out with my recurve, and tell them at least one of them was going to play William Tell with me unless they backed the fuck off.

Thank GOD they didn't test me on it. Even field points could have seriously killed someone.

Yeah, that's the one.

Katganistan: Serious Fucking Business

Eh be a man and just do the stupid pledge. I mean for Christ sakes, It's just a 30 second pledge that you can mouth your way through, and a part of being a man is doing things that you don't want to do. Consider this to be good exercise for other things that you don't want to do later on in life.


So.. "be a man, shut up, obey, learn to conform to authority," is that it?

To the OP: assert your personal, intellectual and physical sovereignty. A pledge of allegiance is a statement of principle. Forcing everyone to recite it is meant to brainwash you into believing what they want you to believe. Standing up for it as a sign of respect, bending your body to satisfy their will, is also an ideological statement. No matter what the rules say, they have no moral authority to tell you what to believe or to try and drill uncritical allegiance into you through mindless repetition. It would be the same if you were an atheist and they told you you were required to pray.

So, if you believe that your country is good and deserves your loyalty and protection, you ought to be taking part; not because they tell you to, but because it would be the honest thing to do. Conversely, if you don't believe that your country is good, and you don't believe it's worthy of your statement of loyalty, then "just standing and saying it" would make you a liar. Either way, it's about the integrity of your character and your essential freedom to believe what you will.

And if you have to defend your actions, you might point out that empty, hollow recitations of loyalty do more to harm your civic spirit- turn you off of voting or taking part in your community, etc- and that the abuse of authority to try and make you speak a lie out of mere conformity damages your soul and risks making you anti-social.

Brave men have died to safeguard the freedoms we have today, and you won't even respect them or your country by standing up for fifteen seconds. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being.

Brave men have died to safeguard the freedoms we have today, and you won't even respect them or your country by standing up for fifteen seconds.

Freedom is important. State-worship is not.

I find it funny that people (especially Christians) pledge allegiance to a flag.

Don't they also revere the bible to the point of idolatry?

Brave men have died to safeguard the freedoms we have today, and you won't even respect them or your country by standing up for fifteen seconds. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being.

Brave men have died to safeguard many things. One'd have to be standing for days to give all the respect due.

Brave men have died to safeguard the freedoms we have today, and you won't even respect them or your country by standing up for fifteen seconds. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being.

Indeed, how dare anyone use the freedom that allegedly brave men died for. What a terrible affront! How will those poor dead men get over such an insult?

Indeed, how dare anyone use the freedom that allegedly brave men died for. What a terrible affront! How will those poor dead men get over such an insult?

By turning over in their graves?

By turning over in their graves?

And mooning the world of the living. Appropriate.

Or you can be wise and pick and choose your battle.

He picked and chose this one. A good choice as it's it's one that he's almost asured of winning. The Supreme Court has ruled in his favor every time it's come up.

it is ironic, in a way.
but there is a time and place to exercise said rights, and i dont think the pledge meets either prerequisits.

All the time, everywhere. That's why their called rights.

they died so that we could be able to protest such things, but they did not die so that we could protest honoring them for their death.

Not even sure what you're trying to say here . . .

Brave men have died to safeguard many things. One'd have to be standing for days to give all the respect due.

Indeed -- flags abound throughout my property to highlight my respect for those honorable men and I diligently and tirelessly advocate in favor of the ideals of freedom and liberty for which they sacrificed so much. Yet even that is woefully insufficient.

However, to actively attempt to scheme one's way out of doing something so simple as standing in silence for fifteen seconds to pay one's respect to these brave men is beyond ludicrous: it's ghastly and appalling.

Indeed -- flags abound throughout my property to highlight my respect for those honorable men and I diligently and tirelessly advocate in favor of the ideals of freedom and liberty for which they sacrificed so much. Yet even that is woefully insufficient.

However, to actively attempt to scheme one's way out of doing something so simple as standing in silence for fifteen seconds to pay one's respect to these brave men is beyond ludicrous: it's ghastly and appalling.

I reiterate my sarcastic suggestion that the men you allege died for the sake of freedom and liberty would not take issue with someone choosing to exercise those rights.

Indeed -- flags abound throughout my property to highlight my respect for those honorable men and I diligently and tirelessly advocate in favor of the ideals of freedom and liberty for which they sacrificed so much. Yet even that is woefully insufficient.

However, to actively attempt to scheme one's way out of doing something so simple as standing in silence for fifteen seconds to pay one's respect to these brave men is beyond ludicrous: it's ghastly and appalling.

Maybe you're doing enough to cover for the ghastly and appalling ones. You should receive monetary compensation, because surely, payment of respect to protectioners of freedom should be subject to free trade.

Why don't you send some bills?

You should receive monetary compensation, because surely, payment of respect to protectioners of freedom should be subject to free trade.

Well, I have proposed providing tax incentives for those who prominently display American flags on their property. I believe I posted a topic on this matter several months ago.

A "real man" would stand up and fart the pledge.

If someone can do that, all the more power to him/her. I just hope that whoever it is, I wouldn't be standing next to them. :p

Well, I have proposed providing tax incentives for those who prominently display American flags on their property. I believe I posted a topic on this matter several months ago.
Excellent...there should also be tax incentives for those whose children recite the full Pledge.

You can have the worst lawyer on earth and I still don't think a court would say you had to pledge, and you shouldn't a soon as people like you stop a court might actually ban the barbaric practice, it's brain washing in the most blatant form seen in the developed world...besides that's its just weird, I'd never pledge allegiance to my country, it oppresses the cultures of ethnic minorities for one which in turn creates cultural divides as minorities have to then create a unified identity in order to feel safe in their own homes, secondly its ever so slightly Orwellian , it creates a feeling in children that they don't have a right to challenge their government or other figures of authority, breeding blind obedience which in turn breeds fascism.

Excellent...there should also be tax incentives for those whose children recite the full Pledge.

I couldn't agree with you more, as instilling patriotism in our nation's youth is crucial to our continuing prosperity as a nation.

You can have the worst lawyer on earth and I still don't think a court would say you had to pledge, and you shouldn't a soon as people like you stop a court might actually ban the barbaric practice, it's brain washing in the most blatant form seen in the developed world...besides that's its just weird, I'd never pledge allegiance to my country, it oppresses the cultures of ethnic minorities for one which in turn creates cultural divides as minorities have to then create a unified identity in order to feel safe in their own homes, secondly its ever so slightly Orwellian , it creates a feeling in children that they don't have a right to challenge their government or other figures of authority, breeding blind obedience which in turn breeds fascism.

Isn't blind obedience fine as long as fascism is forbidden?

I couldn't agree with you more, as instilling patriotism in our nation's youth is crucial to our continuing prosperity as a nation.
Absolutely, and that prosperity is key to global safety.

How is this different from the Hitler Youth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth)idea?

Isn't blind obedience fine as long as fascism is forbidden?

No.

Blind obedience is never ok, you should always think about why you're doing what you are told and whether you agree with what you are doing, and patriotism is just another word for nationalism, which is just another word for racism, politics and biased religious views should be kept out of the classroom until children are old enough to make their own informed decisions on whether they think their country is being run properly. Older children aren't taught enough about economy and politics, they need to be taught about alternatives to capitalism they need to in turn be taught about Socialism and Libertarianism as well a New Right politics and Capitalism, and they can learn that honestly, if they are having to pledge allegiance to random flags and countries, and if they don't learn about all socio-political/economic views then they are not living in a truly free society.

No.

Because that way lies destruction?

People have already posted bits of it, but for those who are unfamiliar with it, here is the pledge children say in school:

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.
I put line breaks where I usually pause, and capitalized the words that seemed the most important. I have no idea if this is the "official" way.
As you can see, it's not as nationalistic as one might expect. There are two qualms I have with it: one, the allegiance to the flag. The President swears to uphold the Constitution, as do people in the military, I believe. Children shouldn't have to pledge to uphold the Constitution, but they could pledge allegiance to it, or at least the United States. Second, the "under God." A Supreme Court case a while ago declared that this was not unconstitutional, and the reason given was "God" was not an endorsement of a specific religion, the word had become commonplace enough no one thought of Christianity or Zoroastrianism when they said it. In my opinion, this cheapens the concept of God.

Because that way lies destruction?

Because blind obediance is for those who can't think for themselves.

Because blind obediance is for those who can't think for themselves.
Isn't that true of most people? One may think he thinks fo himself, but is only repeating what he's been told. What he's been brought up to think, indoctrinated, conditioned, brainwashed, etc...

Anyway, if blind obediance is for those who can't think for themselves, are you not essentially agreeing that some should just blindly obey?

Everybody has the capacity to think for themselves even if their false consciousness denies them the opportunity, but even those people can have their eyes opened.

Everybody has the capacity to think for themselves even if their false consciousness denies them the opportunity, but even those people can have their eyes opened.
If they are properly educated and taught proper thought?

No.
NO ONE is obligated to say the pledge, period. It is unconstitutional in that it interferes with religious belief -- there are groups that simply may not swear allegiance to anyone or thing but God, and therefore this interferes with their observance. Unconstitutional for some means unconstitutional for all; no one must pledge.

However, even though she is not within her rights, per se, to make you stand, it would be the respectful and adult thing to do.

:confused:
What if there were religions that did not believe in paying homage to the State through taxes?
Perhaps a religious sect that believed a country allowing abortion would bring about the end of the world?
A religion that required people to carry swords, whether the State allows it or not?
We can't change every law/regulation simply because a religion may not agree with it.
Just like we shouldn't change laws/regulations because certain religions do agree with them.

But yes, one cannot be forced to state the pledge...even if it makes sense to support the country(if not the current government) that you are living in. If you don't even support or would never support the country you are living in, why live there?

I think that's a fair presumption to make when I know nothing else about the situation. However, I'm the OP knows whether there is a reason for the rule or not, and he can decide based on that.

So, despite clear precedent that students can't be forced to say the Pledge or stand for the Pledge, you'll go with a hypothetical good reason for the teacher's action. Under that thinking there is never any room for freedom.

None of these cases were before the Supreme Court or in the OP's jurisdiction.

Actually, I think the OP is in Connecticut, which is in the Second Circuit. In which case, one of the cases cited is on point and in the OP's jurisdiction. See, e.g., Goetz v. Ansell, 477 F.2d 636 (2nd Cir. 1973)(holding that student has the right to sit quietly during the Pledge and cannot be removed from classroom for refusing to stand.

In Goetz, the Second Circuit explained: “the alternative offered plaintiff of standing in silence is an act that cannot be compelled over his deeply held convictions. It can no more be required than the pledge itself.”

Even if they were, that does not mean the cases they presided over were the same as the OP's. Honestly, I don't think court cases can prove or disprove his, only help it (or not help it). Citing court cases would be useful if we were judging UNITHU v. UNITHU's School District, but we're not. I don't even know where he lives, except it's on the east side of Connecticut.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure the OP cannot be made to say the pledge, and if he was really against it, I don't think the teacher could make him stand, either. But all the court precedents in the world mean nothing if I don't know the actual situation. I know it involves schools and free speech, so I've tried to find ones that relate to that, but none of them says anything absolute. (That is, "Students must always stand for the pledge," or "Students may never be made to stand for the pledge.")

Your version of jurisprudence would leave all case law up in the air. One doesn't have to wait until UNITHU v. UNITHU's School District is decided to opine on what the law says.

One takes precedent and applies it to the specific case before one. One does not have to have a case with exactly the same circumstances decided in order to have precedent apply.

Here we have:

1) SCOTUS precedent that clearly protects students from saying the Pledge and which clearly would apply to other symbolic conduct.

2) A case from the OP jurisdiction that is on point and applies the SCOTUS case to hold that a student can't be forced to stand during the Pledge.

3) Copius persuasive precedent from other jurisdicitions holding that students cannot be compelled to stand for the Pledge.

4) Absolutely no known caselaw holding that a student can be required to stand during the Pledge.

One or two of the above would be enough to advise UNITHU that he/she need not stand during the Pledge. All four is overwhelming evidence.

If they are properly educated and taught proper thought?

A proper education is helpful, but in a true democracy the youth must be taught to think critically and when necessary objectively.

The mention of god in the pledge is only there because a certain religious group wanted it there, and in a pledge to a country who's constitution was written by philosophers, and vaguely christian agnostics that's quite bad, and getting rid of the mention of god does not require a huge law changing effort exempting hundreds of thousands of religions from tax or anything it just requires removing 1 phrase, the result far outweighs the effort required. The word republic should be removed as well, a republic is not the only way to run a democracy.

could awlays do the the Clavin pledge "I pledge allegiance to Queen Fragg, and her mighty state of hysteria"

Brave men have died to safeguard the freedoms we have today, and you won't even respect them or your country by standing up for fifteen seconds. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being.

How does promising to serve a piece of cloth show respect to the martyrs of yesterday?

Anyone who died for fabric was an idiot,not a hero.

could awlays do the the Clavin pledge "I pledge allegiance to Queen Fragg, and her mighty state of hysteria"

Or Jello Biafra's version:

"I pledge defiance to the flag of the United Snakes of Depravity..."

Brave men have died to safeguard the freedoms we have today, and you won't even respect them or your country by standing up for fifteen seconds. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being.

Have you considered that by not standing for the pledge I am standing up for the freedoms those men died for?

Have you considered that by not standing for the pledge I am standing up for the freedoms those men died for?

I don't see how not saying this...

"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."

..stands for the freedoms they died for.

Being as those freedoms were "liberty and justice for all". Theoretically.

"the Republic,
For which it stands" Is a good thing, we just don't do what we stand for all the time.

Though I will say the "indivisible" is just wishful thinking.

I don't see how not saying this...

"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."

..stands for the freedoms they died for.

Being as those freedoms were "liberty and justice for all". Theoretically.

"the Republic,
For which it stands" Is a good thing, we just don't do what we stand for all the time.

Though I will say the "indivisible" is just wishful thinking.

More than just those, all of them. No one said they were fighting for the pledge.
And in that regards, I am.

No, technically you have the first amendment right NOT to do it.

I say it occasionally, with the words "One Nation, Under Flying Spaghetti Monster". :D

anyone can get away with anything given enough authority and little enough oversight. how long they can get away with it depends entirely upon the political mood of the surrounding culture.

one way of halfway placating the fanatics without entirely compromising your own consciense would be to pledge alligence to your own nation states country.

("i pledge alligance to the flag of the world of lananara, and to the way of life for which it stands, the limitless diversity of an infinite universe with freedom from both stress and mundaneness for all", is what i usually say silently to myself on flag saluting occasions).

no idology, economics nor organized belief, and certainly no soverign nation, can create freedom, all are instead obsticals to it. confrontation isn't always the best way to advance an agenda, even when you know you're right, probably especially when you think you are. all of that killing and dying did nothing to prevent the tyranny of the corporate mafia we are under now either.

=^^=
.../\...

You can just as easily talk to your friends while standing. *nods*

I don't see how not saying this...

"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."

..stands for the freedoms they died for.

Which speech becomes compelled, it is no longer free. If one respects freedom of speech one must also respect that one of the most important elements of the right to free speech is the right not to speak.

A Supreme Court case a while ago declared that this was not unconstitutional

No they did not, and that was not the ruling in that case. The most recent ruling on the matter was a california district cout ruling which said it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has not ruled that it is not.

Have you considered that by not standing for the pledge I am standing up for the freedoms those men died for?

The european court of human rights is pretty clear on the view that freedom of expressio means not only the right to express oneself, but also the right Not to express oneself.

Maybe the european system is just a lot more advanced...

The european court of human rights is pretty clear on the view that freedom of expressio means not only the right to express oneself, but also the right Not to express oneself.

Maybe the european system is just a lot more advanced...

I love being European sometimes.

That said, you could just pledge allegiance to Her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Should raise a few eyebrows.

Which speech becomes compelled, it is no longer free.
False. I may be 'compelled' to do certain things, but whether or not I actually do them springs from my own free will.

If one respects freedom of speech one must also respect that one of the most important elements of the right to free speech is the right not to speak

Everyone here realizes that students in the United States do not have to say the Pledge, right?

Oh, and fun fact: My presumably foreign born spanish teacher is the one making this an issue, while my U.S. History teacher doesn't care at all. In fact, I have never seen anyone doing the pledge ever in that class.
Perhaps because your teacher is a respectable immigrant that came here seeking a better life and has profound respect for the country that gave it to her? Also, didn't you say this was your first period class? Well the pledge is only done first period so why would you do it later in history class?

Anyway, just suck it up and do it. What's so bad about it? It's actually quite a nice thing to say. Is it so bad to have allegiance to your country of citizenship? Anyway, not like it matters because whether you think you're right or wrong, your teacher (and school in general) has the authority to make you do what they want. That's how school is and that get's you set for real life where your boss has the authority....and true, while you can quit, that leaves you unemployed and your Boss, well, without a worker until he hires someone else....

"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.",

I think it's just a rebel teenager kind of thing.
I'm still a teen but I did "rebel" stuff in High School too. Like when my English teacher was preaching about her Leftist garbage to our class and I stood up in front of the class and just debated her right there on the spot. Thankfully, I got my shit done and did well in her class, otherwise I don't doubt that she would have kicked me out of her class permenatly.

Have you considered that by not standing for the pledge I am standing up for the freedoms those men died for?

Have you ever considered that you should move to France if you're such a disgusting brat that you cannot even devote 15 seconds of each day to honoring our brave men and women? Thank God we don't have more morally rotten people like you, else we'd be speaking German now.

You don't have to legally stand for it, but there is a difference between law and what your teacher says. If it's a rule in your class, she isn't breaking the law.

I agree 100%, you are not legally REQUIRED to stand for it, but you are on government owned property in a school, so your civil liberties don't really matter.. For example, you have freedom of speech, but there is no need for you to stand up and sing a song during the middle of math class...

Similar to having a second amendment right to bear arms, but the understanding that a handgun cannot be brought into a courthouse, because the government property's rights supercede your civil liberties..



plus, why make an ass of yourself in fighting with a teacher over something like the national anthem?? you may think it's cute or even get a few chuckles out of the class, but it isn't because you are being rebelious, it's because they are actually laughing at you... (seriously)

I agree 100%, you are not legally REQUIRED to stand for it, but you are on government owned property in a school, so your civil liberties don't really matter.. For example, you have freedom of speech, but there is no need for you to stand up and sing a song during the middle of math class...

Similar to having a second amendment right to bear arms, but the understanding that a handgun cannot be brought into a courthouse, because the government property's rights supercede your civil liberties..


You do not check your constitutional freedom to speech at the classroom door. SCOTUS and other courts have made it perfectly clear that a student can neither be compelled to say the Pledge nor be compelled to stand for the Pledge.

Read the SCOTUS cases that I provided links to earlier.

Have you ever considered that you should move to France if you're such a disgusting brat that you cannot even devote 15 seconds of each day to honoring our brave men and women? Thank God we don't have more morally rotten people like you, else we'd be speaking German now.

So you are from the school of rights described in The Clash's "Know Your Rights":

This is a public service announcement
With guitar
Know your rights all three of them
...
Number 3
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.

I guess in your world those brave men and women died for nothing. How pathetic.

I agree 100%, you are not legally REQUIRED to stand for it, but you are on government owned property in a school, so your civil liberties don't really matter..

umm....

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.

So you are from the school of rights described in The Clash's "Know Your Rights":


In the US, we have freedom of speech -- yet you are punished if you curse at school. Is that an infringement on one's constitutional rights? Of course not. In the US, the government denying you the right to sleep (if you are not being detained under suspicious of a crime) is unheard of -- yet, if you fall asleep during a lecture at school, you are likely to be disciplined. Is that a blatantly unconstitutional decision? Of course not. The same concept applies to standing up for 15 seconds and reciting a pledge -- unless you are handicapped, you are expected to comply with this request during school or acquiesce to some form of punishment for failure to adhere to the rules. Is it unconstitutional? Of course not -- it's common sense.

In the US, we have freedom of speech -- yet you are punished if you curse at school. Is that an infringement on one's constitutional rights? Of course not. In the US, the government denying you the right to sleep (if you are not being detained under suspicious of a crime) is unheard of -- yet, if you fall asleep during a lecture at school, you are likely to be disciplined. Is that a blatantly unconstitutional decision? Of course not. The same concept applies to standing up for 15 seconds and reciting a pledge -- unless you are handicapped, you are expected to comply with this request during school or acquiesce to some form of punishment for failure to adhere to the rules. Is it unconstitutional? Of course not -- it's common sense.

The supreme court would appear to disagree with you.

In the US, we have freedom of speech -- yet you are punished if you curse at school. Is that an infringement on one's constitutional rights? Of course not. In the US, the government denying you the right to sleep (if you are not being detained under suspicious of a crime) is unheard of -- yet, if you fall asleep during a lecture at school, you are likely to be disciplined. Is that a blatantly unconstitutional decision? Of course not. The same concept applies to standing up for 15 seconds and reciting a pledge -- unless you are handicapped, you are expected to comply with this request during school or acquiesce to some form of punishment for failure to adhere to the rules. Is it unconstitutional? Of course not -- it's common sense.

Sorry but your lack of understanding of the Constitution and particularly the rights of students doesn't justify deprivation of those rights.

Please explain how West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/319/624.html), 319 U.S. 624 (1943) was in error. From that case (emphasis added):

Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

The case is made difficult not b ecause the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.

Please explain how West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/319/624.html), 319 U.S. 624 (1943) was in error.

It is not wrong in a legal sense (although it is fundamentally flawed morally), as the Supreme Court has the power to make such determinations and its decision has not been overruled (as far as I know). However, it does not apply to the current situation, as it's conclusion was that "the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power." While mandating that students perform both these actions simultaneously is unlawful, decreeing that they perform either of these actions is, in itself, legal. The Supreme Court made no ruling on the constitutionality of forcing students to stand during the Pledge; moreover, it did not explicitly ban the forced recitation of the pledge. Therefore, there is no legal precedent for the current situation, nor the scenario which I envision. Needless to say, this entire debate can be mooted by a subsequent decision by the Supreme Court to allow students to respect their forebears.

Sure sit, be a communist! Dishonor the men and women of our military. Sit there and disrespect the ones who made us free. People like you that seperate the Union!

Needless to say, this entire debate can be mooted by a subsequent decision by the Supreme Court to allow students to respect their forebears.

'Allow' or 'force'?

Have you ever considered that you should move to France if you're such a disgusting brat that you cannot even devote 15 seconds of each day to honoring our brave men and women? Thank God we don't have more morally rotten people like you, else we'd be speaking German now.

So tell me, are the Japanese speaking English?

Are the Germans speaking French, English and Russian?

A conquered people do not cease to speak in their mother-tongue.

So tell me, are the Japanese speaking English?

Are the Germans speaking French, English and Russian?

A conquered people do not cease to speak in their mother-tongue.

That is because they weren't conquered...
They were defeated in a war and left to their own devices(for the most part) afterwards.

That is because they weren't conquered...
They were defeated in a war and left to their own devices(for the most part) afterwards.

Eastern Germany was conquered and occupied for forty years. (until the fall of the Berlin Wall)

Western Germany was conquered and occupied for five-ten years.

Japan surrendered and was occupied for a number of years as well.

During the war, various countries were conquered. These countries did not cease to use their mother-tongue in the daily language. Vichy France operated in French. Denmark operated in Danish.

'Allow' or 'force'?

The term I used was analogous to the use of "let" in the expression "we're going to have to let you go." It's somewhat of a euphemistic statement; I agree.

It is not wrong in a legal sense (although it is fundamentally flawed morally), as the Supreme Court has the power to make such determinations and its decision has not been overruled (as far as I know).

SCOTUS's decision in West Virginia v. Barnette is both legally correct and morally correct. You have yet to show otherwise.

However, it does not apply to the current situation, as it's conclusion was that "the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power." While mandating that students perform both these actions simultaneously is unlawful, decreeing that they perform either of these actions is, in itself, legal. The Supreme Court made no ruling on the constitutionality of forcing students to stand during the Pledge; moreover, it did not explicitly ban the forced recitation of the pledge.

LOL. Your reading of the case is obviously absurd. Try reading it again.
For example, note this part (emphasis added):

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein

You cannot compell a student to say the words of the Pledge or act in a way that shows faith in the Flag or the Pledge.

Therefore, there is no legal precedent for the current situation, nor the scenario which I envision.

Sorry, but you must have overlooked my earlier posts containing ample precedent specific to the situation of requiring a student to stand during the pledge or otherwise forcing symbolic actions. Copious decisions hold that the reasoning of West Virginia v. Barnette applies in those situations. See, e.g., Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir 2004) (holding that student's rights were violated when he was punished for not saying the pledge and for standing with a raised fist during the pledge), Walker-Serrano v. Leonard, 325 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2003) ("For over fifty years, the law has protected elementary students' rights to refrain from reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. W. Va. State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Punishing a child for non-disruptively expressing her opposition to recitation of the pledge would seem to be as offensive to the First Amendment as requiring its oration."), Lipp v. Morris, 579 F.2d 834 (3d Cir.1978) (agreeing with plaintiff, Deborah Lipp, “that her right to remain silent and not be forced to stand springs directly from the precise First Amendment right against compelled participation in the flag ceremony recognized in Barnette.”), Goetz v. Ansell, 477 F.2d 636 (2d Cir. 1973) (“the alternative offered plaintiff of standing in silence is an act that cannot be compelled over his deeply held convictions. It can no more be required than the pledge itself.”), Banks v. Bd of Public Instr., 450 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1971) (“The conduct of Andrew Banks in refusing to stand during the pledge ceremony constituted an expression of his religious beliefs and political opinions. His refusal to stand was no less a form of expression than the wearing of the black armband was to Mary Beth Tinker. He was exercising a right ‘akin to pure speech.’”), Rabideau v. Beekmantown Central School District, 89 F.Supp.2d 263 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (“It is well established that a school may not require its students to stand for or recite the Pledge of Allegiance or punish any student for his/her failure to do so.”).

Needless to say, this entire debate can be mooted by a subsequent decision by the Supreme Court to allow students to respect their forebears.

Curious use of the word "allow" to mean "forced." Students are already allowed to say the pledge, they merely cannot be forced to do so.

BTW, since when is saying the pledge respecting one's forebearers?

You cannot compell a student to say the words of the Pledge or act in a way that shows faith in the Flag or the Pledge.

Curious use of the word "allow" to mean "forced." Students are already allowed to say the pledge, they merely cannot be forced to do so.

You just watch me. *brandishes whip of freedom and glory*

The topic creator is an asshole. If you don't like the pledge, move to Venezuala you deadweight moocher.

Freedom and Glory? *squints* Is that you?

*snip*

Apparently our Founders were assholes for protecting our freedom of speech and opinion.

Apparently Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious groups that have religious objections to being forced to say the Pledge should be forcibly removed to Venezuala.

:rolleyes::headbang:

Have you ever considered that you should move to France if you're such a disgusting brat that you cannot even devote 15 seconds of each day to honoring our brave men and women? Thank God we don't have more morally rotten people like you, else we'd be speaking German now.

I doubt Hitler could have pulled off an invasion of the United States, and thank you for avoiding the point of my post. :)

Perhaps because your teacher is a respectable immigrant that came here seeking a better life and has profound respect for the country that gave it to her? Also, didn't you say this was your first period class? Well the pledge is only done first period so why would you do it later in history class?
On Wednesdays I have History first. I just thought it was interesting that a language teacher felt more of an urge to do patriotic things than a U.S. History teacher.

The topic creator is an asshole. If you don't like the pledge, move to Venezuala you deadweight moocher.

Yes! Lets run away from things we don't like rather than trying to change them! What an excellent idea!

Also, I'm not sure I'd like Venezuela, what, with the exact same things x1000 happening there.

The topic creator is an asshole. If you don't like the pledge, move to Venezuala you deadweight moocher.

Venezuala? That would be the first place you would send people for standing up (or sitting down) for their rights?

Interesting.

Where would you deport people who like different flavors of ice cream than you do?

Interesting.

Where would you deport people who like different flavors of ice cream than you do?

I shudder to think.
Probably Siberia, where the only flavour of ice cream is Cold.

The topic creator is an asshole. If you don't like the pledge, move to Venezuala you deadweight moocher.

Oh brother :rolleyes: You really need to grow up. What are you? Twelve or something?

SCOTUS's decision in West Virginia v. Barnette is both legally correct and morally correct. You have yet to show otherwise.



LOL. Your reading of the case is obviously absurd. Try reading it again.
For example, note this part (emphasis added):

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein

You cannot compell a student to say the words of the Pledge or act in a way that shows faith in the Flag or the Pledge.



Sorry, but you must have overlooked my earlier posts containing ample precedent specific to the situation of requiring a student to stand during the pledge or otherwise forcing symbolic actions. Copious decisions hold that the reasoning of West Virginia v. Barnette applies in those situations. See, e.g., Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir 2004) (holding that student's rights were violated when he was punished for not saying the pledge and for standing with a raised fist during the pledge), Walker-Serrano v. Leonard, 325 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2003) ("For over fifty years, the law has protected elementary students' rights to refrain from reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. W. Va. State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Punishing a child for non-disruptively expressing her opposition to recitation of the pledge would seem to be as offensive to the First Amendment as requiring its oration."), Lipp v. Morris, 579 F.2d 834 (3d Cir.1978) (agreeing with plaintiff, Deborah Lipp, “that her right to remain silent and not be forced to stand springs directly from the precise First Amendment right against compelled participation in the flag ceremony recognized in Barnette.”), Goetz v. Ansell, 477 F.2d 636 (2d Cir. 1973) (“the alternative offered plaintiff of standing in silence is an act that cannot be compelled over his deeply held convictions. It can no more be required than the pledge itself.”), Banks v. Bd of Public Instr., 450 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1971) (“The conduct of Andrew Banks in refusing to stand during the pledge ceremony constituted an expression of his religious beliefs and political opinions. His refusal to stand was no less a form of expression than the wearing of the black armband was to Mary Beth Tinker. He was exercising a right ‘akin to pure speech.’”), Rabideau v. Beekmantown Central School District, 89 F.Supp.2d 263 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (“It is well established that a school may not require its students to stand for or recite the Pledge of Allegiance or punish any student for his/her failure to do so.”).



Curious use of the word "allow" to mean "forced." Students are already allowed to say the pledge, they merely cannot be forced to do so.

BTW, since when is saying the pledge respecting one's forebearers?

Did I really cause F&G and the other equivocators to shut up?

Did I really cause F&G and the other equivocators to shut up?

Awww....:(
I was quite enjoying it.

Did I really cause F&G and the other equivocators to shut up?

Looks like it.

Awww....:(
I was quite enjoying it.

So what happened? Did you stick to your guns? Were you tarred and feathered? What?

So what happened? Did you stick to your guns? Were you tarred and feathered? What?

tldr

Its like pleading the 5th.

Did I really cause F&G and the other equivocators to shut up?

Temporarily, at least. :)

I'll try to respond to your post when I have more time; that's a fairly daunting block of legal precedent you cited there.

:confused:
What if there were religions that did not believe in paying homage to the State through taxes?
Perhaps a religious sect that believed a country allowing abortion would bring about the end of the world?
A religion that required people to carry swords, whether the State allows it or not?
We can't change every law/regulation simply because a religion may not agree with it.
Just like we shouldn't change laws/regulations because certain religions do agree with them.

But yes, one cannot be forced to state the pledge...even if it makes sense to support the country(if not the current government) that you are living in. If you don't even support or would never support the country you are living in, why live there?

Who said anything about changing laws? It's clearly in conflict with the First Amendment.

Guess what? there are people who don't believe in paying taxes and have portions of their homes designated as a house of worship.

Guess what? Sikhs do in fact believe they must carry ceremonial daggers with them, and in most cases their right to do so, even in schools, has been upheld.

Guess what? the Westboro Baptist church does think the world's coming to an end over abortion, gays, and intermarriage.

And yet the constitution ticks on regardless... and so do the laws of the land.

So what happened? Did you stick to your guns? Were you tarred and feathered? What?

Well, the nice man on the intercom got on, told us to stand for the pledge, she told us 'Levanten se!' (I'm in spanish one I can't spell at all) and I didn't stand up.

And nothing happened. I'm actually disappointed, all this build up and it amounts to nothing.

Well, the nice man on the intercom got on, told us to stand for the pledge, she told us 'Levanten se!' (I'm in spanish one I can't spell at all) and I didn't stand up.

And nothing happened. I'm actually disappointed, all this build up and it amounts to nothing.

Well at least nothing happened.