• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outraged

Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

Aunt Spiker said:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which is stands. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Ok - please point out what's socialist about it?

It supports liberty and justice for everyone - suggests God means something to you (which is the only thing I consider to be remotely controversial about it at all). And says you'll be faithful to your country.

Because that's what a pledge does - it's an affirmation of your loyalty and it briefly describes the basic core value of the country.

It's not left or right - socialist or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Clearly it is socialist.

And it is about giving one's self up to the greater society.

And let's talk about left and right. A small governemnt mentality would not stand for such a statement as "indivisible". It removes state's rights right off the bat.

A true small government conservative abhors the very concept of indivisible. This pledge is to unity of thought. Which is why the dream of it's creators was to hear many children recite this indoctrination prayer in unison, and in a uniform fashion.

And let's go a little further, it is a pledge of fealty that is given by rote memory instead of by force of will. The goal was to train children to become patriots, not to make the children want to become patriots. It is brainwashing at it's finest. It places the state at a level that should only be occupied by family and God. The state works for it's people, not the other way around. If anything, the state should be pledging loyalty to us.

All that doesn't even take into account who Bellamy was (a noted Christian socialist) or how the socialist public school system was the battleground they chose to wage their socialist indoctrination campaign.

The reason it has been successful was that it struck at the hearts of those who would otherwise oppose it, who loved their country. It was one of the most subversive socialist propaganda pieces ever written. Even to the point that Bellamy was intelligent enough to exclude the terms "equality" and "fraternity" from his pledge, knowing that this socialist catch phrase of the era (taken form the French revolution and adopted by Christian socialists as the "dream") would not be realized for quite some time.

But even without this knowledge of the pledges history, it should be clear that this prayer of indoctrination is nothing more than a reversal of where the loyalties should lay.
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

Tucker Case said:
And it is about giving one's self up to the greater society.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is about giving one's self up to the nation. Which is why it is not "socialist".
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

Khayembii Communique said:
Actually, it is about giving one's self up to the nation. Which is why it is not "socialist".
Click to expand...

Even if the nation becomes tyrannical? Then do we quit saying the Pledge?
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

Zyphlin said:
I don't really see how being "anti-socialist" or "anti-government" would disqualify support of people saying the pledge.

Lets examine this....

First, in regards to anti-government. It specifically is pledging it it seems to the United States of America, not necessarily the government. This is a nuanced difference but important to the conservative philosophy, since it seems aimed at them. The general conservative mindset is that government should be kept at arms length and given a skeptical eye, but the country should be respected and loved. The country, its culture foundation and principles, is different in essense than the government that represents it.
Click to expand...

What, precisely, is a "republic" but a form of government? The addition of the United states of America was well after the pledge's creation. Originally, it simply said "I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic for which it stands."



In regards to the anti-socialist aspect, again aside from its roots of who made it, I'm not seeing the socialist propoganda here. I don't see a push for everyone to share the burden amongst each other. Or that government is some kind of over arching diety. Or anything that usually gets blasted as being an extreme idea of socialism.
Click to expand...

Reciting a prayer to your governemnt is exactly like the governemnt is some over-arching diety. That's precisely what it is.

I'd be there with you in the hypocrisy of anti-government people if we were forcing people to have to say it. I'd feel the same way if it was illegal to not take of your hat during the national anthem. But that's not the case.
Click to expand...

Aren't we making children say it? Isn't that what this thread is about?

I think you're stereotyping by trying to tie the belief that government in general should have a hands off approach on peoples dailies lives and should be limited with the belief that somehow respecting or loving ones country and expressing that/ingraining that is bad.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about respecting or loving one's country being bad. But I will say that indoctrinating/brainwashing children into that view by having them recite prayers to the governemnt while simultaneously decrying socialism and big government is downright retarded in my opinion.

And as an anti-federalist, I abhor the pledge for it's indivisible line. It indoctrinates everyone into a big federal governemnt perspective.
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

Tucker Case said:
And let's talk about left and right. A small governemnt mentality would not stand for such a statement as "indivisible". It removes state's rights right off the bat.

A true small government conservative abhors the very concept of indivisible. This pledge is to unity of thought. Which is why the dream of it's creators was to hear many children recite this indoctrination prayer in unison, and in a uniform fashion.
Click to expand...

This, here, is a very interesting argument and one I have not heard before or thought about. Well done sir, this will give me something to chew on.

It is brainwashing at it's finest. It places the state at a level that should only be occupied by family and God. The state works for it's people, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

And here is where we split. I don't see it as pledging fealty to the state, but to the COUNTRY. To me these are two different things, connected but not the same. The State is the government, the beuracracy. The State is the specific President, Congress, Judges. The State is the actual laws made by those bodies. To me the State is the tangiable.

To me the Country is more philisophical. The country is the intangable. The country is the principles that we uphold, such as freedom, liberty, justice, etc. To me the Country is its culture, its history, its traditions.

While not exactly parrallel, the office of the President to me would be akin to the country, an individual president being the state. One could have the utmost respect for the office of the President, while finding the person occupying said office to be a scumbag. Likewise I believe one can find the state to be completely distasteful, while truly loving the country and what it stands for.

I think this is where we split. I think this is where I have no issue with them pushing this, but instead if it was focused instead on the specific president, or on the government, rather than the country, that I'd begin to have an issue with it.

I understand where you're coming from. But I simply feel there is a difference between devotion to ones country and devotion to the "state" as you use it.

Personally, I think man do view it in just that way you describe as well, only with the country not the "state".

God
Family
Country

is the order of things I know many, many people believe. I just don't necessarily think those people equat Country to "Government" exactly.
 
Last edited:
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

Zyphlin said:
And here is where we split. I don't see it as pledging fealty to the state, but to the COUNTRY. To me these are two different things, connected but not the same. The State is the government, the beuracracy. The State is the specific President, Congress, Judges. The State is the actual laws made by those bodies. To me the State is the tangiable.

To me the Country is more philisophical. The country is the intangable. The country is the principles that we uphold, such as freedom, liberty, justice, etc. To me the Country is its culture, its history, its traditions.

While not exactly parrallel, the office of the President to me would be akin to the country, an individual president being the state. One could have the utmost respect for the office of the President, while finding the person occupying said office to be a scumbag. Likewise I believe one can find the state to be completely distasteful, while truly loving the country and what it stands for.

I think this is where we split. I think this is where I have no issue with them pushing this, but instead if it was focused instead on the specific president, or on the government, rather than the country, that I'd begin to have an issue with it.

I understand where you're coming from. But I simply feel there is a difference between devotion to ones country and devotion to the "state" as you use it.
Click to expand...

The pledge is first to the flag, and then to the republic for which it stands.

You've got to look at the original pledge first and foremost. The later additions only serve to throw dirt over the most socialist aspects:

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands-one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

Since when do 13 year olds decide what goes on in class? I'd get on the phone with a parent and explain that they can be the parent outside of school hours. What a little creep they are turning him into.
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

American said:
Ajmel Quereshi?? You can't make this stuff up. The ACLU had to send someone from India to defend this child, in a time when Muslim stereotyping is an issue. Did Bob Jones have the day off or something? Whether this guy is Muslim or not is irrelevent, it's the appearance. The kid didn't do anything wrong, though in our day we'd have probably got the crap kicked out of us during recess. Anyway, the teacher should be fired, an apology isn't enough. I believe in the pledge, but damn this isn't the USSR. The police should charge the teacher with false arrest.
Click to expand...

Not to be picky, but India is a mostly Hindu nation.

As to the OP, the teacher should be summarily fired. Her actions are directly opposed to the freedom and justice she supposedly pledges to. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

EgoffTib said:
Refusing to mindlessly recite meaningless words does not make you anti-American.
Click to expand...

If those words are meaningless then surely no one should have a problem reciting them.
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

Khayembii Communique said:
It's just social conditioning; nationalism is silly.
Click to expand...

Nationalism is good.

The ideas now associated with nationalism are undesirable to many, that is granted.

Back to the topic for myself: Yes, this was stupid. Good going teacher. *facepalm
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

Travelsonic said:
But wouldn't that require an assumption that what is deemed "anti-American/Unpatriotic" is not subjective when it really is?
Click to expand...

Not everything is always subjective. For example protesters supporting the enemy during a time of war, protesters calling for abolishing the constitution or constitutional rights(without creating an amendment to repeal that amendment)
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

The 13 year old didn't come up with this notion of not saying the pledge.
The mother did.

So rather than the mother talk to the teacher about it expressing her opinion and her wishes about it she let's the child get in trouble with the teacher. Couldn't she have called the teacher and discussed it ? Couldn't she have? She has a chip on her shoulder.
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

USA-1 said:
Left? Because I believe a kid should not be beaten for not reciting an oath?

In August 1934 Hitler named himself Chancellor and President of Germany and subsequently instituted a loyalty oath to be required of all civil servants and government officials, including pastors and university professors. The oath read as follows: "I swear: I will be true and obedient to the F�hrer of the German Reich and nation Adolf Hitler, observe the laws and conscientiously fulfill my official duties, so help me God."[18] Barth was confident that, because of his public criticism of the Nazi regime, the oath requirement would be put to him in pointed terms. He was soon proved right.

On November 7 Barth was asked by the university's rector to take the oath. Barth had resolved that he would do so, but only if he could add a stipulation "to the effect that I could be loyal to the F�hrer only within my responsibilities as an Evangelical Christian."[19] He proposed his modified form of the oath to the Rector and was rejected. In his words, "My hour had come. I was suddenly suspended."[20]

Because of his refusal to take the oath in the prescribed form, Barth was tried before a tribunal. The prosecution argued that Barth's proposed amendment was unacceptable because the oath was intended to have "unlimited content" and, besides, "it went without saying that the F�hrer did not require anything that was against God's commandments."[21] While the prosecution was presenting its case, Barth was apparently not overly concerned. He spent the time composing a rhyme about the event ("Karl, we know, is hardly vile / And yet he has to go on trial") and skimming Plato, portions of which he insisted on reading to the judges.[22] As expected, the tribunal found Barth guilty.

The term Hitler oath refers to the oaths of allegiance sworn by German Wehrmacht officers and soldiers as well as civil servants during the Third Reich between the years 1934 and 1945. The oath pledged personal loyalty to the person of Adolf Hitler in place of loyalty to the constitution.

The death of 86-year-old Reichspräsident Paul von Hindenburg on August 2, 1934 removed the final obstacle to Adolf Hitler obtaining absolute power over Germany. Even before Hindenburg's death, Hitler's cabinet had enacted a law combining the offices of Chancellor (the head of government) and President (the head of state); Adolf Hitler would henceforth be known as Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and Chancellor) and was both head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces. The day of the President's death, the cabinet ordered a plebiscite for August 19 for the German people to approve the combination of the two offices.

Germany's voters went to the polls and 89.9% voted their approval for Hitler to assume complete power over Germany. The following day, August 20, 1934, the cabinet decreed the "Law On The Allegiance of Civil Servants and Soldiers of the Armed Forces". (Gesetz über die Vereidigung der Beamten und der Soldaten der Wehrmacht), which superseded the original oaths. Prior to the decree, both members of the armed forces and civil servants had sworn loyalty to "the People and the Fatherland" (Volk und Vaterland); civil servants had additionally sworn to uphold the constitution and laws of Germany.

The new law decreed that instead, both members of the armed forces and civil servants would swear loyalty to Adolf Hitler
Click to expand...

Yeah, and a big time Progressive/Liberal/Socialist dude authored the Pledge of Allegiance, too.

Besides, I thought you were referring to the asswhippin'.
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

Khayembii Communique said:
Originally Posted by Tucker Case
I didn't say it was communist.
Click to expand...
Then say it is National Socialist.
Click to expand...

The difference between National Socialism and Communism is like the difference between Budweiser and Coors. They're both beer, just taste a little different.
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

apdst said:
Yeah, and a big time Progressive/Liberal/Socialist dude authored the Pledge of Allegiance, too.

Besides, I thought you were referring to the asswhippin'.
Click to expand...

In a free nation, no one should be forced to take an oath of allegience or any kind of oath for that matter. I said the pledge of Allegience all through school and now I say it once a year at the Memorial Day ceremony at the cemetery. I would not say it if I was forced to do it, for then it would be meaningless.
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

abdst said:
The difference between National Socialism and Communism is like the difference between Budweiser and Coors. They're both beer, just taste a little different.
Click to expand...

Hah, I was going to make a comparable analogy as a rebuttal but I think the fact that you said "They're both beer, just taste a little different" says everything about you. :lol:
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

sazerac said:
The 13 year old didn't come up with this notion of not saying the pledge.
The mother did.

So rather than the mother talk to the teacher about it expressing her opinion and her wishes about it she let's the child get in trouble with the teacher. Couldn't she have called the teacher and discussed it ? Couldn't she have? She has a chip on her shoulder.
Click to expand...

Parents have a right to teach their own children their own values.
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

American said:
Ajmel Quereshi?? You can't make this stuff up. The ACLU had to send someone from India to defend this child, in a time when Muslim stereotyping is an issue. Did Bob Jones have the day off or something? Whether this guy is Muslim or not is irrelevent, it's the appearance. The kid didn't do anything wrong, though in our day we'd have probably got the crap kicked out of us during recess. Anyway, the teacher should be fired, an apology isn't enough. I believe in the pledge, but damn this isn't the USSR. The police should charge the teacher with false arrest.
Click to expand...

The police should've told that teacher to get bent. This is an abuse of authority that cannot go unanswered.

The teacher needs to be on leave for a few years.
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

sazerac said:
The 13 year old didn't come up with this notion of not saying the pledge.
The mother did.

So rather than the mother talk to the teacher about it expressing her opinion and her wishes about it she let's the child get in trouble with the teacher. Couldn't she have called the teacher and discussed it ? Couldn't she have? She has a chip on her shoulder.
Click to expand...

Why would she need to? She informed the child of his rights under the Constitution. Why should she need to negotiate these rights or apologize for them?
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

Yes, I don't see that the Constitution mandates reverence of the flag, or repetition of the Pledge, in order to be a citizen. It is considered idolatry in some faiths.
 
Re: Child escorted out of class by police for sitting during the pledge, mother outra

Groucho said:
Why would she need to? She informed the child of his rights under the Constitution. Why should she need to negotiate these rights or apologize for them?
Click to expand...

She shouldn't make her child fight her battles. If she had a problem with her child's teacher or the curriculum , she should have talked to the man, not told her child it was ok to disobey him.

You don't send your child to fight your battles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom