The Supreme Court case West Virginia State Board of Ed. vs. Barnette (1943) outlined that students could not be compelled to participate in the pledge of allegiance.

Questions for debate.

1.)Should the student have been punished?

2.)Upon what grounds, if any, should the Barnette case be overturned?

3.)Is the ACLU or the school in the right constitutionally?

Well, gee, I guess it is time for all those folks that want the "under god" part of the pledge removed to give a great big "I told you so" when talking about forcing students to say the pledge- here you have a shining example- I just wonder how many kids have been punished and not said anything to the media prior to this in the US?

(First quote on this I found was from Aevens- others have made this claim- I found his quote first- no offense Aevens ) This is the quote- and the bold part is his own- not my editing:


While I agree that plurality (your fav word on this post) is important, I believe that the pledge of allegiance in schools does not specifically encourage or prohibit religious doctrine of any particular form. Consider that "one nation, under God" does not ever specifically mention which God. This could apply to Judeo-Christian ideals, Muslim faiths, etc. Gods were used in Mythologies and the term is used in numerous applications. The pledge, however, never forces school children to believe (or consequently not to believe).

QH, saying that liberals are not activists is like saying Rush is not a zealot. Haleyanne points this out very eloquently, but the point is that the first Amendment doesn't specifically prohibit the allusion to a non-specific higher power. In this case, the Court is arguing that "under God" is the point of contention... well, are the children forced to say it?Of course not. What if we simply removed that phrase? Was this case attempting to remove the phrase, or the patriotic notion of pledging allegiance to the United States? I hate to sound like Ann Coulter, but this just makes me feel that sometimes liberals really do hate America or at least what really makes me feel "American". (not up for debate... that horse has been beaten)

on this thread:


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...pic=11167&st=20

So, this connects quite nicely to the "under God" statement and the constitutional case regarding in having it removed, and the reasons why- because children that may not believe in a higher diety will be forced to say and and be ridiculed in class and made to be an outsider if they don't say it- so now all those folks that "hate America" are 100% correct in thier fears and get to give a great big "I told you so" to the ones that didn't listen to them the first time!


1.)Should the student have been punished?

No- in fact- the jack booted thug of a teacher should be fired, and forever banned from teaching for doing what he did.

2.)Upon what grounds, if any, should the Barnette case be overturned?

Well, I guess the one you cited, you know, the liberal activist judge from 1943?

3.)Is the ACLU or the school in the right constitutionally?

I don't think the ACLU has EVER taken on a case that they weren't correct in- they may have not won every fight- but they were on the right side in every argumnent I have ever read about- problem is, most folks don't like freedom all that much, and want to trade it in on something more secure and safe for them (they think)- and that is why they hate the ACLU- even though, without the ACLU, we would probably be living in a dictatorship today. I am not exagerating- every landmark decision since 1917 regarding sweeping new freedoms for others outside white male christian dominated circles involve the ACLU. Problem is- it takes away power from those very powerful White Male Christian interests- and they do a good job of spreading lies, disinformatiobn and hate against the ACLU for thier pro-freedom stances.

1.)Should the student have been punished?

Absolutely not.

2.)Upon what grounds, if any, should the Barnette case be overturned?

Although the 1943 case you mentioned and a 1940 case, Minersville School District v. Gobitis involved the right of Jehovah's Witness to not to pay homage to what they considered a graven image, this case should be decided on freedom of speech. I would suggest that a necessary corollary to freedom of speech is the freedom to remain silent--a form of speech in and of itself.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/249/

3.)Is the ACLU or the school in the right constitutionally?

From my answer to question two, I think you can guess that I side with the ACLU.

1.)Should the student have been punished?Absolutely not. It is anyone's right to decide for themselves what they do or do not proscribe to in this country. The argument of parental consent is a weak and pitiful attempt not to look like a posterior. They are wrong AND they Know it.!a

2.)Upon what grounds, if any, should the Barnette case be overturned?Common Sense. Add to the fact that forced loyalty is useless and the hallmark of tyranny. If you have to force people to swear allegiance to you and your cause it is because you are weak and not worthy of support freely given. If America ever gets so weak and pathetic as to have to FORCE its citizens to swear faith then we have probably then lived past our prime. We should never allow the pledge to ever become the sieg heil to the state that its designer originally hoped for. What's Conservative about the Pledge

3.)Is the ACLU or the school in the right constitutionally?
The ACLU. Hands down. No contest.

Ah, the crotchety teacher chimes in on this one.

1.)Should the student have been punished?

I am not sure. However at my school there are a lot of privileges that are allowed that require a parental note. I think this was likely an unwise decision, but there was a process allowed for this minor student to be allowed to decline to participate in this group activity. If the student was aware of this perhaps he should be punished for failing to follow the process to not participate in this event. Of course, if a parent refused to sign as note, I think a 17 year old is old enough to express his views about participating in the pledge.

2.)Upon what grounds, if any, should the Barnette case be overturned?

I don't think Barnett should be overturned, but like the parental consent restriction of Roe v. Wade, I believe that a note from a parent or some type of form is not too much of a burden for a student to fill out and turn in.

3.)Is the ACLU or the school in the right constitutionally?

I'll wait on the ruling on this one. If the school followed a reasonable procedure for allowing non-participation in the pledge I would think they are not in violation of this interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

1.)Should the student have been punished?

Not if that is the only thing that he did. The teacher, if he does not want to be fired, should be ordered by the court to make a public apology to the student. The apology should be as public as his berating the student was. And, of course, he and/or the school district (if it is defending his actions) should be ordered to pay court costs.

But I wouldn't have him fired just for this. He might actually do a good job at teaching his subject, and he should not be fired any more than the student should be suspended over this incident alone.

2.)Upon what grounds, if any, should the Barnette case be overturned?

Nicely put.



I agree with this, so I don't think the court case in question should be overturned.

3.)Is the ACLU or the school in the right constitutionally?

I'll go with the ACLU. This could have been handled discreetly with a communication to the boy's parents. Instead, the teacher decided to take it upon himself to be a jerk. The student was not being disruptive. It isn't a military school he's enrolled in, is it?

It's doubtful that the school had any procedure, let alone a reasonable one, allowing for quiet dissent during the Pledge of Allegiance.

I love my country, and I respect the flag, but I do not idolize it. When repeating with other parishioners the Creed we recite during the mass, when I get to "for us men and for our salvation," I never say "men"--I am a woman, and the Almighty knows that.

To remain silent when constrained to take an oath in court before testifying is one thing (I am not a Jehovah's Witness), but to remain seated and quiet during the Pledge at a school function does not hold the same gravity.

I don't know enough about the Constitution to know what it says, if anything, about citizens being required to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance. Considering that the Pledge is far younger than the Constitution, it is open to interpretation. But I agree with christopher when he says, "If you have to force people to swear allegiance to you and your cause it is because you are weak and not worthy of support freely given."

This is a pretty open-and-shut case, I would think. The only thing which might cause even a tiny bit of concern is the age of the person refusing to participate in the Pledge. There seems to be a common opinion that persons below the age of 18 do not have the same full rights as those above this age. In some cases, there has been a consensus that this is correct. We don't allow persons below the age of 18 to vote, for example. The question then becomes this: Does a person below the age of 18 have the right to refuse to participate in a political activity mandated by the government, even without the approval of parents or guardians?

(I deliberately avoid all mention of the religious aspects of the Pledge, as this only muddies the water. Throughout this discussion, I will assume that the "under God" phrase does not exist.)

I would say that the minor has the right to decline to participate in the Pledge, even without the approval of parents or guardians, for several reasons.

1. The Pledge has no purpose except to express a political opinion. It cannot be said to have an educational function. Therefore, it is no more a part of the purpose of the public school than a mandate that all students wear an American flag. The student may decline to participate without having any effect on the purpose of public education. (Unlike, for example, refusing to do homework.)

2. The refusal of the student to participate in the Pledge does not disrupt the activities of any other student or instructor.

3. The refusal to participate is a negative action rather than a positive action. By this I mean that the student chooses not to do something mandated by the government rather than choosing to do something forbidden by the government. Although this may seem to be a minor point, it seems to me that the government requires stronger reasons to force someone to do something than to forbid someone from doing something. (This varies from situation to situation, of course.)

Thus, it seems to me that the state of Florida and the school board are in the wrong, and the ACLU are in the right. Although I would not go so far as to say that the ACLU is infallible (no human organization can hope to be), it continues its superb record of being one of the Good Guys.

A link to the story would be helpful...so here it is Pledge dispute spurs student to sue district

There is a state law in Florida which says that students must get permission from their parents to opt out of the Pledge of Allegiance. The law also says that student must stand during the Pledge, regardless of whether they say it or not.

I guess the "jack booted thugs" who passed this law should all be fired. We might as well deport everyone who voted for them as well. By the way, the teacher was a woman, not a man.



This case is about standing during the Pledge, not reciting it. State law requires student to stand during the Pledge, regardless of whether they choose to participate or not.

That said, the Supreme Court has ruled that no one shall be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. My understanding is that they based this on religious freedom. They could easily, have based it upon freedom of speech grounds as BoF suggested.

I think the issue here is standing during the Pledge, not reciting it.

1.)Should the student have been punished?

I see no reference in the story to punishment. He was removed from the class. The assistant Principal thought he was disrupting the class:



2.)Upon what grounds, if any, should the Barnette case be overturned?

The Barnett case is only tangential to this discussion. It will not be overturned because of this (nor is anyone asking that it be).

3.)Is the ACLU or the school in the right constitutionally?

The ACLU's position is that students should not be required to stand when others stand. What they are saying is that a student should be free to do what they feel like doing. I agree that a student should not be forced to recite the Pledge. However, standing there (mutely) as a sign of respect for those who do say the pledge, does not infringe on Constitutional liberties.

Should a student be allowed to discuss conservative principles during Math class, on freedom of speech grounds? Should a student be allowed to remain mute when asked a question by their teacher in Chemistry?

Schools do have a compelling reason to force conformity of behavior on students. If they do not, then chaos erupts. The uniformity here is simply standing at some point in the day. It isn't burdensome.

I’m amazed Eyeore would compare the need for parental notice/consent regarding abortion with reciting the pledge. We’ve gone from a nanny state to a nation of ideological sheep where our kids are concerned.

I’ll be the dirty liberal and say yes, the state had no business passing such a law. One has to wonder why it takes a state legislature to step up where the school district should lay down the rules. It is a politically motivated useless law. As useless as the Flag Burning Amendment.

Can you explain why this kid has an obligation to show respect greater than remaining quiet for those who agree with citing the pledge by standing up when he is not in agreement with the pledge himself, Amlord? Would making him place his hand over his heart without reciting the pledge also not infringe on his liberties? That isn't burdensome, either, and "forc[es] conformity of behavior" to boot.

I doubt repealing such a law will result in chaos.

There is a difference between being disruptive by speaking out of turn or wearing politically charged articles of clothing that distract in class. There are no ands ifs or buts about these rules. They are enforced to maintain order. Requiring parental consent to avoid reciting the pledge does not serve this purpose else students would not be allowed to sit at all. This law is an exercise in vote-pandering and a mistaken assumption that the only Constitutional rights minors have are the rights their parents/guardians allow.

3.)Is the ACLU or the school in the right constitutionally?
First, the law puts up barriers to the constitutional right to not speak.

Here comes the question as to symbolic speech versus saying words. The law requires symbolic affirmation of the Pledge if someone is unwilling to recite it. I expect school rules exists where students can not be disruptive in a classroom which seems sufficient over a State law. Sitting quietly while others recite the Pledge is not disruptive.

The purpose of the Florida is to make it difficult to avoid saying the Pledge and at least requires symbolic affirmation of the Pledge. Both are violations of the Bill of Rights.

Furthermore, this case is a good demonstration of how the Pledge can create a unnecessary prejudicial atmosphere in the schools. For this reason, it may be found from this case that the Pledge should be disallowed in the schools.

Differentiating between standing for the pledge and reciting it is splitting hairs IMHO. The key word in this is participation. Students may not be compelled to participate at all, be it speaking or standing. The ACLU page on this incident states that it's about the youth being forced to stand, which in their view, violates his rights. An interesting read is the pdf registered statement on behalf of the student the teacher just absolutely loses it, I hope they take her to the cleaners. In the pdf document, three cases are cited where *standing* is not required. Obviously, the Florida legislators forget to check the constitutionality of the law they passed.

Well, it is tough to be a liberal and question liberal values without being questioned. My purpose, poorly expressed, is that I believe it is possible to have some limitations on our rights, especially for minor students, without being unconstitutional.

I, oddly in terms of my above post, have never been a fan of the recitation of the pledge. I now work in an environment were it is recited every day. Everyone stands. No one is monitored for speaking the pledge. Of course my school is not an agency of the government. But failing to stand would likely have consequences in my school.

I felt the original post did not provide us enough information and that it was possible that the actions of the school were justified.

Here is that Florida law. link
I think this may be the culprit if the ACLU is right that not only can the pledge not be compulsory, but making students stand for the pledge is also unconstitutional. This interpretation makes sense to me and it seems odd that the ACLU is not going after that law.

I read the ACLU transcript on this and come away fairly skeptical. the frazier complaint

I've been in classrooms for over a decade now and I have never, other than in movies, seen this type of exchange where the student remained composed throughout but the teacher and administration only lost it. The tone of the exchange sounds like a teenager's fantasized version of the event.

But the real issue is whether this student had his constitutional rights violated. I have little difficulty believing that some teachers would respond angrily at not being listened to. I'll grant that the teacher seems to have been well out of line, but she also seemed clearly to be enforcing school policy and state law while facing a refusal from the student.

I tried (briefly) tracking down the right to remain seated during the pledge that seemed to have been cited in the list of court cases in the ACLU complaint. Edited to add: found it
But the original Barnette case seems to have covered that as well.


link

In this light I reverse my initial post and find that, after researching the issue, that the State of Florida, the school district, the school administrators, and the teacher all wittingly or unwittingly violated the Constitutional rights of Mr. Frazier.

My initial objection was that it seems reasonable to me that a note could be required by a school to establish a type of "conscientious objector" procedure for excusing one's self from a group activity in school. But I will concede to Grey Seal's Constitutional right not to speak.

I agree in some circumstances. I think a parent’s right to teach their kids sex ed (or withhold that knowledge to the detriment of society) supersedes a school’s right to teach sex ed to kids. Parental consent forms in this case don’t violate a student’s First Amendment right.


I wondered about this too. But then, when kids do act up, press a teacher’s buttons, aren’t they punished in some capacity, like detention?

Also, adults themselves can act strangely when a minor under their authority appears to challenge their beliefs. I’m not saying the exchange went as badly as the student alleges but the teacher may’ve taken his refusal to stand as an attack on her sense of patriotism. I probably related this story once before. Stationed overseas I picked up a local paper someone left on the booth. Before SCOTUS had declared Alabama’s voluntary prayer in schools unconstitutional I came across a story where the teacher cut the child off to inform him that (paraphrasing:) to pray to Jehovah was to pray to the wrong god.

My experience has been that when referring generically to teachers, the feminine pronoun “she” is usually used. What a reversal. Good catch.



I would be interested in your definition of punishment Amlord? Does a student have to be beaten, sent home, given detention or sent to in-house-suspension for punishment to occur?

From your link:



Berating a student in front of the class was considered punishment in the district I retired from. In fact, the appraisal instrument in use when I retired, rated teachers not so much on what they did, but how students responded to the teacher. The more positive the interaction, the better the appraisal score.

Sarcasm and cutting remarks were discouraged in the appraisal handbook teachers received at the beginning of each year. It seems to me that it would be difficult for someone to respond positively to a teacher while that teacher was verbally abusing them in front of peers. While a paddle might bruise someone’s butt, the words of Ms. Alexander probably bruised the “soul.”





This story is eerily similar to the one about the student in California who was suspended for speaking Spanish in the hall.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...topic=11636&hl=

While I agree that order must be kept in school, I think school personnel in both cases could have chosen a place to draw a line in the sand a little better—much better.

I worked with a self-contained special education class on the campus of my city’s largest high school for nine years. In addition to the principal, we had four vice-principals and another vice-principal who doubled as principal of the essential high school. Their desks were constantly piled up with infraction slips. Dogs routinely sniffed out drugs and weapons and about once a week metal detectors were set up in the hall.

If the school where I worked is indicative, then school personnel have more important things to deal with than a student refusing to say or stand for the pledge of allegiance. In other words, the teacher and administrator in this case probably have enough on their plates without buying problems.

BTW: If I were the parent in a case like this, I would send a note to the school personnel informing them that I would trust whatever judgment my son wish to make on the matter of the pledge. Isn't education as much or more about learning to think independently than following dubious and capricious rules?

BTW 2: The teacher union used to sell tee-shirts that said: “Rule 1: Your teacher is always right. Rule 2: Any questions, see rule 1.” I refused to buy one of these shirts because, well--teachers being mere mortals--are not always right. I do wish I could find one of those shirts. I could send it to Ms. Alexander. It would fit right in with her authoritarian/rigid personality. I think it's time for the school district to punt on this one.

My thoughts on this are mixed. In one regard, I think the students should not be forced to recite the Pledge, but the school seems to have provided a method for excepting oneself -- which this student did not follow. Also, standing during the Pledge seems to me to be a minimal courtesy. Americans are asked to stand during the singing of national anthems of other countries (for example, at the Olympics), even though we won't be singing.

I do think the teacher in this case was rude to the student, however. I have one memory of a teacher like that in high school which makes me blush to the roots of my hair 25 years later. LOL While I agree that some teens can be obstreperous, there are ways to correct them without humiliating them before a roomful of peers.

To bad I can't cut and paste the complaint- I don't care if it was a woman- I stand by "Jack booted thug"- and it makes the point again that without some protection against the right wing nationalists in this country- we will be quickly goosestepping to the Rush Limbaugh theme song de'jour in the back ground.

Amlord- he was asked to MAKE a pro-political statment for one side of view- in this case- he has to go AGAINST his beliefs in order to satisfy the Floridian ideal of a good little right winger- look at the teachers comments "You are so ungrateful and un-american"- sound familiar? By basically failing to DO something that is in itself a political statement- he gets the usual right wing radio treatment-


NOW- he is not ASKED to make a political statement in the math class- or even more importantly FORCED to make his Liberal statement (even though he is a conservative)- if he were- I would say EXACTLY the same thing- the teacher should be fired immediately for forcing that "conservative student in math class" to make a liberal statement- that would be the more corrent analogy.

I would not mind throwing the senators and such in jail for making such a fascist law- but that is a slippery slope too isnt it?

I think it is pretty plainly unconstitutional as outlined by the statement of the ACLU - I think they make the best case of all for this school to change it's policy and the state law thrown out.

I also think this issue ties into SOO many others- like the "ACTIVIST LIBERAL JUDGE' boogeyman we keep hearing about- it is this kind of horrible legislation that forces a judge hand and they have no choice but to "legislate from the bench".

So many of our constitutional problems and freedoms lost and goverment abuses are because of some intentional, some unintentional, bad legislation.

Here is one of the best examples I have seen.

I see that in the end of the statement that there is a request for punitive damages- GREAT- this is why we need no cap on award damages either- total and life long financial ruin for this female would be a great example to stop this kind of abuse of our constitution as well.

Perhaps one of the most clear statements/complaints I have ever read.

Gotta love that ACLU!

Why is the Pledge of Allegiance being recited in a math class in high school anyway? This isn't a parochial school, is it? I don't remember reciting the pledge back in 1967-1971 in any class in my public high school. Sounds like somebody in that school's administration is trying to prevent the kiddies from becoming liberals, (perish the thought! ) and that a good dose of red, white and blue flagolatry neutralizes that liberal virus that seems to be catching (see: opposition to the war).

Or maybe it has nothing to do with that. But it seems to me that someone was working hard to make a point. Talk about Intelligent Design not belonging in Science class--when does flag worship belong in Math class?

I don't think the teacher, whether she is jack-booted or not, should lose her job over this, but she should be compelled to apologize to the student as publicly as she berated him.

I agree completely that reciting the pledge has nothing to do with a math class. If Ms. Alexandra decided the class should recite it, then in my opinion she was wrong in having students recite it in the first place. I wouldn't fire her over this issue alone, but a public apology would be rather hollow if forced. I would require Ms. Alexandra to do some diversity training on her own time and at her own expense.

There is another explanation that partially absolves the teacher, though not for reprimanding the student in front of the class.

In Texas, the legislature has pushed in recent years for more instructional time. One way districts have accomplished this is through eliminating or shortening homeroom periods. In my last assignment, announcements, the pledge, etc. were done at the beginning of third period, whether the student was in math, science or whatever. It is possible that the pledge was piped into classrooms by big brother over the intercom.

I have read Amlord's link rather thoroughly. I cannot determine whether the pledge was instigated by Ms. Alexandra or the office.



Either way, I think the district is wrong and guilty of squelching thinking in favor of tin soldier mentality.

From Amlord’s link above:



I also find the timing of this event confusing. December 8th is near the end of the term. Why did it take a whole semester for the issue to surface? Perhaps the school was on exam schedule and Frazier was usually in a more enlightened teacher’s class when the pledge ritual was usually conducted.

It seems the Malvina Reynolds song, Little Boxes, popularized by Pete Seeger, is what school districts are shooting for.



http://www.ocap.ca/songs/littlbox.html

BTW: As I write this I am amused at some personal contradictions. If I were still active and working on the teacher union grievance committee, I would be actively trying to get the teacher off the hook. If she were ordered to make the student stand for the pledge by administration, this would make the job easier. The berating in front of the classroom is inexcusable, but teachers are caught between a rock and a hard place when given a choice of not enforcing rules at the expense of possible insubordination charges.

1.) As much as I dislike the government telling anyone to do anything, the law remains the law. The Supreme Court has ruled that you do not have to reciet the pledge, but you must at least stand. Yes. He should be punished for not complying with the law of the United States of America.

2.) The ruling (I forget and am too lazy to look it up) that the Supreme Court made determining the minimum of standing.

3.) The school. An Op-Ed article in my school's paper three years ago where a student refused to even acknowledge the pledge resulted in a five day out of school suspension. As a student (who doesn't really like the administration) I do not like it, but I can respect the law.

Now this is a good one...

1. No he should not have been punished. The student was quiet and respectful and merely excersised his right to not stand up and say the pledge. What is so wrong about that. I don't say the pledge and don't get berated and made an example of. Maybe because it's Texas but I doubt it. The teacher overstepped his bounds, as did the school district in punishing him for what he did.

2. I have limited knowledge of this so I can't accurately speak of it.

3. Constitutionally, ACLU is in the right. Certainly we as Americans should be patriotic and show our pride for our country, but since we have freedom of, Religion, expression, and most importantly speech, we are able if we so choose; to do as we wish during something that was established merely because of the Cold war. (In that I am talking about the "Under God" portion, where it was added during the Cold War to keep atheistic communisim from spreading to our youth.)

Besides was anybody hurt or offended that the student did not participate? If not than why all the fuss about it.

Correction VDemonsthenes. The student in question violated a law of the State of Florida, not the United States of America. There have been numerous instances where federal courts have declared state laws unconstitutional. We'll have to wait and see where this goes.

Today, my son received a referal from the High School for not standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. It seems to be a situation identical to the Florida case. The school policy is that students do not have to say the Pledge if they have a note from their parents but are required to stand.

Fighting the rule is a tough road to go. I think he plans to stand but with his back to the flag until the end of school.

Not that I want to pick on your son, Gray Seal, but what's the problem with standing silent during the recitation of the Pledge? Americans are asked to stand during the singing of other countries' National Anthems. It seems to me a rather minimal courtesy.

I don’t understand why anyone would view reciting the pledge as a scholastic necessity.


If respect is the heart of this exercise why allow students the option to “disrespect” the flag with their parents' approval? Why should anyone jump to the conclusion that when a kid refuses to stand up he disapproves of the flag?

GS, good idea on his part to stand with his back to the flag.

I will never understand how not standing for the pledge of allegiance is a political statement, and if it is, exactly what they're stating.

Are they turning their backs on the United States?
Is it about the administration, and if so, what does that have to do with the rest of the nation?
Other than pure rebellion, what are the reasons that the pledge isn't being said?

The frank nature of the Pledge of Allegiance is that no one is forced to recite the pledge, but should atleast acknowledge that this great nation has allowed them the luxury of not speaking.

I would appreciate you all sending your children to the NAS JRB in Ft Worth during the weekend of the 20-21st, so as to hit our Marine Reserve Unit's weekend rotation. Then we'll recite the pledge and see if they are so inclined to join in.

It never ceases to amaze me that people lambast the same nation that openly admits that its poverty striken are likely to own microwaves, automobiles, and color tv's. If they want to make a statement... send 'em our way. We'll be happy to listen. *wink-wink*

I am becoming more and more patriotic as I get older. Almost constantly misty these days......
In fact i shall now stand every morning and state the Pledge as it should be stated--inspired by a man named Jefferson Scott ---very Kool your friend's ideas. Lesly. A much better ideal than the original version. Great Pledge, good Voice.


I Pledge Allegiance, to the Constitution
Of the United States of America,
And to the Republic,
For Which it Stands,
One Nation,
United,
Indivisible,
With Liberty and
Justice for
All..........................

I cannot let this "joking" statement go unchallenged. You seem to be implying that an appropriate response to peaceful political dissent is the threat of force; that those who choose not to rise for the Pledge be intimidated by the possibility of physical violence from those who have been trained to use it.

I do not recite the Pledge; should I expect the Marines to break down my door and force patriotism upon me?

I have to agree with VS and a little more- this is precisely the kind of thing the kid is "rebelling" agaisnt- the threat that if you don't say the pledge, jack booted thugs using the marines as cover to beat you up if you don't do what they say, all in the name of "patriotism"- the students are rebelling against nationalism, forced patriotism by gunpoint and violence.

Aevans176- they are rebelling against the kind of mindless violence masked as patriotism you suggest.

I can literally hear the Oscar Meyer song in my head as I type... because this is literal bologna.

The point I'd like to make is that there are men and women that protect your freedom selflessly. People that put their necks on the line that believe in this nation.

Not standing for the pledge is pointless and proves literally nothing. Liberals on this board often pick portions of posts that they prefer to debate, but no one has answered what on earth turning your back to the flag during the pledge proves.

It's easy to say you're making a political statement, but a man of true fortitude would have a statement to make. Rebellion is just peachy as long as there is something legitimate to rebel against.

If teens are dissatisfied with the administration, how on earth does turning their back on the nation as a whole prove anything?

I feel like there is an undeducated and unscrupulous portion of our society that believes that things like burning the flag or not reciting the pledge are a positive form of expression, but I really ask exactly what is being expressed.... only to hear silence. How is being "unpatriotic" a positive force in American society?

I believe that there are two or three liberals that will argue that it is their right in itself to not say the pledge, but frankly, it's back-door logic. It's the three year old "you can't make me" argument that bothers many conservatives in the US. No one is forcing anyone to state the pledge, but moreover to respect the fact that they live in a nation far greater than its borders or its people.



The reality is that I never even insinuated violence. I believe what you're saying is that you believe that Marines would "smack around" (in the best redneck voice I can make) people that don't recite the pledge... and liberals say WE'RE prejudiced....

What I really would hope is that they would see the men and women that have secured their safety and insured that their flag still flies in the classroom... only to have them turn their backs on it.

So, again, there is a Joint Reserve Base (JRB) in Ft Worth that would be the perfect candidate for your children to visit. We are all full time employees in the civilian workforce, while also being a part of the nation's armed forces.

(*edited to add:*)
Please feel free to teach your children to stand for something, however, with the exclusion of ignorance. I don't suppose that ignorance is a cause, but moreover a condition.

I'm somewhere between Aevans and VikiSilverwolf on this one.

First, I, like Aevans, don't exactly see what exactly it is that's being expressed when one doesn't stand for the Pledge or turns his/her back on the flag or burns a flag; frankly, I think burning the flag is pretty primitive [why burn a flag when you can EXPLAIN why you don't approve of whatever you don't approve of?]. However, it is a right reserved by Americans to express themselves without fear of being punished. So the ACLU is right in this case. Even though I do find this "expression" to be pointless and possibly offensive, it is exactly that kind of expression that is protected by the Constitution. But again, I find the whole thing silly.

CP

Lesly, I don't recall saying that Gray Seal's son was disrespectful. I merely asked, as others are now asking, exactly what is to be accomplished by turning one's back to the American flag.

You are correct that there is no scholastic justification for a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. However, there is no practical justification for openly scorning an exercise that may have meaning for other students. By standing silently during the Pledge, Gray Seal's son is neither betraying his own beliefs nor affirming anyone else's. By turning his back on the flag, he is acting like the child that he is. As ConservPat notes, while he is legally in the clear, the whole thing is pretty childish.

Usually liberals think Bush is Pandora. I hope you don’t believe us few unscrupulous posters would be singing a different tune if Clinton was in office.


There isn’t a one size fits all answer. Before the invasion it was a protest against military action. If I was a teenager today, it would be against the cheesy spectacle of reciting a socialist gimmick and amended Cold War relic every morning.


Why is it so easy to ruffle conservative feathers on patriotism? Have you ever asked yourself if we have already lost when it takes a pledge to instill the idea that this is a great country? Keep the trappings of symbolism. I have more faith than that.


Proving the country is so free the protester can expect the state will not take action against him should he burn his flag may not have any value in your eyes, but I won’t say your view bothers me. Whatever flushes your toilet.


I would ask the same of you and remind you that ignorance in this case is in the eye of the beholder. Some of us value individuality more than conformity for the sake of courtesy.

I suppose that not even standing for the pledge, in order to portray an individualist mentality, would be in the same vain as wearing shorts into court? How about parking in handicapped spots? It's ironic that individuality holds more value than respect in a nation built completely by spilling blood for the voice of freedom.

We have already established that children do not have to recite anything, as that would be an afront to their right to free speech. However, the flag is a representation of not an administration... as you'd portray (see listed quote), but moreover the entire nation and its history.


It's not that I believe that people weren't standing for the pledge during the Clinton administration, but more that I don't believe that children really have and idealistic views in their rebellion. I used GW (as one could insert the war, etc) as an example of what they might actually be rebelling against. (which frankly is highly speculative to boot)

I'm confident that the majority of children that are encouraged to not recite the pledge, or furthermore not to stand, are a reflection of the homes in which they live. It's an easy way for parents to act out their frustrations or half-cocked notions without any social risk. Most importantly, if asked, I'd be willing to gamble that an educated protest isn't being undertaken, yet most likely a childish mutiny against the school's administration and rules in general.

Parents and the American populus acknowledging such behavior would be perfectly fine in the event that the children were actually making a statement. If we saw kids on the nightly news stating that they were protesting iminent domain, or the war, or unfair taxation... anything really, it would be better than for the pure "individuality". (even if ridiculous and misdirected...)

Lesly, you're projecting your values upon these children's actions. I believe that there is a need for a certain amount of reverence in certain situations in the United States. It's roughly the same as why people pull over to allow a funeral procession by. If a child simply has to stand an acknowledge that the flag isn't necessarily about their selfish (and arguably childish) actions, but those that have tread before them, it certainly won't harm anyone....

I think you miss the point as usual- I reserve the right to teach my kids reverence for thier country- not the marines, not the goverment, not the teachers at her/his school. I love my country- but I do not love the current trend that says if you don't have the same values the right wing has here you are "anti-american".

We say prayer and talk about America in my house- but I will have the military or the school force NOTHING dealing with beliefs, patriotism or anything other value not given by my family.

Not a single male member of my family has failed to serve in the military- we certainly don't need a bunch of Texas marine ROTC types to instruct us to any kind of nationalism. We live it.

I have taught my daughter the pledge- the original one, not the one that the religious groups foisted upon us in thier coup back in the 50s. The church and thier attempt at indoctrinating my kids can go straight to hell for all I am concerned- because they probably are LOL- but my daughter is five years old- not sixteen.

If she is as disgusted with her nation's behavior as I am with mine right now, I would certainly respect her right to give it the bird!

I agree with Conserpat on flag burning and such- but forced oaths and fealty and such smacks way to much of Nazi nationalism- and your example is a shining one that sets off all kinds of flares to me.

As I have stated, my wife is from Russia, and was in the Russian equivelent of the boyscouts (in fact, Stalin had the organization set up EXACTLY the same as the scouts) called "young pioneers"- and I showed her this story and she said "hey, that is just like it was in Russia when I was a child"- and then I showed her your post. She said , yep, you had to go "talk" to a soldier, as a little girl, her treatment would have been a little less severe than a little boy. Not physical abuse to either child- just lots and lots of humiliation.

Forced conformity is not an American value- never has been. Pity it is trying to forced into one now.

I agree with you entirely. I'm a member of a board where people can send cigars to the troops and a different one regading books. I'll be sure to put that in my siggy soon. At the same time, I don't believe that not standing for the flag due to religious or personal reasons equates to one not supporting the troops. The student is expressing his right, and thankfully it works as our troops are fighting to allow him to keep it.



The fact of the case is that he didn't stand up and literally turn his back to the flag. What did he do? He remained seated and didn't interrupt-that in and of itself is respectful. Not only that, he remain composed while the teacher was in obvious need of a qualude. If he was rude and crass, you would have more of a point.



The validity of "legitmacy" in regards to protesting your government or protecting your beliefs from government infringement is up to each and every individual. There is no judge to see if whether or not two different people refusing to participate are doing so for legitimate reasons. Most people do so blindly and out of habit only. If a person feels strongly not to go with the tide and to just get it over with, they are exercising their first amendment rights and obviously feel passionate about something. I don't believe the pledge, no matter how indifferently said is greater in any way, than a student who refuses to say it, no matter how felt.



Once again, he isn't turning his back on the flag or the nation. He is exercising his personal rights and the impact of it is noticeable upon those around him. It may not be a million march or something as big as that, but personal conscious decisions don't need a litmus test of everyone knowing about it.



People don't stand for a variety of reasons. I don't believe that Jehovah's Witness people are unpatriotic. I also don't believe that people with political feelings and who disagree with our policies are unpatriotic. They are merely showing in a way their dissatisfaction. Whether expression is positive or negative, it is nevertheless expression, and that's protected within means. A kid sitting in his desk isn't being subversive. One who is loud and insulting, as well as lighting the desk on fire is something else entirely. The flag burning thing is another issue here and takes us off-topic on a whole other tangent IMHO.



It isn't a matter of "you can't make" me any more as it is about protecting religious liberties from government infringement, something conservatives are typically for. Quakers and Jehovah's Witness members have had a long and rich history in this nation. Having them stand for the pledge is tantamount to forcing christians to worship the Roman empire in days of old. Furthermore, the first amendment is in the constitution through the bill of rights. The pledge of allegiance isn't. A ceremony shouldn't come ahead of a person's rights at every turn.

CR, while I value that you're an American and have the ability to speak your opinion... insults don't bode well for constructive debate and don't prove any points....


I also believe that you may have had an alternative childhood, but prayer in schools and the pledge were a staunch reality under no uncertain terms until very recent history... so I'm confused as to why you state...


Again, as I've stated, in general I believe that children not reciting the pledge or protesting in any fashion are most likely a mirror of their parents' need to force social discourse on their children as opposed to risking themselves socially...


Again, your failure to control insults doesn't help anyone from Texas or anyone that might've been a Marine to hear your voice if you make statements like...


Frankly, something I've posted before and will again is that I paid my own way through school, have a bachelor's degree on my own dime, a relatively successful civilian career, and chose to enlist in the reserves. Yes I'm an officer... but I don't believe that there should be any negative connotation to that title (but rather to the contrary).

Sure, my military background has an impact on my opinion on this topic, but maybe I haven't made myself clear.

The truth is that statements like these prove a staunch point...


Standing for the pledge isn't being forced upon anyone by the military, nor is it really even forcing patriotism. As I said, it's similar to why we have to pull over for funeral processions... part of American culture involves the idea of showing "deference", tipping your hat if you will, to the flag and what it represents....

I do not think my son will turn his back to the flag. He has not been disrespectful so far and he probably will not start now. He is brainstorming how he may obey the letter of the rule but not be forced to acknowledge the Pledge.

His reasons for not standing in his words are "It is dumb. I do not agree with it." He told me that this was in his psychology class where they happen to be studying situations where people are told things repeatedly so they come to believe them. He realizes that is exactly what is happening with the pledge.

My son's political understanding is just beginning. There is some rebellion there but how can one not be political and display some rebellion? He is learning from the experience.

I may encourage him to post here to explain it himself.

For myself, the Pledge is a nuisance, unconstitutional and detracts from education. I would prefer something concrete was learned during the Pledge time. I would prefer they learned the Declaration of Independence or the Preamble to the Constitution and recited parts of those in place of the Pledge.

Wearing shorts in court is as much a byproduct of declining class in our society as wearing a thong to the beach and making everyone aware you’re packing a tampon. Don’t get me started on wearing sweatpants everywhere.

Parking in a handicapped spot is illegal due to discrimination. Are students who don’t question the recitation being discriminated against when one among them drops out? That sounds PC-lite.

I would also like to know why, like magic, it’s no longer disrespectful when parents give the nod to sit down. Or is the childish behavior transferred to the parents?


Yep, now if we could accept that they don’t have to stand, either.


Um, no. I don’t think anyone mentioned the administration until you came along and said “Is it about the administration, and if so, what does that have to do with the rest of the nation?” Later, I wrote “There isn’t a one size fits all answer.” Arguably, your idea and my idea of patriotism are at odds.


I’m reading quite a bit about how our Latin speaking SCOTUS nominees were formulating their political views before college. Do you think they didn’t have any serious ideological inclinations before graduating high school?


Parents can instill values on their kids as long as those values don’t rub you the wrong way. I mean, only cowardly America haters would disagree with the pledge. Gotcha.


Would an educated protest happen to reflect your values?

I don’t doubt that a few kids will stay seated just because they can. The KKK holds rallies just because it can. As long as neither group denies the constitutional rights of others their own shouldn’t be taken away.


I didn’t say sticking out like a sore thumb was why a kid would opt out. I said compliance wasn’t good enough if you don’t agree with it.


As if you’re not projecting your values and expectations on the kids’ actions. Even better you suspect the intentions of parents who teach values unlike your own. Hey, that’s your prerogative.


Speaking of social expectations my devout Catholic ex mother-in-law would invite us to Christmas mass every year. I’m born-again, believe it or not. I’d show up to mass for her but refused to stand up and kneel on those cushioned benches and incline my head towards what I consider are idols. She never took my refusal to participate the wrong way. If others took offense too bad for them.

Or is this form of non-participation special because it deals with the religious clause in the First?


Wait a minute. You can determine those who believe “things like burning the flag or not reciting the pledge are a positive form of expression” are unscrupulous and unpatriotic, but CR can’t give the Right flak for having characterized the very same thing as “Anti-American,” or acknowledge the pledge’s religious intervention? If you check your caller ID, I bet you'll see that your friend Kettle rang.

Back in the day when I was an angry young man of 18 years old (can't remember what I was angry about, but I sure was), I refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I vividly recall attending high school basketball games and while others were standing with their hand placed over their heart and singing the national anthem, I'd sit there in stony silence.

I'm sure there were those around me who were confused or resentful that I remained seated while they stood, but what did I care about the opinion of strangers?

Fast forward three years. It's 1977 and I'm in the U.S. Air Force at Rickenbacker AFB. It's the afternoon retreat and I'm standing there in my dress blues standing at attention and saluting the flag. Proudly. It's such a strange feeling. As a soldier I feel exactly the opposite way than I felt as a civilian. Where as once I was full of contempt for the notion of the anthem and the flag, I'm bursting with national pride for these symbols of America.

Today, I've reached a compromise position. I stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, but I don't put my hand over my heart and I don't recite the words. My reasoning is now that I can illustrate respect without lending my tacit endorsement to some of the disagreeable things being done under the guise of patriotism.

I believe one should be respectful of the beliefs of others without being obligated to endorse or conform to that view. The vast majority of ordinary citizens are going to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and show their respect. However, we should be tolerant of those who choose not to due for a slew of various reasons.

Sitting quietly and not interrupting the others is courtesy is it not? Even by standing, that is giving tacit endorsement to something that an individual does not agree with or finds offensive due to religious reasons. The constitution guarantees a right of expression, the pledge doesn't have the same constitutional bearing.

With all due respect, does anyone here interact with high school kids on a regular basis? Kids being "different" is a real problem and 99% of the time has nothing to do with freedom of expression. Teachers have a tough job already given that they have a classroom to manage. Kids - Shut up and do what you’re told, honestly. If you don’t like the pledge, fight to change the state law that requires it, or run for school board on that platform, but individual classrooms are not places to fight proxy battles in the culture wars.

Is a teacher allowed to require that students stand for any reason? I mean, say that kids are required to stand for attendance and state their name. Should students have the right to refuse this as well?

I respect the right to free expression and would die to defend it. However, I suspect that for every one kid who has genuine deep thoughts about the pledge, there are a dozen knuckleheads who want to sit down, say an alternate pledge, skip a verse or whatever with the goal being to call attention to themselves and perhaps disrupt the classroom.

Thanks for sharing this. I had a similar change of heart when I lived outside the US for the first time.

When I lived in the UK, I attended a lot of formal dinners for my work. I felt very awkward about toasting the Queen, but I stood up and shut my mouth like a gentleman.

Going on year six teaching 7th social studies, 10th world geography, as well as senior government.



Yes, that is what we do, though in less blunt terminology. At the same time, I don't believe the issue here is about all hell breaking loose because someone chose to not say the pledge. Those who don't do it do so for deeply held personal or religious reasons. I know, I 've taught taught kids who were Jehovah's Witness members and Quakers.



True, education should be about education. With that being said, it is also a good place to learn that not everybody in the world shares your worldview, values, or what constitutes a good citizen. If they see that yes, rights can be exercised, that isn't bad either.



Two completely different things. Taking attendance isn't asking a religious student to put you or the school above their god. It's also not infringing upon their personal right to not say a pledge that in their eyes, is for recitation's sake only and not a true reflection of their patriotism or belief about government. Not only that, but standing and saying your name would be odd and would create more hassles. LOL




The article isn't about those dozen, nor have I heard of any instance where this has taken place. Kids generally know that if they break the unspoken rule to say the pledge, they will risk being a pariah among their peers and friends. That pressure along will break those who would do so for less noble reasons as stated above. If a kid declines a teacher's order to do so, then you really know they are into it for a true reason. And if they go to court, then you know who the strongest of the strong are when it comes to their beliefs.



That was good of you to do. I'm certain they have their own fair share of people who for their own personal reasons, share this kid's feelings.

1.)Should the student have been punished?

No, he shouldn't have. He has a constitutional right to not say the pledge, and even if it isn't written in law that he has the right to do so, he should be allowed to not stand up if he wants to. There was nothing particularly disruptive about the sitting down in itself, and it is the truly the teacher who disrupted the course of the class.

According to the ACLU, Boynton Beach High School teacher Cynthia Alexandre ordered Frazier to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance during her fourth period math class on December 8. When Frazier refused, citing the fact that he had not stood for the Pledge since sixth grade and that he wasn't going to change his practice, Alexandre responded by saying: "Oh you wanna bet? See your desk? Now look at mine. Big desk, little desk. You obviously don't know your place in this classroom." Frazier said the teacher cursed at him and accused him of being unpatriotic before ordering him to leave the classroom. Alexandre cited a school district policy requiring all students to stand during the Pledge, although students with written permission from their parents are excused from actually reciting the oath.

2.)Upon what grounds, if any, should the Barnette case be overturned?

None.

3.)Is the ACLU or the school in the right constitutionally?

Court precedent states that one cannot be forced to say the pledge. It also infers that physical action can also fall under freespeech, as it says one cannot be forced to salute the flag.

The ACLU is right.

Here you illustrate the problem perfectly. If someone exercises their Constitutional rights you feel they should be attacked by Marines. Marines are under oath to protect and defend the Constitution. For you to do so is to break your most solemn oath. This threat against children standing, or in this case sitting, for their rights is reprehensible. Makes me almost believe what my buddy in the Army says Marine stands for:

Muscles
Are
Required
Intelligence
Not
Expected.

Of course I have known far to many bright, honest, and honorable Marines who would fight to the death to protect those rights you denigrate to believe it applies to anything more than a small minority of embarrassments to the Corps.

I believe that this is an admirable compromise, and I'm not sure why this idea isn't explored at greater lengths. Frankly, I don't think anyone is endorsing jack booted thug mentalities as people have made mention about my position on the issue. However, I believe that if there were a statement to be made... this is probably the classy route to take...

As I'm confident you haven't read the entire thread, I'll presume that you didn't read my response to statements similar to these.

If you actually believe that I meant that we'd be out "smackin' around" children, you're sadly mistaken.

However, I would be elated to see is a child turning their back on the pledge of allegiance in the face of true patriotism, and in front of men and women that have made the decision to put their lives on the line for our nation.

I'm not sure whether you c