37231
Post by: d-usa
Via FoxNews
OKLAHOMA CITY – A daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance would be required in Oklahoma’s public elementary schools under legislation filed in advance of the 2014 legislative session.
The Journal Record reports that the bill provides an exemption for students who do not wish to take part in the pledge. It would also require every public school in the state to own and display a U.S. flag, and suggests that it be recited in other public schools.
The bill, from Republican Sen. Rob Standridge of Norman, is among several pieces of school-related legislation that were filed in December.
A bill by Sen. Eddie Fields, R-Wynona, would require the State Board of Education to adopt revisions to the state’s current English, language arts and mathematics requirements to remove alignment with the K-12 Common Core State Standards. The national standards have drawn opposition, especially from conservative House legislators.
Fields’ bill also would require the state board to take action to initiate a request with the U.S. Department of Education to change the agreement that ties federal funding to the implementation of the Common Core standards.
The standards are part of an initiative of the National Governors Association, which is currently chaired by Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin. They have been adopted in 45 states, including Oklahoma.
Fallin recently signed an executive order in support of the standards in math and English, and she said she hoped the order would ease growing fears that the standards represent a federal takeover of public education.
Separate bills by Rep. Ken Walker, R-Tulsa, and one by Rep. Bobby Cleveland, R-Slaughterville, would allow schools to display religious scenes or symbols, provided the display includes a scene of more than one religion, includes a religious and secular symbol, and relates to a traditional winter celebration.
“(That) display shall not include a message that endorses, favors, disfavors or encourages adherence to a particular religious or nonreligious faith, belief or perspective,” according to the bill.
State lawmakers return to the Capitol on Feb. 3 for the beginning of the 2014 legislative session.
I know me and Whembly had a small side discussion about the pledge in another thread, so since this is in the news now I figured I could throw it up and get a discussion going on it.
12744
Post by: Scrabb
Boo! The daily pledge is counterproductive.
69430
Post by: Wilytank
I was under the impression that the pledge was required everywhere, but I was only raised in one school district so what do I know? It's certainly one of the things I don't miss now that I'm in college.
12313
Post by: Ouze
It's all fun and games until one of the kids brings in a display celebrating Sharia law.
37231
Post by: d-usa
One reason this bill is getting such a nice reception in Oklahoma is that we just had a giant tornado level a couple of elementary schools killing 7 kids in the process.
Since then there has been a call to require tornado shelters in public shools since neither of them had any shelter and the students were taking cover in the hallways when the tornado hit. Our legislature and our governor has spoken out against requiring shelters because "spending" and "priorities".
So our legislature is telling us that protecting our children is not a priority, but requiring them to pledge everyday is enough of a priority to pass legislation.
Maybe the next tornado will see the flag and think "I don't want to interupt the pledging going on there, lets take another way..."
Automatically Appended Next Post:  Ouze wrote:It's all fun and games until one of the kids brings in a display celebrating Sharia law.
There is a whole other separate thread I could start on that.
Oklahoma wanted one of those fancy Ten Commandment monuments at the Capitol, but the pesky folks with the ACLU kept on fighting them. So they passed legislation saying "if some random group wants to donate a religious monument, then we will let them put it up here" and got around the whole separation thing and got the monument placed.
Now we have the Church of Satan pledging a monument as well as the Church of the Flying Spaghettimonster and they are waiting to be notified where they can place their monuments at the Capitol. 
I'm sure that will be a giant mess before it's all said and done.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Hopefully the Jedi Order will also put up a monument.
It could be easily done with a Kickstarter, I think.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Kilkrazy wrote:Hopefully the Jedi Order will also put up a monument.
It could be easily done with a Kickstarter, I think.
Best idea EVAR! I'd donate!
You'd be okay with that D?
As to the post: I'm not sure what we're debating here... is it that we should question whether or not we should compel students for reciting the pledge?
Or, is it the fact of saying "One nation, under God" somehow breaks the Supreme Court's "separation of church and state" thing?
Society compels us to do many things... some of which, some of us don't like. That's life...
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 whembly wrote:
Society compels us to do many things... some of which, some of us don't like. That's life...
What purpose does it fill though? If the purpose is to instill national loyalty or somesuch, how is that going to happen through forcing someone to swear allegiance? Wouldn't it be better to make people WANT to swear allegiance instead of forcing them?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
whembly wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Hopefully the Jedi Order will also put up a monument.
It could be easily done with a Kickstarter, I think.
Best idea EVAR! I'd donate!
You'd be okay with that D?
As to the post: I'm not sure what we're debating here... is it that we should question whether or not we should compel students for reciting the pledge?
Or, is it the fact of saying "One nation, under God" somehow breaks the Supreme Court's "separation of church and state" thing?
Society compels us to do many things... some of which, some of us don't like. That's life...
American society is supposedly ruled by a set of laws that are designed to prevent the authorities from compelling the people to do various things.
Personally I don't think it matters a farthing if you compel the pupils to recite the Pledge. Everyone knows that a promise or agreement made under threat is of no moral or legal value.
If anything, such compulsion may only instil in the students contempt for the authorities and the constitution.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
whembly wrote:
Or, is it the fact of saying "One nation, under God" somehow breaks the Supreme Court's "separation of church and state" thing?
Society compels us to do many things... some of which, some of us don't like. That's life...
Funny thing about that line that brings up so much heat... the student of history in me has looked up, and found that that particular phrase was only added during the Cold War... Ya know, to make us better than those godless commies?
And really, I see nothing wrong with saying the pledge of allegiance. We learned in in Kindergarten, and then it was done at a minimum once a week at whichever school I was at. At the same time though, we were taught that it was done out of respect for our country, what it had accomplished etc. and during the recital of other nation's anthems or whathaveyou, it was only proper and appropriate to remain standing and respectful to whichever nation that was.
68972
Post by: Slaanesh-Devotee
Being from NZ, and thus having only this area's perspective, are we the only country outside the US that find it severely fetched up that kids are told to swear obedience to a flag and country and in addition to do it in the name of a god they might not believe in?
I mean c'mon. You guys in England and Australia and stuff see how weird it is too, right?
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
Well I would imagine that it would come across as a little too nationalistic/ fascistic here, but I suppose overt nationalism has been regarded as such since nazism occurred. America wasn't effected by that attitude so much, so they didn't drop such displays like Europeans did. So if in Britain we were forced to swear our allegiance to our nation (Scottish independence aside) I would imagine it wouldn't be supported outside of conservatives.
I can understand why people feel the need to do, but personally I'm not of that mindset. Still I suppose the same thing could be said of my friend in the Territorial Army. He doesn't support the United Kingdom, but did what his commander said and just read the oath for red tape's sake (which is to say that I can imagine those that support this will just tell those that don't to not cause a fuss over the matter). =/
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
whembly wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Hopefully the Jedi Order will also put up a monument.
It could be easily done with a Kickstarter, I think.
Best idea EVAR! I'd donate!
You'd be okay with that D?
As to the post: I'm not sure what we're debating here... is it that we should question whether or not we should compel students for reciting the pledge?
Or, is it the fact of saying "One nation, under God" somehow breaks the Supreme Court's "separation of church and state" thing?
Society compels us to do many things... some of which, some of us don't like. That's life...
That's exactly it. The state compelling someone to pledge themselves to one nation under God is a massive violation of their freedom of & from religion. Always think of it this way: would you be okay with the law if it specifically referenced a non-Christian religion?
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
 azazel the cat wrote:whembly wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Hopefully the Jedi Order will also put up a monument.
It could be easily done with a Kickstarter, I think.
Best idea EVAR! I'd donate!
You'd be okay with that D?
As to the post: I'm not sure what we're debating here... is it that we should question whether or not we should compel students for reciting the pledge?
Or, is it the fact of saying "One nation, under God" somehow breaks the Supreme Court's "separation of church and state" thing?
Society compels us to do many things... some of which, some of us don't like. That's life...
That's exactly it. The state compelling someone to pledge themselves to one nation under God is a massive violation of their freedom of & from religion. Always think of it this way: would you be okay with the law if it specifically referenced a non-Christian religion?
"One nation, under Buddha.."
TBH, I wouldn't mind pledging to the Buddha that much.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
azazel the cat wrote:
That's exactly it. The state compelling someone to pledge themselves to one nation under God is a massive violation of their freedom of & from religion. Always think of it this way: would you be okay with the law if it specifically referenced a non-Christian religion?
The defense for keeping the line in the pledge (even though its not the original "pledge of allegiance" has been that under God is not necessarily referring to the Christian idea of God, but rather referring to whichever god or gods, or lack thereof a person worships, while they are reciting it. Basically, one could replace God with Buddha, Thor, Odin, Kali or anyone else, and its still relevant to the person saying it.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
 Ensis Ferrae wrote: azazel the cat wrote:
That's exactly it. The state compelling someone to pledge themselves to one nation under God is a massive violation of their freedom of & from religion. Always think of it this way: would you be okay with the law if it specifically referenced a non-Christian religion?
The defense for keeping the line in the pledge (even though its not the original "pledge of allegiance" has been that under God is not necessarily referring to the Christian idea of God, but rather referring to whichever god or gods, or lack thereof a person worships, while they are reciting it. Basically, one could replace God with Buddha, Thor, Odin, Kali or anyone else, and its still relevant to the person saying it.
That defense loses all ground, however, when you note that only the Juedo-Christian deity is ever referred to as " God". Thor, Odin, Kali and the rest are "gods" (note the lowercase leading letter). Buddha wasn't really a god, per se.
Either way, we all know damn well why the phrase is there, and who it is meant to refer to. Many Americans like to spout the whole "We are a CHRISTIAN nation founded by CHRISTIAN leaders!" nonsense, recognizing neither the late addition of that phrase to the pledge, nor that the particular flavor of christianity practiced today would be almost unrecognizable by our actual founding fathers, who were mostly deist christians.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I did not recite the pledge when I was in school. I don't think that makes me a bad American; I don't try and get out of jury duty, I obey the law, I vote in most elections (and all the major ones) and I pay my taxes (and am a net taxpayer). I have secured firearms in my home, become proficient with them, and am ready to defend my homeland from when those shifty-ass Canadians finally make their move (and mark my words, they will!)
Beyond the fact that the whole thing felt weird to me, even when I was 8, although I am sure I couldn't articulate then what I know now - that patriotism is what you do and what is in your heart, not wearing a flag pin or mindlessly chanting a prayer in a routine that is younger than my mother.
Anyway the whole thing is totally stupid and if you live in Oklahoma you should be pissed that the "fiscal conservatives" are burning your money on a stupid program that has precisely zero chance of passing constitutional muster, just like all those video game laws that legislatures like to pass and then defend in court with a track record of zero successes.
221
Post by: Frazzled
They don't do it now? Godless Commie Hippy Okies!!!
53595
Post by: Palindrome
I never understood the need for enforced displays of patriotism. Anything that is mandatory automatically becomes cheapened.
I don't even see the need for public displays such as constant flag flying on private property.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I think forced patriotism is nationalism, and I would like to know what the benefit of this bill is supposed to be.
I never said the pledge while in school after I moved here. As a dual-citizen I have a divided loyalty and it didn't feel right.
I started saying it some after college, but stopped soon thereafter when I realized that you should never place symbols above actual freedoms. It was during one of the flag-burning debates and the constant flag-code arguments.
I think that you should be able to burn the flag or do whatever you want with it and desecrate it in any way possible as an exercise of your 1st amendment right. I think it's disrespectful and hurtful to a lot of people, but you should be able to do it. When I noticed a lot of pro-pledge people pushing for laws against that I stopped the pledge because rights are more important than symbols.
I think right now the flag is special because it is a symbol of our rights as Americans. It stands for the freedoms we have under the constitution and the sacrifices many have made to defend them. But on its own, it's just a piece of cloth no different than any other flag on this planet. It is great because of what it represents, not because it's red, white, and blue.
But it becomes meaningless the moment you curtail any of the freedoms it represents in order to protect it. If I can't burn it, then it's a meaningless and worthless flag. When you place a symbol of freedom above the freedoms it represents, then it represents nothing. It becomes meaningless propaganda.
That's why I stopped pledging, because my support is for the constitution and the rights and protections it grands us and not for a symbol that can be placed above those rights.
With that in mind I don't see any benefit to requiring the pledge in school other than forced nationalism. It's not a question of "what harm will it do". Any laws like this, especially coming from out 'party of small government', should be able to answer the following question before it is even heard: what is the benefit and why is it a required use of government resources?
5534
Post by: dogma
I like the juxtaposition of legislation requiring the flying of a US flag, and legislation obviously designed to oppose ostensible federal (note the lower case 'f') control of education.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 d-usa wrote:
I think right now the flag is special because it is a symbol of our rights as Americans. It stands for the freedoms we have under the constitution and the sacrifices many have made to defend them. But on its own, it's just a piece of cloth no different than any other flag on this planet. It is great because of what it represents, not because it's red, white, and blue.
But it becomes meaningless the moment you curtail any of the freedoms it represents in order to protect it. If I can't burn it, then it's a meaningless and worthless flag. When you place a symbol of freedom above the freedoms it represents, then it represents nothing. It becomes meaningless propaganda.
That's why I stopped pledging, because my support is for the constitution and the rights and protections it grands us and not for a symbol that can be placed above those rights.
This is basically how I personally feel. As a vet of two tours in Iraq, fighting for my country (no matter how misguided those fights may be), the symbol of our flag has a special place for me. It definitely affects the way I handle things like the national anthem at sporting events, etc. I think that I am not alone, nor is THAT a particularly American thing. I think that just about anyone who has worn the military uniform of their respective country has done so out of love for that nation and the people in it; and so will have a certain form of pride in their national symbols.
47598
Post by: motyak
Ensis Ferrae wrote: d-usa wrote:
I think right now the flag is special because it is a symbol of our rights as Americans. It stands for the freedoms we have under the constitution and the sacrifices many have made to defend them. But on its own, it's just a piece of cloth no different than any other flag on this planet. It is great because of what it represents, not because it's red, white, and blue.
But it becomes meaningless the moment you curtail any of the freedoms it represents in order to protect it. If I can't burn it, then it's a meaningless and worthless flag. When you place a symbol of freedom above the freedoms it represents, then it represents nothing. It becomes meaningless propaganda.
That's why I stopped pledging, because my support is for the constitution and the rights and protections it grands us and not for a symbol that can be placed above those rights.
This is basically how I personally feel. As a vet of two tours in Iraq, fighting for my country (no matter how misguided those fights may be), the symbol of our flag has a special place for me. It definitely affects the way I handle things like the national anthem at sporting events, etc. I think that I am not alone, nor is THAT a particularly American thing. I think that just about anyone who has worn the military uniform of their respective country has done so out of love for that nation and the people in it; and so will have a certain form of pride in their national symbols.
I disagree, while some may take a certain pride in the symbol of their nation, I think the majority take pride in what their nation means to them in their hearts, irrespective of what their current symbol is.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Well according to one paradigm of sociology the way certain institutions is formed is partially with symbols and that they create certain feelings. So while it may have started as a rectangle of colors it evolved into something to represent something. Much akin to how guns are nothing but metal but we have certain feelings toward them, respect, fear, among other things. R better yet, military uniforms. They are nothing but clothes really, but we put value in them. Which is why it is reprehensible to wear them when you are not a military member, you are misrepresenting what the symbol means
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
 hotsauceman1 wrote:Well according to one paradigm of sociology the way certain institutions is formed is partially with symbols and that they create certain feelings. So while it may have started as a rectangle of colors it evolved into something to represent something. Much akin to how guns are nothing but metal but we have certain feelings toward them, respect, fear, among other things. R better yet, military uniforms. They are nothing but clothes really, but we put value in them. Which is why it is reprehensible to wear them when you are not a military member, you are misrepresenting what the symbol means
Well said.
37231
Post by: d-usa
hotsauceman1 wrote:Well according to one paradigm of sociology the way certain institutions is formed is partially with symbols and that they create certain feelings. So while it may have started as a rectangle of colors it evolved into something to represent something. Much akin to how guns are nothing but metal but we have certain feelings toward them, respect, fear, among other things. R better yet, military uniforms. They are nothing but clothes really, but we put value in them. Which is why it is reprehensible to wear them when you are not a military member, you are misrepresenting what the symbol means
The only problem is when you end up placing the symbol above the things they represent.
You like something that is good. Then you make a symbol to represent this good thing. You like the good thing, the symbol represents the good thing, so you like the symbol as well. Now you decide that the symbol is more important than the good thing it represents. You take away the good thing because the symbol is now more important. The good thing is gone, it doesn't exist anymore, but people still like the symbol because it is "good" even though what made it good to begin with is now gone.
47598
Post by: motyak
d-usa wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Well according to one paradigm of sociology the way certain institutions is formed is partially with symbols and that they create certain feelings. So while it may have started as a rectangle of colors it evolved into something to represent something. Much akin to how guns are nothing but metal but we have certain feelings toward them, respect, fear, among other things. R better yet, military uniforms. They are nothing but clothes really, but we put value in them. Which is why it is reprehensible to wear them when you are not a military member, you are misrepresenting what the symbol means
The only problem is when you end up placing the symbol above the things they represent.
You like something that is good. Then you make a symbol to represent this good thing. You like the good thing, the symbol represents the good thing, so you like the symbol as well. Now you decide that the symbol is more important than the good thing it represents. You take away the good thing because the symbol is now more important. The good thing is gone, it doesn't exist anymore, but people still like the symbol because it is "good" even though what made it good to begin with is now gone.
Good
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
Ensis Ferrae wrote:The defense for keeping the line in the pledge (even though its not the original "pledge of allegiance" has been that under God is not necessarily referring to the Christian idea of God, but rather referring to whichever god or gods, or lack thereof a person worships, while they are reciting it. Basically, one could replace God with Buddha, Thor, Odin, Kali or anyone else, and its still relevant to the person saying it.
You misspelled "excuse". Nobody actually believes that it refers to any other deity but the Judeo-Christian God, they're just trying to achieve through lies what they can't through legitimate argument.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
d-usa wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Well according to one paradigm of sociology the way certain institutions is formed is partially with symbols and that they create certain feelings. So while it may have started as a rectangle of colors it evolved into something to represent something. Much akin to how guns are nothing but metal but we have certain feelings toward them, respect, fear, among other things. R better yet, military uniforms. They are nothing but clothes really, but we put value in them. Which is why it is reprehensible to wear them when you are not a military member, you are misrepresenting what the symbol means
The only problem is when you end up placing the symbol above the things they represent.
You like something that is good. Then you make a symbol to represent this good thing. You like the good thing, the symbol represents the good thing, so you like the symbol as well. Now you decide that the symbol is more important than the good thing it represents. You take away the good thing because the symbol is now more important. The good thing is gone, it doesn't exist anymore, but people still like the symbol because it is "good" even though what made it good to begin with is now gone.
*In a British Accent* Hmmm....Hmmmm Yes Yes. Quite/
And you just stumbled onto another part of sociology, overrepresentation of a symbol. In which the symbol becomes more then a symbol and becomes something else....Ever year about religion?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 AlexHolker wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:The defense for keeping the line in the pledge (even though its not the original "pledge of allegiance" has been that under God is not necessarily referring to the Christian idea of God, but rather referring to whichever god or gods, or lack thereof a person worships, while they are reciting it. Basically, one could replace God with Buddha, Thor, Odin, Kali or anyone else, and its still relevant to the person saying it.
You misspelled "excuse". Nobody actually believes that it refers to any other deity but the Judeo-Christian God, they're just trying to achieve through lies what they can't through legitimate argument.
Certainly, it is ultimately an excuse, however I believe that in previous, smaller court cases over this sort of thing, they have upheld that sort of wording for those reasons.
18698
Post by: kronk
I recited the pledge every morning in elementary school, but you shouldn't make a law to force people to do it. I'm against that.
Honestly, if a teacher says it's time to say the pledge, all of the kids just stand up and do it. How many 5th graders are boycotting the pledge, anyway. And if a 5th grader doesn't pledge, will you take him to jail? Really?
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
hotsauceman1 wrote:Well according to one paradigm of sociology the way certain institutions is formed is partially with symbols and that they create certain feelings. So while it may have started as a rectangle of colors it evolved into something to represent something. Much akin to how guns are nothing but metal but we have certain feelings toward them, respect, fear, among other things. R better yet, military uniforms. They are nothing but clothes really, but we put value in them. Which is why it is reprehensible to wear them when you are not a military member, you are misrepresenting what the symbol means
Surely you mean "reprehensible to wear them in the context of pretending to actually be serving", unless you are willing to condemn the varied and manifold strippers and costume party-goers, historical re-enactors, and people who buy ex-military gear at surplus stores(in which case surely the context is more important than the symbolic value of the clothing, since without the context the value vanishes).
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
As long as everyone was free to say 'One nation under: insert deity/pantheon/cartoon character/D100 daemon name generator, of choice, here '
Then why not.
I'd pledge to one nation under Venger, for sure. 
34419
Post by: 4oursword
How would a child who refused be dealt with anyway?
I'm pretty unfamiliar with the gravity of the Pledge, but if some kid just kept their lips shut, what would be done?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The parents would be fined, and if they failed to pay, they would be sent to debtor's prison.
Alternatively the children could recite the following variant of the Pledge.
I pledge agreement to the Faggs of the Benighted States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under Cod, indivisible, with liberty and justice for Paul."
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 Yodhrin wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Well according to one paradigm of sociology the way certain institutions is formed is partially with symbols and that they create certain feelings. So while it may have started as a rectangle of colors it evolved into something to represent something. Much akin to how guns are nothing but metal but we have certain feelings toward them, respect, fear, among other things. R better yet, military uniforms. They are nothing but clothes really, but we put value in them. Which is why it is reprehensible to wear them when you are not a military member, you are misrepresenting what the symbol means
Surely you mean "reprehensible to wear them in the context of pretending to actually be serving", unless you are willing to condemn the varied and manifold strippers and costume party-goers, historical re-enactors, and people who buy ex-military gear at surplus stores(in which case surely the context is more important than the symbolic value of the clothing, since without the context the value vanishes).
Yeah, I should have clarified that.
21196
Post by: agnosto
It just goes along with the state legislature trying to create laws for everything that occurs in state classrooms...because nothing says ultraconservative, Christian, anti big government values like government requiring people to perform some activity...
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
4oursword wrote:How would a child who refused be dealt with anyway?
I'm pretty unfamiliar with the gravity of the Pledge, but if some kid just kept their lips shut, what would be done?
The gravity of the pledge is on par with the gravity of any modern Christian-rock song. It has no meaning whatsoever, and is nothing more than an opportunistic throwback to McCarthy-era forced patriotism.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Do politicians in America have nothing better to do?
5534
Post by: dogma
They would be sent to the principle's office, and the principle would give them a stern lecture; perhaps their parents would be called.
My assumption is that this law doesn't put children at legal risk, but only the schools they attend. So if all the kids in the school refuse to say the Pledge, but teachers still attempt to lead them in it, nothing would happen*.
*Nothing will happen even teachers don't lead them in it, because who really gives a gak?
21196
Post by: agnosto
One of my many duties is that I have to keep district Board Policy up to date with all the changes in state law. Since they don't have any money to spend, they like to "tinker" with Education. This past Spring, the House and Senate (state legislature) both had bills that contained changes to deadlines for open transfer applications between school districts, both were passed and both were signed into law by the Governor (who apparently never bothered to read either and just signed them). Technically, both laws are in force and require school districts to modify local policy to reflect the laws and follow the dates therein.... asinine.
At a stump speach, the State Superintendent of Education said on camera that we as a state will make our own science standards, standards that don't include such erroneous concepts as evolution and global climate change. No, really, she's that stupid but the people of Oklahoma saw fit to elect a Dentist with no real experience in Education as the Chief State School Officer...
Linkage for the bored:
About 35:30 in. Start a little earlier if you want to hear her thoughts on Social Studies which almost made me have hear failure (history major).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=133oWAJFv-w&feature=share
33125
Post by: Seaward
azazel the cat wrote:The gravity of the pledge is on par with the gravity of any modern Christian-rock song. It has no meaning whatsoever, and is nothing more than an opportunistic throwback to McCarthy-era forced patriotism.
I think a lot of naturalized US citizens would disagree with you.
91
Post by: Hordini
 4oursword wrote:How would a child who refused be dealt with anyway?
I'm pretty unfamiliar with the gravity of the Pledge, but if some kid just kept their lips shut, what would be done?
When I was a sub, I worked at a bunch of different schools, and as far as I know, none of them would force a student to recite the pledge if they didn't want to, and it certainly wouldn't be anything that would warrant sending a student to the principal's office for.
3802
Post by: chromedog
We had a pledge at one of my primary schools (10-12/13 or so - pre high-school here) and we had one at my High School.
We were supposed to recite it, but nobody enforced it - and it WAS out of date at that point anyway (it referenced our 'king' - who was replaced in the early part of the 20th century anyway), so most of us surly teens and pre-teens didn't bother. There was a general mumble along thing going, though.
None of us had the reasoning for it explained bar "it's tradition".
21196
Post by: agnosto
Even the proposed law isn't forcing the students to participate, it's forcing the schools to require teachers to hold it. We have guest teachers from China and Japan as part of teacher exchange programs, I'm sure the law will require them to do it too which is ridiculous if you think about it.
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
The pledge doesn't even seem to be the main focus of the article. It seems more like a hook, which is followed up by a slightly different topic altogether.
Nevertheless, while I DO oppose enforced oaths of loyalty, this doesn't seem like it's something that I'd get too worked up over. The students who don't wish to participate are exempted without penalty it appears, so it's pretty much a toothless gesture. The schools I've worked at do the same thing, and while the students ARE required to stand still and be respectfully quiet during the pledge recitation, no one is required to say it. (Even in a professional capacity, I certainly never did.)
37231
Post by: d-usa
The main question for me, especially considering that our state legislature and governor as a whole are riding the "less government telling anybody what to do" train as hard as they can, is what forcing the schools to participate is supposed to accomplish.
What is the benefit of this bill?
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
I might have missed something, but from what the article was saying, it seems like it's just a rider in a bill that is aimed at more meaty reforms to the way your state's school systems function.
Edit: Apparently not. Hmmm. Does the bill stipulate anything else? It may just be a political feint. I don't know Sandridge at all. Is he the kind of guy who would put up a bill he knows would either do nothing or fail just to look like a 'team player?'
I suppose my real answer to the question 'what is the benefit?' is that my assumption at this stage of the game is 'None to the taxpayers. But there's probably something in it for Sandridge.' which is a little cynical, I know, but I'm from Illinois, so I tend to kind of assume state-level politicians are corrupt beyond measure as a default premise.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Jimsolo wrote:I might have missed something, but from what the article was saying, it seems like it's just a rider in a bill that is aimed at more meaty reforms to the way your state's school systems function.
Edit: Apparently not. Hmmm. Does the bill stipulate anything else? It may just be a political feint. I don't know Sandridge at all. Is he the kind of guy who would put up a bill he knows would either do nothing or fail just to look like a 'team player?'
It really doesn't offer any reform, seems like every portion is just pure Tea Party pandering:
1) Change our curiculum to anything, as long as it's not common core
2) Reject any kind of funding from anything if it has to do with common core
3) Every school must own and display a US flag
4) Every elementary school must do the pledge
This bill has basically nothing to do with education other than "the federal government can't tell us what to do, pledge allegiance to the flag of our government!" Automatically Appended Next Post: Jimsolo wrote:. But there's probably something in it for Sandridge.' which is a little cynical, I know, but I'm from Illinois, so I tend to kind of assume state-level politicians are corrupt beyond measure as a default premise.
Considering our legislators the benefit is that he gets to run election ads talking about how he tried to make sure our children get raised like good Americans and anybody that talks against this bill will be painted as "flag haters" or "ashamed of our flag"...political BS.
The anti-common core stand is just conservative pandering.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Yes, it is somewhat ironic that a rather anti-government set of laws should include enforcement of public displays of loyalty to the government.
Quite 1984 in its thinking.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Seaward wrote: azazel the cat wrote:The gravity of the pledge is on par with the gravity of any modern Christian-rock song. It has no meaning whatsoever, and is nothing more than an opportunistic throwback to McCarthy-era forced patriotism.
I think a lot of naturalized US citizens would disagree with you.
Probably not if they were naturalized before 1942, and they probably don't care much about the "under god" part if they were naturalized prior to '54.
99
Post by: insaniak
Ensis Ferrae wrote:...Basically, one could replace God with Buddha, Thor, Odin, Kali or anyone else, and its still relevant to the person saying it.
...unless they are an athiest...
33125
Post by: Seaward
azazel the cat wrote:Probably not if they were naturalized before 1942, and they probably don't care much about the "under god" part if they were naturalized prior to '54.
I'd say the bulk of currently living naturalized citizens probably don't fit in either category. Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm an atheist. I've said the pledge plenty. Weirdly, I did not feel outraged when I got to the "under God" part. I'm always confused by those who apparently did.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I've sworn as a juror and happily used the Christian version of the oath (this is the UK) because in my mind, I was making the commitment on my own honour and it did not matter whether I swore on the Bible or another sacred book, or "affirmed", provided I made the public commitment.
Official US government oaths should be completely secular, of course.
99
Post by: insaniak
 Seaward wrote:I'm an atheist. I've said the pledge plenty. Weirdly, I did not feel outraged when I got to the "under God" part. I'm always confused by those who apparently did.
Who mentioned being outraged by it?
It's a little pointless however to swear fealty to a deity that you don't actually believe in.
21196
Post by: agnosto
The only outrage that I have is that this would be yet another time intrusion in the classrom. Oklahoma's legislature likes to heap on mandates for schools and then complain that the teachers aren't spending enough time teaching. The last session, they added two more safety drills each semester..for a total of, 8 or 10, sorry the final number just slipped my mind.
"Why aren't you in the class teaching our kids?!?"
"We're completing our daily pledge then moment of silence. Then we need to go outside for another drill. Then somehow squeeze in some instruction."
1464
Post by: Breotan
azazel the cat wrote:4oursword wrote:How would a child who refused be dealt with anyway?
I'm pretty unfamiliar with the gravity of the Pledge, but if some kid just kept their lips shut, what would be done?
The gravity of the pledge is on par with the gravity of any modern Christian-rock song. It has no meaning whatsoever, and is nothing more than an opportunistic throwback to McCarthy-era forced patriotism.
I wasn't aware that the McCarthy era began in the late 1800s.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Does this actually have a chance of passing or even coming to the floor in Okie?
It just feels like a legislative stunt to show how "serious" some guy is on Conservative values.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I would not be surprised if it passes. It would probably get vetoed due to the anti-common core language.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
 Breotan wrote: azazel the cat wrote:4oursword wrote:How would a child who refused be dealt with anyway?
I'm pretty unfamiliar with the gravity of the Pledge, but if some kid just kept their lips shut, what would be done?
The gravity of the pledge is on par with the gravity of any modern Christian-rock song. It has no meaning whatsoever, and is nothing more than an opportunistic throwback to McCarthy-era forced patriotism.
I wasn't aware that the McCarthy era began in the late 1800s.
McCarthyism was in the 1950s, at the same time that the "God" slogans were added to the money and the Pledge.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote:I would not be surprised if it passes. It would probably get vetoed due to the anti-common core language.
What the feth is "common core"? An extention to No Child Left Behind? My cursory google-fu is wonkey today...
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Breotan wrote: azazel the cat wrote:4oursword wrote:How would a child who refused be dealt with anyway?
I'm pretty unfamiliar with the gravity of the Pledge, but if some kid just kept their lips shut, what would be done?
The gravity of the pledge is on par with the gravity of any modern Christian-rock song. It has no meaning whatsoever, and is nothing more than an opportunistic throwback to McCarthy-era forced patriotism.
I wasn't aware that the McCarthy era began in the late 1800s.
Pledge wasn't adopted by congress until '44, I think... and the god part wasn't added until '54
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
azazel the cat wrote:Breotan wrote: azazel the cat wrote:4oursword wrote:How would a child who refused be dealt with anyway?
I'm pretty unfamiliar with the gravity of the Pledge, but if some kid just kept their lips shut, what would be done?
The gravity of the pledge is on par with the gravity of any modern Christian-rock song. It has no meaning whatsoever, and is nothing more than an opportunistic throwback to McCarthy-era forced patriotism.
I wasn't aware that the McCarthy era began in the late 1800s.
Pledge wasn't adopted by congress until '44, I think... and the god part wasn't added until '54
1942, actually, but close enough. The great irony of the whole thing is that Bellamy was the closest thing to a Communist that the 19th century had.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It was officially included (against the strictures of the constitution) in the 1950s during McCarthyism.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:I would not be surprised if it passes. It would probably get vetoed due to the anti-common core language.
What the feth is "common core"? An extention to No Child Left Behind? My cursory google-fu is wonkey today...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative
In a nutshell:
There was a report saying that high school diplomas are basically crap and lack uniform standards.
State governors got together to come up with a plan to make their diplomas more uniform and meaningful.
The State Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers came up with a common core of standards for the school curriculum in their states (aka: Common Core).
The states then adopted this "common core" curriculum, and somehow this has all been tied to the federal government telling stares what they must teach.
tl;dr
States got together and decided what they will teach and that they will all teach the same stuff.
People are angry because Obama is telling them what they must teach now and won't let states decide what they should teach
34390
Post by: whembly
Ah... I see.
Not sure where I stand with this. At a cursory look... it seems like a good idea.
However, I'm usually in the camp that part of the problem with our education system is the Top-Heavy directive our schools are forced to comply with...
I'd rather give the local schools/parents as much power to formulate teaching regimen rather than some one-size-fits-all program. That way, it can be tailored appropriately for the student population.
Thanks dude.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Nothing cripples education like a broadly base authoratitative body laying down standards and content.
Nothing empowers education like minor special interest groups pushing their micro agenda.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
As an outsider, I have to say that I find the idea of kids having to pledge their allegiance to a flag everyday absolutely horrible.
It is something that belongs more in the Third Reich than in a nation that claims to be the epitome of 'freedom and democracy'.
What purpose does it serve?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
To remind republicans the america is still great.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
 Iron_Captain wrote:As an outsider, I have to say that I find the idea of kids having to pledge their allegiance to a flag everyday absolutely horrible.
It is something that belongs more in the Third Reich than in a nation that claims to be the epitome of 'freedom and democracy'.
What purpose does it serve?
There are large swaths of Americans who are convinced that their way of life is on the verge of being snuffed out by liberalism, communism, gays, secular progressives, Sharia law, socialism, and Left Coast elitists... so they need to fight the good fight and take a stand against tyranny by passing a law to make students recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Or something like that.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Everyone knows it's the right coast elitists combining forces with the idiots from California..... 
33125
Post by: Seaward
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Everyone knows it's the right coast elitists combining forces with the idiots from California.....
I can spot a couple of redundancies in that sentence.
5534
Post by: dogma
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Everyone knows it's the right coast elitists combining forces with the idiots from California.....
Facing North at the moment? 
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Always 
81604
Post by: Heavy Metal
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:As an outsider, I have to say that I find the idea of kids having to pledge their allegiance to a flag everyday absolutely horrible.
It is something that belongs more in the Third Reich than in a nation that claims to be the epitome of 'freedom and democracy'.
What purpose does it serve?
There are large swaths of Americans who are convinced that their way of life is on the verge of being snuffed out by liberalism, communism, gays, secular progressives, Sharia law, socialism, and Left Coast elitists... so they need to fight the good fight and take a stand against tyranny by passing a law to make students recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Or something like that.
Making it law to recite the pledge is going from extreme to another but considering how many institutions stomp on the American flag, the American way of life and tearing down all things traditional brick by brick maybe this law isn't too bad but could use a little more finesse. 
I suppose I could be part of the large swaths of Americans who have grown tired of seeing my parent's generation of America being dragged through the dirt and torn apart. I just want these left coast elitist to take their elitism and shove it where the sun don't shine and take all these other tenets of the far-left and get ouf of my face with it or get the business end of my fist. I am part the "leave me the hell alone" group of Americans.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Heavy Metal wrote: ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:As an outsider, I have to say that I find the idea of kids having to pledge their allegiance to a flag everyday absolutely horrible. It is something that belongs more in the Third Reich than in a nation that claims to be the epitome of 'freedom and democracy'. What purpose does it serve?
There are large swaths of Americans who are convinced that their way of life is on the verge of being snuffed out by liberalism, communism, gays, secular progressives, Sharia law, socialism, and Left Coast elitists... so they need to fight the good fight and take a stand against tyranny by passing a law to make students recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Or something like that.
Making it law to recite the pledge is going from extreme to another but considering how many institutions stomp on the American flag, the American way of life and tearing down all things traditional brick by brick maybe this law isn't too bad but could use a little more finesse. I suppose I could be part of the large swaths of Americans who have grown tired of seeing my parent's generation of America being dragged through the dirt and torn apart. I just want these left coast elitist to take their elitism and shove it where the sun don't shine and take all these other tenets of the far-left and get ouf of my face with it or get the business end of my fist. I am part the "leave me the hell alone" group of Americans.
Institutions that stomp on the American flag? Tearing all things "traditional" down brick by brick? What part of your "parent's generation" is being dragged through the dirt? Examples would be nice. If you are truly part of the "leave me the hell alone" group of Americans, you would reject a law that forces people to do something that they might not want to.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Heavy Metal wrote:
Making it law to recite the pledge is going from extreme to another but considering how many institutions stomp on the American flag, the American way of life and tearing down all things traditional brick by brick maybe this law isn't too bad but could use a little more finesse.
Part of the American way of life is being able to stomp on the American flag, take a crap on it, and then light it on fire.
If you can't do that, then you don't have the American way of life anymore.
81604
Post by: Heavy Metal
d-usa wrote:
Part of the American way of life is being able to stomp on the American flag, take a crap on it, and then light it on fire.
If you can't do that, then you don't have the American way of life anymore.
It is part of American life for a group of people to scream racist when they don't agree with the other group of people to the point they're coerced to keep silent too, eh?
It is abused by either side but you shouldn't be forced to say the pledge nor should it be reserved to a particular group of people. I like how the liberals hide behind fake patriotism and freedom of speech when its benefits them but so quick to tear it down when it benefits political enemies.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Heavy Metal wrote: d-usa wrote:
Part of the American way of life is being able to stomp on the American flag, take a crap on it, and then light it on fire.
If you can't do that, then you don't have the American way of life anymore.
It is part of American life for a group of people to scream racist when they don't agree with the other group of people to the point they're coerced to keep silent too, eh?
Freedom of speech means you can bitch about what you want and other can bitch about what you are bitching about.
It is abused by either side but you shouldn't be forced to say the pledge nor should it be reserved to a particular group of people. I like how the liberals hide behind fake patriotism and freedom of speech when its benefits them but so quick to tear it down when it benefits political enemies.
I see that you will fit in just fine here...
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Making it law to recite the pledge is going from extreme to another but considering how many institutions stomp on the American flag, the American way of life and tearing down all things traditional brick by brick maybe this law isn't too bad but could use a little more finesse.
I suppose I could be part of the large swaths of Americans who have grown tired of seeing my parent's generation of America being dragged through the dirt and torn apart. I just want these left coast elitist to take their elitism and shove it where the sun don't shine and take all these other tenets of the far-left and get ouf of my face with it or get the business end of my fist. I am part the "leave me the hell alone" group of Americans.
Institutions that stomp on the American flag? Tearing all things "traditional" down brick by brick? What part of your "parent's generation" is being dragged through the dirt? Examples would be nice.
If you are truly part of the "leave me the hell alone" group of Americans, you would reject a law that forces people to do something that they might not want to.
Im confused aswell. What is "Left Coast Elitism" and why is it bad? And maybe the generation that gave us this shithole to fix deserves to be dragged?
12313
Post by: Ouze
Heavy Metal wrote:It is abused by either side but you shouldn't be forced to say the pledge nor should it be reserved to a particular group of people. I like how the liberals hide behind fake patriotism and freedom of speech when its benefits them but so quick to tear it down when it benefits political enemies.
This is one of the more incoherent rants in recent memory. Who is the right to say the pledge "reserved" to? What "fake patriotism"? Who has had their rights torn down when it benefitted political enemies? It really feels like you're repeating catchphrases you've picked up from talk radio without understanding what they mean.
81604
Post by: Heavy Metal
d-usa wrote:
I see that you will fit in just fine here...
That's not exactly comforting.
[ Ouze wrote:
This is one of the more incoherent rants in recent memory. Who is the right to say the pledge "reserved" to? What "fake patriotism"? Who has had their rights torn down when it benefitted political enemies? It really feels like you're repeating catchphrases you've picked up from talk radio without understanding what they mean.
And speaking of freedom of speech I can easily say to you go  yourself? I really don't give a damn what you think. How about them apples? I really don't like you.
47598
Post by: motyak
Heavy, can you address this point rather than just insulting other users? I'm interested to hear your response.
"If you are truly part of the "leave me the hell alone" group of Americans, you would reject a law that forces people to do something that they might not want to."
I'm curious because it seems to be a common stance for conservatives in the US to hold, that they are for small government but also for this sort of legislation.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Interesting influx of new users here lately...
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
 motyak wrote:Heavy, can you address this point rather than just insulting other users? I'm interested to hear your response.
"If you are truly part of the "leave me the hell alone" group of Americans, you would reject a law that forces people to do something that they might not want to."
I'm curious because it seems to be a common stance for conservatives in the US to hold, that they are for small government but also for this sort of legislation.
It comes from a few separate and not very compatible ideas. One, there's Conservatism that basically says that America was created to be land of the free for all people. We shouldn't be afraid to show our religion to others and the government should stay out of people's private lives. They want low taxes, family values and the opportunity to increase their position in life without government getting in the way or molesting their kids at airport screening stations.
Then you have the Republican party which says they represent those kind of people, but in reality, they don't. The Republican party doesn't want lower taxes or smaller government, they want things pretty much how the Democrats want it, but due to their voters, they have to go about it a different way. Both parties want corporate money to keep going and don't care about their supporters. Its like a new aristocracy that the peasants are fighting over for which noble gets to rule them.
There's also the Religious Right which are a stark minority but shout the loudest and longest so the Republican party feels they have to cater to them in order to win elections, even though the exact opposite happens. They get on the news, say ridiculously stupid stuff that basically goes against the sort of thing America was founded for. I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers didn't want a theocracy ruled by the Bible or they would have mentioned it.
It's statism and authoritarianism, just like the Democrat Party, only going about it in a different way.
That's where a lot of confusion comes from, many separate ideas all intertwined into one schizophrenic political movement.
47598
Post by: motyak
 MWHistorian wrote:
That's where a lot of confusion comes from, many separate ideas all intertwined into one schizophrenic political movement.
I love that as a summation, thanks MW. I was being a bit snarky in my asking though, sorry. I am aware of the what you summarised, but I wanted Heavy to explain his stance, and which one he fits into.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Oh, sorry. There should be a snark symbol or something. 
47598
Post by: motyak
Haha yeah, I should really use emoticons more than just the smiley and pokey tongue, it'd help. But it was still a really good explanation.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Heavy Metal wrote:d-usa wrote:
I see that you will fit in just fine here...
That's not exactly comforting.
[ Ouze wrote:
This is one of the more incoherent rants in recent memory. Who is the right to say the pledge "reserved" to? What "fake patriotism"? Who has had their rights torn down when it benefitted political enemies? It really feels like you're repeating catchphrases you've picked up from talk radio without understanding what they mean.
And speaking of freedom of speech I can easily say to you go yourself? I really don't give a damn what you think. How about them apples? I really don't like you.
DakkaDakka is not a forum where we allow users to just shout at each other.
You must develop your argument with substantive points, or you will fall foul of the moderation system either for rudeness or spam.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im confused aswell. What is "Left Coast Elitism" and why is it bad? And maybe the generation that gave us this shithole to fix deserves to be dragged?
This. Let's just say I'm not too happy over the projections of our generation's working life and standard of living...
34390
Post by: whembly
 AlmightyWalrus wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im confused aswell. What is "Left Coast Elitism" and why is it bad? And maybe the generation that gave us this shithole to fix deserves to be dragged?
This. Let's just say I'm not too happy over the projections of our generation's working life and standard of living...
Left Coast Elitism?!?!
Um... I think that's California.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
ok, explain the "Elitism" aspect of it
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
I think it extends from the strange baseless assumption that all liberals are democrats and the all democrats are elitist. I had someone explain to me exactly the reasoning for "elitist democrats/liberals" one this forum before, I'll see if I can find it.
Edit: found it
jamesk1973 wrote:
My point it that modern liberalism (as in not the dictionary definition) is defined by pushing for equality, natural and civil freedoms, and tolerance. Elitism is putting one group over another, and thus the opposite of liberalism. The reason I see for the "elitist liberal" thing is that people use liberal interchangeably with democrat and conservative interchangeably with republican instead of what they actually mean. I am liberal, but I am not a democrat (who are often accused of being elitist by republicans who, at the same time, choose one of the elite for their candidate), and disagree with many of the things they have done, or how they have done them. The problem is when people define parties by a definition that incact means either wanting change (liberal), or wanting thing to stay the way they are, or to revert to old ways (conservative).
I am using elitist in the manner that the liberals would put the needs, wants, and desires of the disadvantaged or the needs, wants, and desires of the middle and upper-class.
Because, WTF have those rich guys ever done for anyone?
Only start businesses, succeed, and hire people to work for them. You know an honest day of work earning some money to spent on your survival and comfort.
I know it's easy to hate them guys in the rich suburbs and their expensive vehicles and their advantaged offspring.
Yet I see time and again liberal lawyers getting into office on the promise to make those bastards pay. Yet, I have yet to run across a liberal cum politician who employed feth all.
They just want to tax and regulate the wealth away from the wealthy and into the hands of the poor.
Then they turn around and curse the corporation for moving jobs outside of the country.
Well gak, it's clear that their efforts toward industry and job creation is not valued here, so yeah, move them jobs out of the country.
The gist of it is that democrats are elitist because they support the middle and lower classes above the rich (who, for irony's sake, are the elite).
33125
Post by: Seaward
That may make you feel better, but that's not really a good explanation.
19370
Post by: daedalus
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The gist of it is that democrats are elitist because they support the middle and lower classes above the rich (who, for irony's sake, are the elite).
There's some who believe Orwell's horror story of language redefinition isn't quite such a story.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Seaward wrote:That may make you feel better, but that's not really a good explanation.
I'm not quite sure of you point. I assume you are talking to me, but what are you saying?
daedalus wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote:
The gist of it is that democrats are elitist because they support the middle and lower classes above the rich (who, for irony's sake, are the elite).
There's some who believe Orwell's horror story of language redefinition isn't quite such a story.
What?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Why don't you bring back the old Bellamy salute as well?
33125
Post by: Seaward
Co'tor Shas wrote:I'm not quite sure of you point. I assume you are talking to me, but what are you saying?
That your 'gist' of liberal elitism isn't at all accurate.
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
Seaward wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote:I'm not quite sure of you point. I assume you are talking to me, but what are you saying?
That your 'gist' of liberal elitism isn't at all accurate.
To be fair, that's not "his" gist of liberal elitism. That's the opinion of a conservative poster on this board, as the quote should indicate.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Seaward, then please give another definition. just dont poost "That isnt true"
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
hotsauceman1 wrote:Seaward, then please give another definition. just dont poost "That isnt true"
Took this from Wikipedia:
In the United States, the lifestyle of the liberal elite is often considered noteworthy.[1][2] The term "liberal elite" often carries the implicit connotation that the individuals described by the term are hypocritical. For instance, they may support busing and oppose school choice and vouchers, but send their children to private, parochial or racially homogeneous wealthy public schools. The liberal elite are often characterized as having an affinity for European culture, especially the culture of France and foreign films. Thus the phrase liberal elite suggests that liberals are unpatriotic, because they like other cultures and are disdainful of American life and culture. Columnist Dave Barry drew attention to these stereotypes when he commented, "Do we truly believe that ALL red-state residents are ignorant racist fascist knuckle-dragging NASCAR-obsessed cousin-marrying roadkill-eating tobacco-juice-dribbling gun-fondling religious fanatic rednecks; or that ALL blue-state residents are godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving left-wing communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts"[3]? South Park's creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone use the stereotypes attributed to the liberal elite for comic effect. In the episode "Chef's Chocolate Salty Balls", they portrayed members of Hollywood's movie industry as being hypocritical and self-serving and having an affinity for tofu, steamed celery, couscous and the products of organic markets. In the episode "Smug Alert", they portray San Francisco liberals as haughty and condescending towards people less progressive than themselves and poking fun at the large number of wine and cheese stores in San Francisco. The film Team America: World Police includes jokes about the liberal elite, implying that they live in their own protected niche and are thus unaware of the dangers of internationalism. The film lampooned several Hollywood celebrities, including Susan Sarandon, Liv Tyler etc. for their left-wing political views. Michael Moore, who is famous for having left-wing viewpoints whilst making large amounts of money from his books and films, is also lampooned in the film.
During the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election, Republican candidate John McCain likened Democratic candidate Barack Obama's celebrity appeal to that of pop star Britney Spears and socialite Paris Hilton.[4]
A political ad from the right wing organization Club for Growth attacked the Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean by portraying him as part of the liberal elite: "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs."[5]
Those Americans who equate intellectual pursuits and careers with elitism often point out American intellectuals, most of whom are upper middle class not upper class,[6] are primarily liberal. Fully 72% of professors identify themselves as liberals. At Ivy League Universities, an even larger majority, 87% of professors identified themselves as liberals.[7] Those with post-graduate degrees are increasingly Democratic.[8][9][10][11]
In Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? the idea of a liberal elite is compared to George Orwell's character Emmanuel Goldstein in the book Nineteen Eighty-Four, the fictional hated enemy of the people. Frank argues that anger directed towards this perceived enemy is what keeps the conservative coalition together.[12]
The long and short of it is, basically someone who has left leaning tendencies, support left side "pet issues" yet not support those causes with their own uses of those things.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Ensis Ferrae wrote:The long and short of it is, basically someone who has left leaning tendencies, support left side "pet issues" yet not support those causes with their own uses of those things.
Or, I would say, someone passionately in favor of policies that they know will not affect them thanks to their wealth and influence.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Seaward wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:The long and short of it is, basically someone who has left leaning tendencies, support left side "pet issues" yet not support those causes with their own uses of those things.
Or, I would say, someone passionately in favor of policies that they know will not affect them thanks to their wealth and influence.
That sounds like every politician out there, Republican and Democrat.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
So it is nothing more then an insult used to insult liberals. Got it
12313
Post by: Ouze
I'm sorry, Ensis, but I do not consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source.
Here is a more reliable source, in part:
A liberal is someone who favors increased government spending, power, and control, as in ObamaCare, as well as censorship of Christianity. Increasingly, liberals side with the homosexual agenda, including supporting homosexual "marriage". Many liberals favor a welfare state where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. They prefer atheism over the Christian faith, as atheism has no objective morality to hinder their big government plans. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically unsound views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of conservative principles without having any meaningful values of their own.
Polling data has consistently shown that a increasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%.[1]
A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices:
Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the Eurozone due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
Government's ability to solve economic problems[2]
The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists' hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy [3]
Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
Cessation of teacher-led prayer in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events.
Gun control
Anti-Americanism
Affirmative action[4]
Opposition to government regulation or restriction of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a First Amendment right[5]
Government-funded medical care, such as Obamacare
Belief in evolution
Destroying the Christian foundations on which America was built on.
Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education
Placement of men and women in the same jobs in the military
Legalized same-sex marriage and homosexual adoption
Tax and spend economics
Economic sector regulations[6]
Spreading of political correctness
Destroying liberty
Ending Western morality
Non-syndicalist labor unions
Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching abstinence from premarital sex[7]
A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended.
Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
Abolition of the death penalty
Environmentalism[8]
Globalism
Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
Opposition to full private property rights.[9]
Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine
Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act
Opposition of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a major part of the War on Terrorism
Opposition to the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq
Regulation of business rather than a laissez-faire capitalist economy
Opposition to the Constitution. Liberals seek to expand federal power at the expense of local government and silence the conservatives who hold them back, violating the 10th and 1st Amendments respectively.
Denial of traditional gender roles
Support of financially irresponsible policies
Advocating policies which are proven to be incorrect
Encouragement of global warming alarmism
Persecution of Christianity with deference to other religions, such as Islam.
Liberals currently use two Clauses of the Constitution to try to expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The General Welfare Clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The Commerce Clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the Indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this Clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better know as Obamacare. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.
The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, Democrats and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.
Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"[10] or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."[11] In practical usage, the term "liberal" is more closely synonymous with "radical," "immoral," "anti-freedom," or "bad."
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I'm sorry, Ensis, but I do not consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source.
I'm an active user of Wikipeida and I myself will personally vouch that any article on Wikipedia relating to American politics is complete crap. Never use them. Ever. Go to the talk page on some of those articles. You'll see what I mean.
It took ArbCom two years to determine that the Tea Party article was a complete cluster feth. A full 23 months after everyone else figured it out.
34390
Post by: whembly
Ouze nailed it.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 LordofHats wrote:I'm sorry, Ensis, but I do not consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source.
I'm an active user of Wikipeida and I myself will personally vouch that any article on Wikipedia relating to American politics is complete crap. Never use them. Ever. Go to the talk page on some of those articles. You'll see what I mean.
It took ArbCom two years to determine that the Tea Party article was a complete cluster feth. A full 23 months after everyone else figured it out.
I agree, I also don't use wikipedia for anything more serious than here (which is to say, if I'm actually trying to argue something, or am in an academic setting, wikipedia isn't really a source, except a source for sources to start)
12313
Post by: Ouze
Conservapedia is the only trustworthy encyclopedia.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Ouze wrote:Conservapedia is the only trustworthy encyclopedia.
Especially since I haven't been able to get Encyclopedia Britannica for some time now
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I agree, I also don't use wikipedia for anything more serious than here (which is to say, if I'm actually trying to argue something, or am in an academic setting, wikipedia isn't really a source, except a source for sources to start)
Indeed. SOme parts of Wikipedia are fairly good. The general History articles are generally okay for information (occasional problems like the Kursk article exist of course). Science is hit and miss, philosophy and religion will vary based on the time of the year, and mathematics articles can be like reading Chinese more often than not.
Politics articles though are almost always terrible, as are several problem areas like Israel-Palestine conflict, fringe science, and lesser known biographies.
If you want to use Wiki you need to know wiki and from personal experience I can say this is often more trouble than its worth.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
LordofHats wrote:
If you want to use Wiki you need to know wiki and from personal experience I can say this is often more trouble than its worth.
Honestly, often times, if I'm hit with a new subject to research in school or whatever, then I'll hit a wiki article, and scroll straight to the sources, and check those out. Then those may or may not be used (I'd like to think I'm fairly good at spotting the UFO spotter/conspiracy/crazy person sites)
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
This last year, my sociology teacher was s bad, I had to use wiki t read up on paradigms during the leac tures
33125
Post by: Seaward
Republicans and Democrats aren't the only politicians out there.
Vote Libertarian. "Leave everybody alone" applies to everybody.
81604
Post by: Heavy Metal
motyak wrote:Heavy, can you address this point rather than just insulting other users? I'm interested to hear your response.
"If you are truly part of the "leave me the hell alone" group of Americans, you would reject a law that forces people to do something that they might not want to."
I'm curious because it seems to be a common stance for conservatives in the US to hold, that they are for small government but also for this sort of legislation.
I can address people without insults if there weren't being so damn snarky. You're not interested to hear my response or anyone else since some of you here see my responses as "incoherent rants" so stop with that fake civility. I saw straight through this forum the moment I registered.
My stances is common with conservatives but the particulars is none of your concern. I said this legislation from OK probably won't be a bad idea but I said nothing about I was going to be totally for it considering the circumstances. Does everyone here in dakka have knee-jerk reactions when they misread people's posts?
d-usa wrote:Interesting influx of new users here lately...
Don't worry I don't plan on staying long anyway.
MWHistorian wrote:
It comes from a few separate and not very compatible ideas. One, there's Conservatism that basically says that America was created to be land of the free for all people. We shouldn't be afraid to show our religion to others and the government should stay out of people's private lives. They want low taxes, family values and the opportunity to increase their position in life without government getting in the way or molesting their kids at airport screening stations.
Then you have the Republican party which says they represent those kind of people, but in reality, they don't. The Republican party doesn't want lower taxes or smaller government, they want things pretty much how the Democrats want it, but due to their voters, they have to go about it a different way. Both parties want corporate money to keep going and don't care about their supporters. Its like a new aristocracy that the peasants are fighting over for which noble gets to rule them.
There's also the Religious Right which are a stark minority but shout the loudest and longest so the Republican party feels they have to cater to them in order to win elections, even though the exact opposite happens. They get on the news, say ridiculously stupid stuff that basically goes against the sort of thing America was founded for. I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers didn't want a theocracy ruled by the Bible or they would have mentioned it.
It's statism and authoritarianism, just like the Democrat Party, only going about it in a different way.
That's where a lot of confusion comes from, many separate ideas all intertwined into one schizophrenic political movement.
The Republicans don't represent their base or like-minded people like they think they do. Why do you think the party has a lot of infightning now between the establishment and the Tea-Party style representatives? The establishment is pulling out all stops to hang onto power. I say let the GOP fall hard on their butts and have a slice of humble pie because it is their hubris they're losing popular support as compared to their more democratic contemporaries that continue to lie and deceive their way into the ballot box.
Edited by AgeOfEgos
37231
Post by: d-usa
Today on DakkaDakka: How to make friends and influence people...
47598
Post by: motyak
"You are all rude I hate you all"
Then take your ball and go home home already.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Sounded like Heavy Metal agreed with me about the Republican party. Heck, I used to be a Republican.
I'm a Libertarian now. My political views come down to authoritarianism vs individual liberty. I see danger coming from both parties. I want a society where people are free to live as they chose. Athiest, tofu eating liberal? Awesome. Gun toting, bacon eating conservative? Awesome. What I don't like is the government treading on people's rights. (Yeah, I'm talking to you, NSA and TSA.)
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Next warning within this thread to the respective parties--will result in a suspension.
81604
Post by: Heavy Metal
Edited by AgeOfEgos
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
If the rich and wealthy know that liberal policies cannot affect them, because of their wealthy elite position, why do they bother to oppose them?
33125
Post by: Seaward
Kilkrazy wrote:If the rich and wealthy know that liberal policies cannot affect them, because of their wealthy elite position, why do they bother to oppose them?
For the same reason that you call 911 when the house across the street is on fire, even though the fire won't affect you.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
In other words the effect of liberal policies, which are intended to be beneficial to people, are detrimental to society but not to the power elite, who oppose such policies because they want to help the lower orders.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Kilkrazy wrote:In other words the effect of liberal policies, which are intended to be beneficial to people, are detrimental to society but not to the power elite, who oppose such policies because they want to help the lower orders.
I wouldn't say they outright oppose them... I'd say they support those policies as long as they dont have to do them as well, because they went to Harvard, Yale, etc and clearly know what people who are "forced" to go to community college or no school need to be successful in life.
37231
Post by: d-usa
This will be a year for weird stupid laws in Oklahoma:
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB2417&session=1400
"State flag; directing that the state flag be folded in a certain manner; effective date. "
Because we need a law telling us how to fold the state flag, before we pledge to the federal flag and look at the mandatory owned US flag at every school...
Oklahoma...
1206
Post by: Easy E
Don't worry, Oklahoma will be destroyed by an earthquake soon.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Promise?
|
|
