I mean, really? I hope that the principal overturns his self imposed ban and continues with reading the pledge in different languages.
US Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic leads school to apologise
Students pledging allegiance to the US flag
The 31-word pledge is recited at many US schools each morning
A school in New York state has apologised after receiving complaints because a student recited the US Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic.
The school's foreign language department arranged for the pledge to be read in a different language each day for a week.
Complaints were received from people who lost family in Afghanistan and from Jewish parents, an official said.
Neither the US nor New York state has an official language.
The school district superintendant, Joan Carbone, told the Times Herald-Record newspaper that the Arabic pledge had "divided the school in half" and that she had received numerous complaints.
A statement from the district apologised "to any students, staff or community members who found this activity disrespectful" and said the reading was intended to "promote the fact that those who speak a language other than English still pledge to salute this great country".
An Arabic-speaking student read the pledge during morning announcements at Pine Bush High School in Pine Bush, New York, on Wednesday.
Officials said the school's foreign language department organised for different pledge translations to be read in celebration of National Foreign Language Week.
English only from now on
Many students reportedly shouted their disapproval during the recitation, and later complained on social media.
Later in the afternoon, the school's principal made a school-wide announcement to explain why the pledge was read in Arabic and to apologise to those who took offence.
Ms Carbone said the pledge would only be read in English in the future.
The school's student leader, Andrew Zink, who is in charge of the morning announcements, told US media that he knew the reading would attract controversy.
He permitted it to go forward, because he believed it was "the right thing to do".
"What makes you American is not the language you speak, but the ideas you believe in," he said.
Sadyia Khalique, a spokeswoman for the New York chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, said: "All Americans who value our nation's history of religious and ethnic diversity should be concerned" by the reaction and subsequent apology.
Arabic is not widely spoken in Afghanistan, where the major languages are Dari and Pashto.
Kinda dumb, but I don't really believe in having children recite the pledge as a rote activity anyway so maybe I'm not the right demographic for this particular butthurt.
I would be concerned about this as well. Muslims in America seem to be getting treated as 'the enemy within,' much in the same way as Japanese Americans were treated during WW2.
This will do nothing to improve relations between Islamic and non-Islamic communities in America, which is a sad thing for a country built by immigrants.
And by "dividing the school in half", what really is meant is that some parent who was looking for an excuse to complain about the school finally found one.
Ouze wrote: Kinda dumb, but I don't really believe in having children recite the pledge as a rote activity anyway so maybe I'm not the right demographic for this particular butthurt.
I don't really have a dog in the fight but I could see either not having the pledge at all or continuing with different languages as the options in this case. Thinking about melting pots and the US of A's history etc.
Last time I checked, the US didn't have an official language. Last time I checked, most people don't speak Arabic in Afghanistan either. Last time I checked, not all Arabs were Muslims. I'm pretty sure there are Christians and Jews who speak Arabic as their first language.
It might help if people stopped being fething idiots.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Anybody who complained should have been politely told to go and look up the first amendment and the numerous Supreme court rulings on this.
Hordini wrote: Last time I checked, the US didn't have an official language. Last time I checked, most people don't speak Arabic in Afghanistan either. Last time I checked, not all Arabs were Muslims. I'm pretty sure there are Christians and Jews who speak Arabic as their first language.
It might help if people stopped being fething idiots.
Exactly. If Native Americans started saying their pledge in their own languages, would that be construed as anti-America? This is a storm in a tea cup.
Hordini wrote: Last time I checked, the US didn't have an official language. Last time I checked, most people don't speak Arabic in Afghanistan either. Last time I checked, not all Arabs were Muslims. I'm pretty sure there are Christians and Jews who speak Arabic as their first language.
It might help if people stopped being fething idiots.
Exactly. If Native Americans started saying their pledge in their own languages, would that be construed as anti-America? This is a storm in a tea cup.
If there was a tribe that said the pledge in their own language and somebody in the US had a problem with it, I would seriously lose my gak.
Why would anyone complain about that? Do people there enjoy painting themselves as terrible bigoted xenophobes with hateful ignorance? I wish for them to see the errors of their way and make amends. Also apologize to everyone else in the school.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I would be concerned about this as well. Muslims in America seem to be getting treated as 'the enemy within,' much in the same way as Japanese Americans were treated during WW2.
This will do nothing to improve relations between Islamic and non-Islamic communities in America, which is a sad thing for a country built by immigrants.
Yeah, that's right, this is what is going to upset muslims in America, not tens of thousands of troops being sent to muslim countries where they kill muslims, then coming home with an attitude that muslims are not the good guys.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Why would anyone complain about that? Do people there enjoy painting themselves as terrible bigoted xenophobes with hateful ignorance? I wish for them to see the errors of their way and make amends. Also apologize to everyone else in the school.
The root of the problem is that some people are unable or unwilling to engage their brains before they engage their mouths.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Why would anyone complain about that? Do people there enjoy painting themselves as terrible bigoted xenophobes with hateful ignorance? I wish for them to see the errors of their way and make amends. Also apologize to everyone else in the school.
The root of the problem is that some people are unable or unwilling to engage their brains before they engage their mouths.
Might help if people read further too.
The pledge was also "one nation under Allah" which given what ISIS is doing at the moment is a pretty stupid thing to say. God at least can be stretched to mean non-christian gods, allah is muslim only which hi-jacks the pledge for attempted political points.
The student leader knew it was going to be controversial so it was done with the prior knowledge that many were going to be pissed off - hardly a good way to start the day.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Why would anyone complain about that? Do people there enjoy painting themselves as terrible bigoted xenophobes with hateful ignorance? I wish for them to see the errors of their way and make amends. Also apologize to everyone else in the school.
The root of the problem is that some people are unable or unwilling to engage their brains before they engage their mouths.
Might help if people read further too.
The pledge was also "one nation under Allah" which given what ISIS is doing at the moment is a pretty stupid thing to say. God at least can be stretched to mean non-christian gods, allah is muslim only which hi-jacks the pledge for attempted political points.
The student leader knew it was going to be controversial so it was done with the prior knowledge that many were going to be pissed off - hardly a good way to start the day.
Allah is absolutely not Muslim-only. Allah is the Arabic word for "God." Arabic-speaking Christians and Arabic-speaking Jews also pray to Allah.
Allah is absolutely not Mulsim-only. Allah is the Arabic word for "God." Arabic-speaking Christians and Arabic-speaking Jews also pray to Allah.
This is true. However, I would amend my earlier post. Though an apology is not necessary, it would have been a prime teachable moment to have teachers explain to the children that Allah is the Arabic word for God.
Ignorance is no excuse, and we should not accommodate it, but the school is a place where it can be remedied.
Allah is absolutely not Mulsim-only. Allah is the Arabic word for "God." Arabic-speaking Christians and Arabic-speaking Jews also pray to Allah.
This is true. However, I would amend my earlier post. Though an apology is not necessary, it would have been a prime teachable moment to have teachers explain to the children that Allah is the Arabic word for God.
Ignorance is no excuse, and we should not accommodate it, but the school is a place where it can be remedied.
Absolutely. I'm not sure why those at the school didn't point it out from the very beginning.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I would be concerned about this as well. Muslims in America seem to be getting treated as 'the enemy within,' much in the same way as Japanese Americans were treated during WW2.
This will do nothing to improve relations between Islamic and non-Islamic communities in America, which is a sad thing for a country built by immigrants.
Yeah, that's right, this is what is going to upset muslims in America, not tens of thousands of troops being sent to muslim countries where they kill muslims, then coming home with an attitude that muslims are not the good guys.
Both are symptoms of the same problem, and that problem is Muslims being seen as the 'enemy within.'
America has been here before: Japanese Americans in WW2, the red scare after 1917, and much further back, the treatment of Irish immigrants in the 19th century. All were seen as the enemy within.
I hope they sort it out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If American Muslims are viewed as a 5th column, then you could end up with the tragic situation of home grown extremism on a level with that in the 1990s. Nobody want's that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: the treatment of Irish immigrants in the 19th century. All were seen as the enemy within.
.
Them irish with their lower socio economic status, willingness to hire out as political mititia, unionistic behavior and quality beer making ability are unfortunately historically pointing out everything that is wrong in the US, especially the beer.
The whole pledge thing is kinda weird.if you want to say it in another language who cares, unless you sub donkey for united states of america the language doesn't make a difference.
Computron wrote: ]The pledge was also "one nation under Allah" which given what ISIS is doing at the moment is a pretty stupid thing to say. God at least can be stretched to mean non-christian gods, allah is muslim only which hi-jacks the pledge for attempted political points.
Arabic-speaking christian use the word Allah for their god too. Allah literally means god. If the pledge was in Arabic, there was no other word they could have used instead. This only serves to highlight how this pledge is discriminatory to polytheists and atheists.
Parents are stupid. If they were this butthurt about it, they should take their kids out of public schools and home school them, so they can grow up to be entitled donkey-caves who think their gak don't stink. Or give their kids up for adoption so they can [hopefully] grow up in a house that doesn't support xenophobia or bigotry. Feth off, stupid parents.
Perhaps some of the outrage is that the Arabic version was read on a Wednesday, and no other foreign languages were used during the "Foreign Language Week." Whoever set it up probably did so in the hopes of provoking a reaction (otherwise known as trolling). I wonder if there's transcript of what was actually read in the announcements that week.
This article has a little more detail, and is what the BBC cribbed from:
Just curious, but why does a democracy need a pledge of allegiance from its children anyways? That is something normally only found in totalitarian states:
Spoiler:
spot the differences?
Is the US pledge of allegiance compulsory or are people allowed to reject it?
But regardless of that, being mad about the pledge being recited in Arabic seems incredibly racist.
Iron_Captain wrote: Just curious, but why does a democracy need a pledge of allegiance from its children anyways? That is something normally only found in totalitarian states:
Spoiler:
spot the differences?
Is the US pledge of allegiance compulsory or are people allowed to reject it?
But regardless of that, being mad about the pledge being recited in Arabic seems incredibly racist.
I don't know when the second photo there was taken, but when I was in elementary school in the 70's, the pledge was said with your hand over your heart, not with an outstretched arm.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Why would anyone complain about that? Do people there enjoy painting themselves as terrible bigoted xenophobes with hateful ignorance? I wish for them to see the errors of their way and make amends. Also apologize to everyone else in the school.
Simple narcissistic behavior. The most typical 1st-world response.
Iron_Captain wrote: Just curious, but why does a democracy need a pledge of allegiance from its children anyways? That is something normally only found in totalitarian states:
Spoiler:
spot the differences?
Is the US pledge of allegiance compulsory or are people allowed to reject it?
But regardless of that, being mad about the pledge being recited in Arabic seems incredibly racist.
You can't get more American than the pledge: a marketing gimmick by a Socialist to support Capitalism which vent viral due to Patriotism and then was changed to support Deism and now causes discussions about Nationalism.
Iron_Captain wrote: Just curious, but why does a democracy need a pledge of allegiance from its children anyways? That is something normally only found in totalitarian states:
Spoiler:
spot the differences?
Is the US pledge of allegiance compulsory or are people allowed to reject it?
But regardless of that, being mad about the pledge being recited in Arabic seems incredibly racist.
I don't know when the second photo there was taken, but when I was in elementary school in the 70's, the pledge was said with your hand over your heart, not with an outstretched arm.
Initially it was an outstretched hand (Palm up I think) but was changed around WW2 for the obvious reasons.
Disappointed that the principal apologized to those who didn't like it.
My wife is a teacher. Being forced to apologise when you are not in the wrong, just to make mommy and daddy happy, is a constant problem. She's still having to play peacekeeper on maternity leave, for things pther teachers have don but mommy is pissed about, just because she's distantly involved.
Iron_Captain wrote: Just curious, but why does a democracy need a pledge of allegiance from its children anyways? That is something normally only found in totalitarian states:
Spoiler:
spot the differences?
Is the US pledge of allegiance compulsory or are people allowed to reject it?
But regardless of that, being mad about the pledge being recited in Arabic seems incredibly racist.
I don't know when the second photo there was taken, but when I was in elementary school in the 70's, the pledge was said with your hand over your heart, not with an outstretched arm.
Initially it was an outstretched hand (Palm up I think) but was changed around WW2 for the obvious reasons.
It was called the Bellamy salute and was used from 1892 until 1942 when Congress pass the Flag Code. It wasn't quite the same as the Nazi salute, but it was pretty similar which is why FDR instituted the hand-over-heart gesture that we use today.
Also, the reciting of the Pledge is not compulsory and students are free to choose. It's been that way since the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette decision in 1943.
It's not compulsory. But our lawmakers in Oklahoma make performing the pledge each morning in school mandatory, with the option not to participate. They don't need to pass a law for individuals to participate, that's what peer pressure is for.
Everybody should speak a common language at the very least.
Realy? Why? Very few contries have a single language. We have between 2 and 11 native languages in the UK depending on how you count them. There is an argument that having a single common language leads to being insular.
Everybody should speak a common language at the very least.
Realy? Why? Very few contries have a single language. We have between 2 and 11 native languages in the UK depending on how you count them. There is an argument that having a single common language leads to being insular.
What is a nation other than people united by their commonality?
How can speaking the one language in one country lead to being insular?
The areas in the UK where Gaelic variants are spoken are the most insular places.
I'm an American who speaks Arabic as my second language. People give me dirty looks a lot when arabic phrases (for example, I tend to say Alhadulillah fairly often (despite being buddhist, but that's another story)) slip out during english conversation. When someone learns that you speak Arabic, a common response is to act as though you've yelled the F word at the christmas dinner table. As a nation, we're far from the melting pot that we should be.
I forget who coined the expression, but I agree that America is a nation of immigrants who hate newer immigrants.
Frazzled wrote: O course theey are mad and well should be. This is America by God and important things like that should be spoken in the mother tongue...Spanish!
Everybody should speak a common language at the very least.
Realy? Why? Very few contries have a single language. We have between 2 and 11 native languages in the UK depending on how you count them. There is an argument that having a single common language leads to being insular.
What is a nation other than people united by their commonality?
How can speaking the one language in one country lead to being insular?
The areas in the UK where Gaelic variants are spoken are the most insular places.
When you insist on a single language or enforce one language you tell anyone who has a diffrent language their history and culture is inferior to your own. Scots and Welsh history was suppressed for many years. My mother was caned for speaking any Welsh at school. You are telling people they are inferior. You also tell people who's language you are promoting they are superior. The British Empire did many good things as well as bad, but one of the worst they did was to try and wipe people's culture. This creates divides and promotes racism. Culture that accept many languages accept value in other peoples history and culture.
Secondly, places that speak Gaelic are some of the most open and welcoming I have been. I have never been to the Isle of Mann, but the Highlands and Islands of Scotland are full of loverly open people. However I suspect you were referrering to Scots and Welsh, neither of which are variants of Gaelic.
Cultures are measurably different though. You can definitely say that some are inferior to others.
As an example, a culture which regards women as second class or of lower worth would be an example of an inferior culture to a lot of people living in the UK.
I once got scolded by a teacher for not standing and reciting the pledge. That was fun. I love self-riotous people with no clue what the feth they are talking about.
Medium of Death wrote: Cultures are measurably different though. You can definitely say that some are inferior to others.
As an example, a culture which regards women as second class or of lower worth would be an example of an inferior culture to a lot of people living in the UK.
Hordini wrote: The pledge was also "one nation under Allah" which given what ISIS is doing at the moment is a pretty stupid thing to say. God at least can be stretched to mean non-christian gods, allah is muslim only which hi-jacks the pledge for attempted political points.
Arabic-speaking christian use the word Allah for their god too. Allah literally means god. If the pledge was in Arabic, there was no other word they could have used instead. This only serves to highlight how this pledge is discriminatory to polytheists and atheists.
Co'tor Shas wrote: How so? I do not feel inclined to pledge myself to any country or government. That's all the reason I need.
Because pledging yourself to a country is the basis of the social contract? The pledge of allegiance is the reaffirmation that you submit yourself to the social contract between yourself and your nation's government.
On the subject of "good" excuses to refuse the pledge of allegiance, freedom of religion is an acceptable excuse as some religions may view the pledge as idolatry. Another excuse that can be acceptable given the circumstances might include an act of protest against the federal government.
Wanting or planning to expatriate is not a good excuse for a child to refuse the pledge.
Of course, civil liberties grant that anyone may refuse the pledge, and I agree with that. My argument is that if you refuse the pledge, you should have a reason to deny the reaffirmation of your social contract with the nation.
EDIT: to clarify, nobody should be forced to pledge allegiance. However, from the perspective of the individual, they should have a good reason to deny the pledge.
Also, the reciting of the Pledge is not compulsory and students are free to choose.
The guardian of the student is free to choose, but the student is not; at least assuming the student is also a child.
That isn't exactly how it works.
Students, even minors, are still protected by the Free Speech Clause... That was the outcome of the Barnette case and has be reaffirmed in subsequent cases (like Tinker v. Des Moines for instance, which was about Symbolic Speech).
And that's the point. I do not submit to any contract or pledge I have no control over. I will obey laws (other than ones that are blatantly civil or humn rights violation), but I will not revere and country, government, or flag.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And that's the point. I do not submit to any contract or pledge I have no control over. I will obey laws (other than ones that are blatantly civil or humn rights violation), but I will not revere and country, government, or flag.
edit: ninjed
Understood. I appreciate your point, though i myself am more than happy to salute the flag. For me the flag salute has a lot to do with my support of our constitution, as much as I hate the modern government (I'm a libertarian).
Co'tor Shas wrote: And that's the point. I do not submit to any contract or pledge I have no control over. I will obey laws (other than ones that are blatantly civil or humn rights violation), but I will not revere and country, government, or flag.
edit: ninjed
Understood. I appreciate your point, though i myself am more than happy to salute the flag. For me the flag salute has a lot to do with my support of our constitution, as much as I hate the modern government (I'm a libertarian).
For me it is the wording that pushes the pledge to far. I always repeat the Oklahoma Flag Salute since it has different language in it.
And even though I don't do the pledge, I always stand and face the flag and place my hand over my heart. It is still an important and revered symbol to me personally.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And that's the point. I do not submit to any contract or pledge I have no control over. I will obey laws (other than ones that are blatantly civil or humn rights violation), but I will not revere and country, government, or flag.
edit: ninjed
Understood. I appreciate your point, though i myself am more than happy to salute the flag. For me the flag salute has a lot to do with my support of our constitution, as much as I hate the modern government (I'm a libertarian).
For me it is the wording that pushes the pledge to far. I always repeat the Oklahoma Flag Salute since it has different language in it.
And even though I don't do the pledge, I always stand and face the flag and place my hand over my heart. It is still an important and revered symbol to me personally.
I don't like the wording of the modern pledge either. I'd have to say that it hit its peak with its second version in 1982:
Spoiler:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all
Students, even minors, are still protected by the Free Speech Clause... That was the outcome of the Barnette case and has be reaffirmed in subsequent cases (like Tinker v. Des Moines for instance).
I'll be sure to tell that to my cousin the next time she calls her Principle a charlatan.
Medium of Death wrote: Cultures are measurably different though. You can definitely say that some are inferior to others.
As an example, a culture which regards women as second class or of lower worth would be an example of an inferior culture to a lot of people living in the UK.
I believe the pledge of allegiance is bad for young Americans.
It teaches conformity and mindless repetition.
Schools need all the time they can get as it is.
However, if you're not going to say it you should still cover your heart and face the flag. Other people see the pledge as more than you do. I feel doing at least that is necessary to not be an attention seeker or risk offending.
Medium of Death wrote: Cultures are measurably different though. You can definitely say that some are inferior to others.
As an example, a culture which regards women as second class or of lower worth would be an example of an inferior culture to a lot of people living in the UK.
Scrabb wrote: I believe the pledge of allegiance is bad for young Americans.
It teaches conformity and mindless repetition.
Schools need all the time they can get as it is.
However, if you're not going to say it you should still cover your heart and face the flag. Other people see the pledge as more than you do. I feel doing at least that is necessary to not be an attention seeker or risk offending.
Medium of Death wrote: Cultures are measurably different though. You can definitely say that some are inferior to others.
As an example, a culture which regards women as second class or of lower worth would be an example of an inferior culture to a lot of people living in the UK.
Iron_Captain wrote: Just curious, but why does a democracy need a pledge of allegiance from its children anyways? That is something normally only found in totalitarian states:
Spoiler:
spot the differences?
Is the US pledge of allegiance compulsory or are people allowed to reject it?
But regardless of that, being mad about the pledge being recited in Arabic seems incredibly racist.
I don't know when the second photo there was taken, but when I was in elementary school in the 70's, the pledge was said with your hand over your heart, not with an outstretched arm.
Initially it was an outstretched hand (Palm up I think) but was changed around WW2 for the obvious reasons.
It was called the Bellamy salute and was used from 1892 until 1942 when Congress pass the Flag Code. It wasn't quite the same as the Nazi salute, but it was pretty similar which is why FDR instituted the hand-over-heart gesture that we use today.
Also, the reciting of the Pledge is not compulsory and students are free to choose. It's been that way since the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette decision in 1943.
Interesting. It is good that there is at least the posibility of choosing.
How did this pledge of allegiance come to be? AFAIK, the US is the only country to have something like this.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist,[5][6] and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850–1898). The original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism in students and sell flags to public schools.[7] According to author Margarette S. Miller, this was in line with Upham's vision which he "would often say to his wife: 'Mary, if I can instill into the minds of our American youth a love for their country and the principles on which it was founded, and create in them an ambition to carry on with the ideals which the early founders wrote into The Constitution, I shall not have lived in vain.'"[8]
Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows:[9][10]
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Students swearing the Pledge on Flag Day in 1899 The Pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity[7] but decided against it – knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.[11]
Francis Bellamy and Upham had lined up the National Education Association to support the "Youth's Companion" as a sponsor of the Columbus Day observance along with the use of the American flag. By June 29, 1892, Bellamy and Upham had arranged for Congress and President Benjamin Harrison to announce a proclamation making the public school flag ceremony the center of the Columbus Day celebrations (this was issued as Presidential Proclamation 335). Subsequently, the Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892, during Columbus Day observances organized to coincide with the opening of the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, Illinois.[12]
I love that it was written by a socialist, when all the superpatriotic people tend to be against anything even seeming like socialism to the uneducated.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And here's the orignal salute.
We went over that pic. Was changed to hand over heart for obvious reason. The other pic used in relation you used was a Hitler Youth classroom. I said the Pledge during my school years. Must have brain washed me into 23 years of military service. Anyone can take a stance and believe whatever they want to believe. Now if one wants to broadcast what they stand for and try to press their views on others then one should be smart enough to not do it towards a select group of individuals.
I know we went over it, but I'm not sure I saw a picture. Personally, I'm glad we changed it. It's like the svastika. Not actually bad, but it's known for bad things
SGT-SSG NCO Board question.
What is a Salute? Where does it originate from. Why was it done. That style of salute does not belong solely to that one entity.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And that's the point. I do not submit to any contract or pledge I have no control over. I will obey laws (other than ones that are blatantly civil or humn rights violation), but I will not revere and country, government, or flag.
edit: ninjed
Understood. I appreciate your point, though i myself am more than happy to salute the flag. For me the flag salute has a lot to do with my support of our constitution, as much as I hate the modern government (I'm a libertarian).
And of course, since when has pledging yourself to a flag, independent of any defined political affiliation and jurisdiction gotten anyone into trouble
Students, even minors, are still protected by the Free Speech Clause... That was the outcome of the Barnette case and has be reaffirmed in subsequent cases (like Tinker v. Des Moines for instance).
I'll be sure to tell that to my cousin the next time she calls her Principle a charlatan.
I see you are confusing "free speech" with "consequence free speech."
What is a Salute? Where does it originate from. Why was it done. That style of salute does not belong solely to that one entity.
I believe the legendary beginnings of the modern salute come from Dark Ages to Medieval warfare and tourneys. - A Knight in full plate armour and helm would often raise their (heavy) visors, to each other, thereby revealing and confirming their identities to each other and showing mutual respect.
Just like the story that a modern day toast descended from the tradition of nobles clanging their goblets together, ensuring that some wine from every person at the gathering would mix with every other persons. Thereby, keeping people honest... After all, you wouldn't poison someone if you knew there's a chance you would end up drinking some of it too...
It was a long-established military custom for subordinates to remove their headgear in the presence of superiors. As late as the American Revolution, a British Army soldier saluted by removing his hat. With the advent of increasingly cumbersome headgear in the 18th and 19th centuries, however, the act of removing one's hat was gradually converted into the simpler gesture of grasping or touching the visor and issuing a courteous salutation - US Army Quartermaster School
SPQR
Time of the Roman Legion.
The attempt on Hitler life changed the way the Wermacht/Lutwaffe/Kreigsmarine saluted (who saluted like today standards) to which we attribute the Nazi salute.............
Before the attempt on his life the salute was typical of other style of salute
After the attempt on his life the salute was changed to that of the Roman Legion (also making the German military more bonded to the Nazi Apparatus) and the Oath was change to include Hitler as overall Leader (little shady on that)
Also the Roman salute also showed they were not armed IIRC. Been awhile since I had to study for the Board.
Figure I broaden some minds towards the history of the salute. No harm no foul.
Is it because some numb-nuts think Arabic = Islamic?
The Christian Coptics in Egypt speaks arabic... it's the arabic phrase "Inshalla'Allah" comes from... meaning God willing.
Yes, but how many people know that? It would have been a good opportunity to educate people rather than a simple recitation that few to no people understood.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: SPQR
Time of the Roman Legion.
The attempt on Hitler life changed the way the Wermacht/Lutwaffe/Kreigsmarine saluted (who saluted like today standards) to which we attribute the Nazi salute.............
Before the attempt on his life the salute was typical of other style of salute
After the attempt on his life the salute was changed to that of the Roman Legion (also making the German military more bonded to the Nazi Apparatus) and the Oath was change to include Hitler as overall Leader (little shady on that)
Also the Roman salute also showed they were not armed IIRC. Been awhile since I had to study for the Board.
Figure I broaden some minds towards the history of the salute. No harm no foul.
Anyone actually have an image of Romans using this salute?
This. So much this. Every time I see some local anti-school closure campaign group(whether they have a point about that particular school's circumstances or not) start blethering on about how they should be allowed to start a Free School or something "because parents always know best how to educate their own children", I facepalm so hard I get a bloody concussion. Sooo many parents out there aren't even remotely concerned with giving their children a good education(ie one which is as broad as possible and gives children the tools to develop their own views, opinions, skills and goals as part of their journey into adulthood), they want a state-mandated system for stamping out miniature versions of themselves, complete with built-in generational prejudices and biases.
This kind of stupidity is what results from their idiocy.
Hordini wrote: I didn't say what you have me quoted as saying.
Sorry about that, quote fail, edited.
Medium of Death wrote: Cultures are measurably different though. You can definitely say that some are inferior to others.
As an example, a culture which regards women as second class or of lower worth would be an example of an inferior culture to a lot of people living in the UK.
Medium of Death wrote: Cultures are measurably different though. You can definitely say that some are inferior to others.
As an example, a culture which regards women as second class or of lower worth would be an example of an inferior culture to a lot of people living in the UK.
That is not how cultures work.
Are you trying to say that all cultures are of equal worth?
Medium of Death wrote: Cultures are measurably different though. You can definitely say that some are inferior to others.
As an example, a culture which regards women as second class or of lower worth would be an example of an inferior culture to a lot of people living in the UK.
That is not how cultures work.
Are you trying to say that all cultures are of equal worth?
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I believe that what he's saying is that it's a subjective issue that you can't so easily apply values to. It isn't so black-and-white that you can say "a culture that respects women is better than one that doesn't".
Cultural achievements are a bit of a better measure.
Compare an Amazonian tribe with one of the greater South American empires for example.
There are some reliable ways to compare this sort of thing, and some not so good. (ie. a culture that has mastered stonework is more advanced than one that builds using clay)
It works to compare how technologically advanced a culture is, but not necessarily the morality of either culture. (The British Empire had better technology than the Zulu, but could one say that the way the British treated the peoples of Africa was moral?)
Such cultural issues are far from black-and-white, and I don't very much enjoy debating issues pertaining to them for that reason.
Medium of Death wrote: Cultures are measurably different though. You can definitely say that some are inferior to others.
As an example, a culture which regards women as second class or of lower worth would be an example of an inferior culture to a lot of people living in the UK.
That is not how cultures work.
Are you trying to say that all cultures are of equal worth?
What I am saying is that how women are viewed, while a very important issue, is absolutely not constitutive of a culture's essence. What I am saying is that English culture did consider women as second class citizen and then English culture did consider them full citizen with the same rights as other citizen and yet it was still English culture.
?
/
