Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

 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).

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.

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 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."

 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.

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...

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.

Do politicians in America have nothing better to do?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Do politicians in America have nothing better to do?

Nope... 'tis why we got that gak sammich of the PPACA bill.

 4oursword wrote:
How would a child who refused be dealt with anyway?

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?

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

 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.

 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.

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".

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.

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.)

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?

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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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...

 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:

 insaniak wrote:
...unless they are an athiest...

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.

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.

 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.

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."

 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.

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.

I would not be surprised if it passes. It would probably get vetoed due to the anti-common core language.