New Oklahoma Bill now requires mandatory folding style of State flag...

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.

**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.

**Scrabb**

Boo! The daily pledge is counterproductive.

**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.

**Ouze**

It's all fun and games until one of the kids brings in a display celebrating Sharia law.

**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.

**Kilkrazy**

Hopefully the Jedi Order will also put up a monument.

It could be easily done with a Kickstarter, I think.

**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...

**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?

**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.

**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.

**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?

**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). =/

**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?

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**Frazzled**

They don't do it now? Godless Commie Hippy Okies!!!

**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.

**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?

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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

**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.

**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.

**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

**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.

**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?

**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.