Due to some some examples that have shown that children are still held accountable for being unpatriotic in some places in the US, I thought I should bring the subject up. Do you believe that patriotism is beneficial in the search for liberty, or harmful? How did you reach your conclusion? Do you support a policy where children are held accountable for not pledging allegiance? Do you think it fair if they are allowed exemption only if their parents send a note, and even then only for religious reasons? Do you think it fair if there is no exemption at all? Please explain your answer. If you support patriotism, how do you define the group that one should be patriotic to? Why do you define it that way as opposed to other ways? Do you condemn those who are openly unpatriotic? Why or why not? Some questions for the section; questions that have not been asked here in a long time...
I think that it really depends on where you live, having to say the pledge or not. I don't mind them asking it, as it is a government agency (if it's public school, dunno the policy for private schools), but as Americans, we should have the freedom to opt out. However, it is a southern state and they tend to be more... conservative. I do not say the pledge in my school because I do not agree with some aspects of it. I've been doing this for about three or four years. A teacher once asked why I didn't out of curiosity, but other than that I've had no hassle for it. However, I live in New York, which is pretty much the polar opposite of Texas. I can understand teachers getting a little miffed with kids who repeatedly disrespect the pledge, however. People see it as disrespecting the country. Once again, if it's public school, the kid may not even be given the privilege of education in another country. It all depends on the kid's reasons for me--if he/she does not agree with it due to their beliefs, I'm fine with that. But if the kid is chattering with their friends or just being lazy repeatedly, that's a different story. And even if they don't want to say it, they should still stand and be quiet, in respect of others. It is one thing to oppose; it's another to offend. Civil disobedience & all.
It would not bother me if the schools themselves were not mandatory as well, and in the same state no less, but I would like to bring to your attention that you can in point of fact be jailed for not using your "privilege" to education in the same state of Texas. Under such circumstances, you are being forced into an institution and then forced to say a pledge in favor of that institution. That is enforced patriotism. Imagine the effect it would have on grade school students if they decided not to stand up and got reprimanded, and then decided not to go to the school itself, only to be punished for that as well.
Actually, this was something that was brought up at my old middle or high school. I don't remember which. Some students, along with their teacher, did some digging and discovered that a person is not legally required, to stand or to recite the pledge, but is required to remain respectful and silent. This changed everything at the school. I hated recited the pledge because of the inclusion of religion in it. So from then on, I always stood respectfully, but never recited and I never placed my hand on my heart after that. I think it is out of line for the school to require students to stand and recite the pledge without a note. It is infringing on their personal rights and beliefs. Yes, it should be a requirement in school as far as procedure goes, but it is not a requirement. And it's rather disgusting that teachers are still singling him out for his choice, even though he has a note. As far as patriotism goes, whether one decides to recite the pledge or not does not affect their patriotism. If they are patriotic, they will do it. If they aren't, then they won't. Forcing students to recite the pledge will not change their attitudes, it will only reinforce a negative ideology. They'll think they truly aren't free in the land of the free. Which is true, we aren't truly free in the United States, but that is beside the point. Learning that the pledge was optional at a young age, changed my mind about it. I don't consider myself patriotic. I don't consider myself a proud American. I do consider myself a happy citizen of a generally decent country. The USA has it's flaws and many of them. We are not perfect. A person shouldn't gleam over the flaws and see only perfection. That does not create well-educated citizens who really want to help this country move in a better direction. Only people who think we're in a good place right now or that we used to be in a good place and shouldn't change a thing (Tea Party, I'm looking at you). All in all, it is infringing on the rights of the students and their free will to require the pledge to be recited by each one. They need to be respectful, whether standing or sitting. But it will not affect one's patriotism.
I think it is harmful. Any attempt at defining a club is only enforcing prejudice, under the cover of fraternity no less. It is a big fat lie based on the same principles as xenophobia, I' m surprised many people can' t see it for what it truly is. No. I have been taught "La Marseillaise" at school, in a social and cultural perspective, I also have been taught the civic laws that apply in my country. This is all fine and useful : whether I' m patriotic or not I do live in France, so those informations are useful. However if nationalism were to be taught in public schools, presented as a cult that anyone should observe no matter what, then public schools would clearly be overstepping their secular bounds, I' m as fiercely opposed to it as I am to allowing public schools to enforce any kind of cult, religious or not. A few years ago there was a huge debate in France over "national identity", as a result it was decided to force students to sing La Marseillaise once a year. This seems completely silly to me but heh, whatever, singing it it is not a pledge to anything. Hell, the whole song tells the tale of a bunch of oppressed people who, on the day an nth royal drop spilled their glass, started cutting heads and spilling galleons of blue blood in order to reclaim their freedom. Amazingly, the irony of forcing children to sing it to enforce nationalism is lost on our politicians. I haven' t decided yet whether that should make me laugh or cry ... No to both questions. Why ? Freedom of opinion, secular public school, need I say more ? I fail to see what religious opinion has to do with it. Depends what you call unpatriotic. If it is the lack of patriotism I don' t condemn it. If it is prejudice held towards anyone who is patriotic then I condemn it as much as any form of prejudice.
Ah, but the younger that you teach such a pledge to children, the more likely they are to be patriotic by default. The herd and people-pleasing mentality is strongest in people when they are first learning about society. Because school is most children's first experience of society, seeing most of their peers pledge allegiance combined with being taught revisionist history and manifest destiny... They are extremely likely to join in willingly and become patriots. I know many who do not have this privilege. I was forced to face the flag during the anthem for my last job. Everyone around me condemned me when I sat down. I cannot think of anything to blame but the patriotism enforced in their schools for this.
I must ask about the name of the article. Why is it called "Cypress Springs High School student challenges Pledge of Allegiance" when the article goes on to say "The mother and son said they don’t take issue with the school’s policy, or with the Pledge, but with how the teachers handled it."? It just seems very misleading since the Pledge of Allegiance isn't being challenged at all but instead the teachers. The teachers are clearly in the wrong. It was already decided almost 70 years ago that students can't be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or even stand if they don't want to since it'd be a violation of their rights. Maybe I'm just too tired but I'm a little confused as to what you're asking. I personally don't see how patriotism and the search for liberty are related. I don't support such a policy. Although I will add that this school's policy only expects students to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance and it doesn't require them to. Like I said earlier, the teachers are the ones to blame since this sort of problem should have never happened in the first place. I see patriotism as showing pride and love for one's country. I don't define "one's country" as "one's government" since one's government in only one facet of one's country which encompasses various things such as its people, culture, and history among other things. My position is the same as Patman's. I'll point towards West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette again. The state can't force you to say a pledge in favor of it if you don't want to. I'm surprised that you don't know these things about your own country, Mak. Correction. You know many people who are ignorant of their privileges. I must ask though. Why exactly did you sit down? I know it's within your rights to not stand but from what you have said, you weren't asked to pledge allegiance or even salute but to just face the flag which I don't see as too demanding. From what I can gather, people just thought you were being rude for breaching basic etiquette. Sitting down, when you're clearly capable of standing up, during the national anthem in almost any country is like talking during a moment of silence or wearing white to a funeral. You can do it but you're going to get a lot of looks if you do which happens with any faux pas committed.
They can, however, be ridiculed for it without being forced to change their actions. If having a majority of patriotic citizens affects the search for liberty, then you can say that they are related and assess whether its influence is helpful for harmful. While they are not directly related (the question of liberty does not follow for most people when they hear of patriotism), I think it is important to consider whether it has a positive or a negative effect on one's goals. Most people value and search for liberty as a common goal in nearly every country I know of, so I felt it was a valid question to ask under the circumstances. My question remains the same. I said a situation where they are held accountable, not a policy where they are forced to by law. Ah, you fell into a trap. How do you define the extent of your country without the government? Where are the borders? Is your allegiance to the history of the land itself (the Native Americans should have your allegiance in that case in the US), or to the current body that rules it? You do not have to force small children if you put them under pressure, and small children are not going to know their rights nor care about what it says on paper about what they can and cannot do. If the majority of those around them do it and they get ridiculed for not doing it, that is enough to shape their views of the subject, and it is as good as force to a young mind. Because I am strictly against the United States as a nation and in particular the soldiers who "died for my freedom". The anthem in particular is a common war theme, something played by soldiers to boost morale. If anything, I am more offended by being asked to respect the anthem than the pledge as an adult (though I am extremely bothered by being expected to recite the pledge as a child). The nature of the ridicule associated with sitting down was a demand that I respect those soldiers by standing and facing the flag. Following those motions desensitizes one to the idea behind it and shapes their subconscious sensibilities. That is also why I am strongly against the 'expectation' of children to say the pledge of allegiance in schools. It will ingrain ideas of respect, loyalty and etiquette into the child's idea of the nation and its flag. Freedom as well in the case of the pledge, which is quite ironic if the think about the 'expectation' and ridicule.
I think this illustrates why asking students to "pick a side" in front of everyone is problematic to begin with. Why the hell, in a supposedly secular setting, would you want to be forced to reveal a political or religious stance publicly, especially in front of someone who holds power over you ? Why would you be naive enough to believe it cannot possibly color his judgment at all ? It shouldn' t, sure, doesn' t mean it won' t. If it does, well, good luck proving it ... If one' s political and religious opinions are truly supposed to be irrelevant then don' t bring it up. I believe the United States have the same kind of problem in court : people are asked to swear to say the truth on the Bible, and they are given the option to refuse to do so, but of course it immediately put those who do and those who don' t on unequal ground before they even say anything. What is the next step going to be, will you be forced to reveal who you vote for to your boss ?
The person in this article wasn't ridiculed by his peers though but instead is being singled out by the teachers. The teachers, who are employed by the government and thus represent it, are forbidden to compel the student into reciting the pledge through any means such as ostracism or ridicule according to the decision made in that court case I linked. And if the teachers don't do it, then most students will follow suit and not do so as well. I feel that patriotism actually helps people in the search for liberty. As I said earlier, patriotism is loving and being proud of one's country and I don't simply define one's country as one's government. I can be proud of my country but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm proud of my government. People who are patriotic may enjoy their country but may not always be fond of their government and its decisions but instead for its culture, history and people, etc and because of these things they may wish to change the government for the better to ensure that the country continues to be something that they can be proud of. Not really if you think about it. One's country doesn't necessarily start with the government that currently rules over it. The United States of Americas started out as thirteen British colonies but I don't see people pledging their allegiance to Britain. Which is why I said that the government is simply one facet of what composes the country. More often than not, culture is what defines a country and separates it from the rest. If not, then Brazil and the US would just be Democratic Republic #54 and Democratic Republic #12 respectively. To each their own. They aren't expected to nowadays from what I've seen. I don't remember the specific grade that they stopped asking us to stop reciting the pledge but it was mostly fazed out by the time I was in high school and the people who did recite the pledge only did it out of their own free will. The only time we were ever asked to recite the Pledge was during sport events and formal events like graduation and they even said "Please" so how could I refuse? xD Never once have I been ridiculed for being quiet during the pledge as well. I'm not naive enough to believe that these things can't color their judgment but I must ask, then what are we to do about it? Live in a world of silence where nobody tells nobody about themselves. "Yo, my religion forbids me from eating pork but I'm not going to tell you because that might change your opinion of me." Sounds pretty idiotic to me. And the thing is that the student in this article wasn't forced to say anything in public and didn't stand because of some religious or political reason but because he was tired. He even goes on to say that he has nothing against the school's policy or the pledge but instead the teachers who handled the situation quite poorly like I've been saying. The fact of the matter is that basically anything can put you on unequal ground. The same exact thing could be said if the person were black, or if they didn't finish high school, or if they had already been in jail, amongst various other things. People subconsciously form opinions of other people depending on how they look, how they act and what they do. Could the government take out the part where you swear by the Bible? Sure. Does that mean people will stop judging you before you even speak? No and we will never be able to stop them from doing that obviously but we must try to be as objective anyway. I will also add that in the US, your boss can't ask a question like that and if he does, you can just say that you don't have to disclose that. Now I know what you're going to say. Something along the lines of "But what if he fires me because I didn't tell him?" right? Well that boss will need a lot of luck trying to prove in a court of law that he fired you for legitimate reasons instead of discrimination which is illegal. EDIT: I feel like I'm forgetting to add something but I can't put my finger on it. Chances are that it'll come to me when I'm least thinking about it. xD
Just to be clear my questions were rhetorical, I do that a lot, I wasn' t insinuating that you are naive. ^^ I wasn' t even talking specifically to you actually, I was quoting the event you mentioned rather than quoting you. I guess I should have quoted the OP instead. Well no, if you want to say it then nothing prevents you to do so. Whether you do or don' t is entirely up to you, but organizing a pledge at school forces you to do it in public. Organizing a pledge at school is the same as organizing a prayer : it' s not as innocent as "oh hey, by the way I' m a Christian/Patriot", and it' s not just basic etiquette either (at least not in my country). Are those who don' t share this particular view allowed to organize their own alternative public ritualistic display ? More importantly, what the hell do such displays have to do with education ? A public school, a tribunal or your work place aren' t exactly pertinent places to insidiously shove a specific ritualistic display down everyone else' s throat, at least not if your country is supposed to be secular. What if I insisted to be allowed to swear on the Necronomicon rather than the Bible in court ? Or to be allowed to sing "The Internationale" at school, attendance being mandatory and participation being optional ? Or to have a little Jedi dance-time organized at work, attendance being mandatory and participation being optional ? What would a judge/teacher/boss' answer be ? Oh gee, I wonder ... I was speaking more broadly, Mak opened another thread focused on this specific event. Actually I know all too well that if your boss don' t like you for X , Y or Z reason you' re pretty much screwed. Sooner or later he' ll have a legal opening to fire you, or an opportunity to create one. Otherwise I agree with everything you said.
You are being blinded by this example. In cases where the teachers ridicule specifically, the overall pressure is greater, but I consider so much as a "Timmy, why aren't you reciting the pledge?", drawing the attention of everyone else who is already doing so to the exception, ridicule. Please explain how pride is helpful in the search for liberty, and furthermore why it would not raise the chance of impaired objective judgment in a dispute between the group you have pride in and another you have not invested in. I will address the point about country and government below. Who defines the borders that encompass a country? How are they decided, and by whom? In a nation such as the Unites States, which has changed drastically from those who lived here before the colonies to those who live there today, the driving forces have been manifest destiny, might makes right and ever growing state influence. The very name of "United States" uses the word "state" in the title. A state and a specific set of people filling cabinets and passing specific laws are different. I probably should have made this clear earlier. When I refer to a government, I mean the institution that has sovereignty over a certain area, to the point that only it can say what can and cannot be published, and only it can say what kinds of gatherings will and will not be allowed. I say institution and not group because the institution enables the group to do things the people dislike, and not the other way around. If a country as you call it is defined by its culture, then you must accept that countries, especially large-scale countries, are defined by a common state as the only common point of culture. If the Civil War had not happened and the southern states had been allowed to secede, do you think the United States would have the same borders it does now, and the same overall culture? Do you even think they would be united? What part of the United States Civil War, which is easily the most crucial step in the forming of the United States as a centralized government and "country" since the War for Independence, was cultural? Can you think of some ways in which culture could have won out over state influence on the country? Furthermore, do you think the culture would be as it is today without that bloodbath? I cannot think of an aspect of a culture that is regulated by state rule that cannot be attributed to a decision made by that ruling body. I also cannot think of two cities on the same continent that would claim to be loyal to each other when they are ruled by two different sovereign bodies... Aside from perhaps military allies, such as between the US and Israel, which is still state-based, and in fact even more so than otherwise. To contrast, those from the US will not claim to be loyal to Canada and those from Canada will not claim to be loyal to the US. Despite the fact that their social climates are extremely similar, US citizens are more likely to take the side of Israel than Canada. This is because their definition of a nation is based in the ruling structure and not what they personally have in common with others. The cities of Houston and New York are drastically different, as are Tampa and Chicago. And yet they claim to be from the same country, and someone who claims to love their country and lives in the US will claim to be loyal to both, regardless of their cultures. What unites Illinois and Florida, but not Texas and Mexico, which have far more in common culturally? You say that government or state rule is a facet of a nation as well as culture, but I say that most culture is a facet of government and is almost always directly revolved around a ruling structure. While most US citizens will complain about the current decisions and people in their government, they will not complain about the structure. In fact, if you dismantle the structure, they will call you a communist, a terrorist or someone who just wants chaos. You will be demonized by people across the nation, regardless of the culture climate in the area. What all of these people—liberal and conservatism, authoritarian and pacifist—agree on about their country is the ruling structure it should have. They will defend those who rule over them as just doing their jobs, and will vehemently defend the idea that those jobs should continue to exist, even if someone else should be doing them. They may disagree about specific decisions made by those occupying it, but what ties them all together is the structure that is imposed upon them itself. I may assume that you agree with my assessment, taken that you did not deny it but instead claimed it did not apply. In cases where it is expected, my points apply. They are an explanation of a model of interaction, and I do not claim to know when it is set in motion. The model itself is what I wanted to get across. I believe you misunderstood. It would affect their grades, especially in a history class. If a child who had previously refused to stand for the pledge gave a less than patriotic answer to a question and the teacher was a patriot, they might mark it wrong out of an unconscious or conscious bias. A child will intuitively know this and feel a need to follow the herd as best he can to please the authority figure. Even in a case where the teacher is not antagonistic, the child will feel a wish not to disappoint them, resulting a fear of doing anything abnormal. And this is ignoring his or her classmates. It is more likely that he simply will not hire from the start, not fire you. You are arguing in terms of the law. Even from my perspective, I feel that as an individual I should be at liberty to choose what sort of people I wish to associate with and those I wish to avoid. If I were trying to hire others, this would apply there as well. We are not discussing the legality of discrimination, we are discussing the positive and negative effects of specific prejudices, legal or not. We are meant to be discussing patriotism as a standalone concept, and whether a practice regarding it is ethical or not, not whether it is lawful or not. Please do not distract yourself with what is allowed.
[video=youtube;EkwA5GJiQx4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EkwA5GJiQx4[/video]
