Whoa! How did I miss this? A clear violation of the 1st Amendment!

[johnaries]

We look in horror and disgust at Communist countries who indoctrinate (brainwash) their children. Chinese children singing praises to Chairman Mao. North Korean children singing praises to Kim Jong Il's likely successor.

And yet, here in our own country, we allow public schools to mandate that our children "pledge" that they support something they don't even understand? How is this different from the brainwashing we criticise in "Communist Countries"?

This is the ruling I am talking about, from March 10th in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf

I love this country. But I love this country because it allows me to stand up and say "we can do better". I love this country because it is the "Great Experiment" and because I had high hopes for the future it could bring. I am not a "America, Love it or Leave it" person - I am a "America, Love it or Fix it" person. I am not a "America, Right or Wrong" person, I am a "America, Right or Fix It" person.

Our Constitution is the greatest governmental document written to date. The thing that makes it so Great is the fact that it is a Living Document. The Founding Fathers did not presume to be "perfect" and knew that they could not create a "perfect" document. So they created it so that it could be changed and evolve to meet the needs that they could not foresee.

But they also knew that it could not evolve and improve if no one challenged it.

They did not want a bunch of brain-washed zombies just blindly following the rules they had set down. They wanted the people to determine their own fate, as much as humanly possible.

Finally to end this rant, it is not the purview of our public schools or any branch of government to emotionally scar our children for life.

That's our jobs as parents. :evilgrin:

[obxhead]

1. My teachers tried to force me to stand and say the pledge

I refused, got sent to the pricipal a few times, but in the end nothing ever came of it.

I didn't say the pledge even once in 4 years of HS.

[Warpy]

5. I came up with alternative words

the kids around me giggled and got into trouble. I didn't.

Life just aint fair.

[walldude]

20. Me too... and my kids have also taken up the mantel... their favorite

is the Calvin and Hobbes pledge.. "I pledge allegiance to Queen Frag and her mighty state of hysteria".... :rofl:

[KonaKane]

2. I'm against forcing kids to take ANY kind of oath,

That is adult stuff, to be considered and entered into (or not) based on adult reasoning and freedom of choice.

[tammywammy]

3. Children aren't forced to say the Pledge

The child in this case has never said the Pledge.

[KonaKane]

6. They shouldnt even offer it to children.

Also, peer pressure as well as that from authority figures can almost equate coercion.

[onenote]

7. repeat: the child in this case has never recited the pledge

hard to bring a case based on coercion when the individual bringing the case can't claim to have been coerced

[KonaKane]

11. Yes, I know that. However

I went on to make the point that a child should never be forced or even encouraged to take oaths because oath taking requires an adult sensibility.

Is that clearer?

[MajorChode]

15. Even the majority conceded that the child was coerced into participating

[johnaries]

17. Majority rule cannot overrule individual rights. nt

[johnaries]

16. Actually, there have been many cases where a child did not

participate in "voluntary" act such as "prayer" and the child was subjected to such peer pressure and bullying that they felt they were being "forced" or at least unreasoably co-erced to participate in activities they did not personally agree with.

"Peer pressure" is a powerful force. If the actions of a government-funded agency such as a public school encourages peer pressure, whether directly or indirectly, it is in violation of that individual's civil rights.

PERIOD.

[Odin2005]

10. I was ruthlessly bullied because I refused to say the Pledge

letting students refuse to say it just opens the student up to harassment. It's not unlike how Muslim women in Western countries will "freely choose" to wear the hijab because they would be ostracized and shamed by their family otherwise.

[LiberalFighter]

4. I only got thru part of the decision.

But, I don't believe that it is beyond previous rulings.

It still allows children to refuse to recite the pledge. There isn't a mandate that all must recite it.

They wanted to prohibit the pledge by all of the children. I would be for that as it doesn't make the kids better citizens.

As for me I leave out the "one nation under god" part out.

[MajorChode]

13. The ability to opt out of the pledge does not solve the problem

By opting out, a child must place themselves into the difficult situation of declaring their religious beliefs (or rather the lack thereof) and exposing themselves to the hostility that will inevitably follow.

[Nye Bevan]

8. Perhaps you should read the PDF that you posted?

As others have pointed out, there is nothing in that opinion that allows public schools to "mandate" that children "pledge to support" anything at all.

[MajorChode]

14. Seeing as how that wasn't the question before them, why would they?

The question was whether the phrase, "...under God" violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment. Anyone who is familiar with the history of the addition of those words (which came out of the McCarthy era congress), and the law would agree it does. Just as Judge Reinhardt points out, the majority opinion is absolutely absurd.

[DavidDvorkin]

9. "Our Constitution is the greatest governmental document written to date."

You've read all of the others that have been written, from every age and every country, then?

[johnaries]

19. You caught me. Good for you.

:eyes:

No, I haven't read them all. But I have talked to many people from many different countries. Nashville is a much more diverse city than one would think - and because I'm a good "listener" (and because of my natural curiosity) I have much more candid conversations with people from other countries than many people. I had one such conversation today.

Most government constitutions are developed based on current situations. There are some documents which address current situations much better than the US Constitution did at the time it was instituted. Largely because of the dissent and the compromises that had to made at the time. The comprimises made at the time is what allowed the Constitution to become a Living Document so that it would not only be relevent to the world and time in which it was born - but it could be applied to the unknown future.

This was probably an accident - but no-one has been able to recreate such a fortunate accident. No matter how hard they have tried.

[Odin2005]

12. The Pledge smacks of fascism and has no place in public schools.

Before WW2 people actually gave the "Roman Salute" while saying the Pledge. The Roman Salute is the salute now associated with the Nazis.

[johnaries]

18. Absolutely. For school children it's indoctrination.

As an adult, I love the Pledge (except for the "under God" part that was added during the Cold War). But that is because I am an adult and I understand and believe in the flag, the Great Experiment, and the Constitution.

A child who doesn't understand all the implications... they should be allowed to grow up without being brainwahsed and be allowed to understand and appreciate our Country and our Constitution on their own merits. Not because they have been brainwashed into a "Love it or Leave it" mentally.

I love this country. That's why I work so hard to make it better.