What do you all think of flipping it and having only people within the government pledge their allegiance to the citizens since the government SERVES the citizens of its nation? Not the other way around. Just a thought. I wonder how it will pan out...
I think it's a great idea. It ostensibly happens when they are sworn into office; they pledge to support and defend the Constitution. Unfortunately, for most the oath is a series of grunts and syllables they have to utter before they can get the key to the money chests.
That's my primary opposition to the Pledge: I don't owe the government, or anyone else besides my loved ones, "allegiance". The government owes ME allegiance. That's how a free society works.
Its not allegiance to government. You aren't pledging to the government of the United States of America. You are pledging to the United States of America...it system, its freedom and values. All it means is that you appreciate where you live and what it offers and you pledge to uphold it.
What is the system? What are the values? And as for freedom, well... (below) Doesn't that sort of go against the whole idea of 'freedom' and everything this country stands for? I shouldn't have to pledge to uphold some transparent system and values that this country supposedly stands for. Freedom is not being obligated to pledge my allegiance to anything, freedom is being able to stand up and fight against the system (system? Really? Sounds like government to me), and the 'values' this country may hold that I thoroughly disagree with. Not to mention I am not religious. I refuse to recite a pledge that mentions a deity that I don't even believe in. That goes against my personal beliefs and is one of the very 'systems' I disagree with. I am not going to pledge to uphold that. Expecting people to recite this pledge of allegiance (which is what most, if not ALL of my school teachers expected us to do, otherwise we'd get yelled at for remaining sitting and not holding our hands over our hearts and reciting the pledge) is wrong. It goes against the very principle of 'freedom' which this country supposedly stands for. But bullying and intimidating kids and adults into saying a pledge they don't agree with is not freedom. No. The only people who should be doing any pledging are the ones who become part of our countries government and they should be pledging their allegiance to us, the people they serve as outlined in the Constitution.
Times have changed concerning what schools expected back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. I was expected to in elementary I remember.... I remember in highschool my senior year (93) having a retired military man as my 1st period teacher expecting us to stand quietly. I don't remember him insisting us to recite. Idon't know if I recited or not, I do remember shutting up. As a teacher now... I have already explained a very real situatino that happened at my school last year and the results of that on behavior and how I handle the pledge this year. I don't even turn on the announcements in my class because that same girl that caused problems last year for the one teacher, is now in my class this year. She was being disruptive, and when she got in trouble for it, she cried "Constitutional right" and the admin forced that teacher into early retirement. Not all schools "force" this value down throats. Hell, if anything, it goes the other and schools are held liable (which poop rolls downhill so teachers catch the blame) All it is at my school is 10 minutes of free time (morning announcements and pledge and SSB) and since there is precedent at my school that demanding silence during the pledge (not demanding they recite it) is detremental to your your career..... I can't. Doesn't mean I have stopped saying it though
That is just plain sad. Especially that a disruptive girl ---who I am sure is not concerned with "constitutional" rights---is rewarded with power by misusing it. She could simply not pledge---but she is being a brat.
According to the poster she was disruptive. I think that is a pretty good clue. Do you advocate for bratty, disruptive kids? If so...you care not a wit for them.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was disruptive. Being disruptive is not dispositive of being in favor of maintaining a person's Constitutional rights. I advocate for people's Constitutional rights.
I wasn't trying not to respond. I missed your questions. I teach Sunday School--3rd, 4th and 5th. More importantly....I've raised teens. I have expectations on behavior...and I fully understand how children...3rd grade and 16 year olds.....test boundries and need boundries.
Perhaps we should ask the poster if this girl was Martin Luther King caliber or just a bratty kid wanting attention.
Mlk wasn't disrupting others constitutional rights like this girl. She doesn't have to say it....but she has to be quiet so others can....even if the o.ly other person in the room that wants to say it is the teacher.
Obviously you're not a modern history teacher. Probably should brush up on the 1960's. How does someone making noise prevent someone else from making noise? Wait, let me guess, you're one of those people that needs other people to hear you being righteous, so you can have that sense of validation? So if someone can't hear you saying the Pledge, your right to prove your Lee-Greenwood-style-patriotism is violated. The whole thing is stupid. The Pledge is a ridiculous, anti-American poem written by a Socialist. It shouldn't be forced on anyone, and no one should be required to give any deference to someone else's choice to say it.
What rights did mlk infringe on? This girl has no deep seeded Constitutionalists mentality...she was worried aboot the party that happened the weekend before where she got wasted. The admin is more interested in being the supers yes man and the super is trying to not (*)(*)(*)(*) anyone off. Teachers constitutional Riggs are being violated here but that's ok so long as a kid is allowed to talk aboot getting drunk in 8th grade during that same time.
You're forgetting that he changed what rights we have. Before him, it was a right to be segregated among whites only, for example. Teachers' rights are being violated? How?
I'll never pledge allegiance to a system in which the oppressed get to chose who opresses them, and once they are elected, the oppressed are once more repressed.
I agree. The POA is pretty simple compared to other countries' pledges. And no one is asking you to burn incense to Obama. It's just a ritualistic way of saying that I support my country and am loyal to my people. But we can't do such things because of a heckler's veto that tells people that saying the pledge is a prayer or indoctrination. Nothing of the sort. It's a loyalty pledge to the country and a way to stand in solidarity with the rest of America. I hate to say that I agree with the teacher.
I am the father of an 8-year old who is at the end of his 2nd grade year in our local public elementary school. Though I'm happy with the school in general, I'm disconcerted that my son is required to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Permit me to explain why. I believe that human beings should have a basic right of freedom of religion. This implies that human beings should be able to choose what religion they want to follow, or to choose not to follow any religion whatsoever. I believe that adherence to this notion of freedom requires that we educate children in a particular way about freedom. We have to remember that children are highly impressionable, in some ways especially impressionable about concepts such as god, the devil, heaven, and hell. These concepts, as well as the parental acceptance or rejection that goes with believing or not believing, constitutes a high level of emotional pressure on children to believe in the religious perspective in which they are raised. Given this level of emotional coercion, I think it's our responsibility NOT to raise children to believe in one religion (or lack of religion) or another. In other words, I believe it is unethical to raise children to believe in a religion. I think that responsibility to our childrens' religious freedom means that we teach them about a great variety of religious and philosophical worldviews in a constructive and comparative way. I believe in religious education, not religious indoctrination. This way, the child grows up without pressure, and is able to choose his/her religion or philosophy when he or she reaches the age to discern rationally which one is truest. I believe that this approach is absolutely requisite to upholding religious freedom. So it's probably obviously what I think about the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge is not an educational tool -- it is a tool of rote memorization and repetition. It's a tool of indoctrination. And, since we put in "under God" during the McCarthy era of paranoia toward communism, I see the requirement as 1) a breech of the 1st amendment establishment clause and 2) antithetical to my child's education as a freethinking, free-choosing adult. So I find it very unfortunate that we require schoolchildren all over the country to repeat this mantra daily. I've talked with my son about this. I've told him that he doesn't have to repeat any of the Pledge if he chooses not to. I've told him that he gets to choose whether he believes in the God to which the Pledge refers when he gets older. I've taken great pains to begin educating him in the variety of religious and philosophic worldviews. I've taken great pains not to push him in one direction or the other. He's told me that he doesn't mind saying the Pledge and that he doesn't think saying it means that he has to believe it. And I admire him for that. However, I wish that he weren't meant to say aloud an oath with which he disagrees. Our country has a secular government and a highly pluralistic population with a great variety of religious beliefs. I believe we should celebrate these virtues, not disenfranchise them with oaths like the Pledge of Allegiance.
