10 Year Old Student Refuses To Say Pledge

[Robert Richardson]

He probably watched Obama during the campaign.

 

[Jay]

This is the reason why I love this country, because dissent is possible. We live in a country that will use its might to protect those wayward citizens that hate it. I can spit on the statue of liberty, burn the flag, and curse the constitution, and yet I will still enjoy the protections and liberties that those things give me. We are the nation of tolerance, not of grace. We don't forgive because we don't judge. Or at least this is what this nation is supposed to stand for.

Fixed it for ya.....

This is the reason why I love this country, because dissent is possible. We live in a country that will use its might to protect those wayward citizens that hate it. I can spit on the statue of liberty, burn the flag, and curse the constitution, and yet I will still enjoy the protections and liberties that those things give me, because others have fought and died for those protections and liberties. We are the nation of tolerance, up to a point, not of grace. We don't forgive because we don't judge. Or at least this is what this nation is supposed to stand for.



and..... WHERE one might choose to burn the Colors of the United States, may have a direct bearing on their ability to do so.

Just my very own two cents.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

In no way do I intend to tell anyone else what to think. I offer this for your consideration; do with it what you will.

Continuing:
One nation, under God, indivisible

We are presently one nation, yes, and I would hope to say we are still under God. That we are "indivisible", however, is a lie. Our states retain sovereignty and should be able to choose whether to stay in an association of so-called equals that are not equal at all, and indeed are often superseded by an overbearing, unwieldy fedgov or leave that association and either join another or remain sovereign unto themselves alone. I believe in the power of a state and the right of it's people to secede. I consider it the duty of a people being wronged and abused to leave their abuser behind them.

If someone wants to call me unpatriotic for this, I suggest he (or she) look in a mirror first. Dissent is far more patriotic and American than is blindly following a paradigm for it's own sake.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill I understand what you say, and I'm in agreement. But for myself I don't view the use of that word in the Pledge the same. To me it represents an ideal, something to strive for but not to mandate by law or force.

Or to attempt to put it another way, like a marriage should be (imo), yes there will be disagreements and yes there is a possibility of divorce but when faced with an outside threat both (or all fifty) partners should face that threat with an unified indivisible front.

And at least for myself I can't say I have seen you post anything that would make me consider you unpatriotic.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, this story has finally made it to the MSM, via CNN. In the video we get to hear the kid in his own words. This is a smart kid. He skipped from 3rd to 5th grade and is pretty well spoken for his age. He thought out out his argument and took a principled stand. Would that we had more kids, and adults, who could do the same.

Video from CNN

Go here to skip the commercial

 

[BloodEclipse]

First the kid has been manipulated by his Mom.
Second I don't want kids saying the pledge, just for the sake of saying it.
If I was the teacher I would allow them to opt out and use it as a teaching moment.
Free expression is a good thing even for a kid. How many 10 year olds can defend a position beyond the initial talking point?
I agree with him though that the Liberty part of the Pledge is in dispute, not just for gays but for us all. We are quickly losing our liberties.

 

[Hotdoger]

Times have changed, and so have the perceptions of children. I know this child personally, and I can tell you that the decision to sit during the pledge of allegiance was his choice, and his alone. His mother actually called me when she was called by the principal and said "XXXXXX did something at school, and I have been called in." She had no idea he was planning to sit during the pledge.

He knows all about the issues that gay and lesbian persons go through every day. He has friends and relatives that are gay, and we live in a very gay-friendly area of Arkansas. He attends rallies and visits with people who are ill, and cannot get out. He is kind, and compassionate. He understands he is "just a kid," but also understands that he can, and will, make a difference. He is light years ahead of his peers. He is in the Gifted program, is extremely intellligent, and has already skipped a grade.

We can only hope and dream that there are more people like him out there... perhaps if there were, this world would be a much better place to live.

Yea Right. LOL!!!!

To think this kid has not been indoctrinated by the sexualy perverted crowd is a total fabrication!

The kid has never been told the truth.

 

[El Cazador]

#1. 10 year old kids do not have "the Right To Free Speech". I don't care if he's a little Einstein just out of diapers, he's 10 years old. He has no basis to be spouting off anything like "gay rights". I very seriously doubt he can actually grasp the meaning of "gay rights", or the myriad of subtexts to the argument. Please.

#2. Mommy is obviously encouraging this. Whether it's for the vicarious thrill, or intentional use of her child to push her agenda, I don't know. We all try to instill a sense or right and wrong in our kids as they grow up, but most of us try to set the foundation then allow the kids to gain their own prespective. Again, 10 year olds have no perspective, and barely have the foundation started.

#3. We used to be proud of our nation. Saying the Pledge was a way to show your pride in the United States, and our (former?) way of life. I do believe Americans are the only ones who yell "Jingoist" at each other for actually having the temerity to think we really are the best country on Earth, even with the few warts there always is.

I feel sorry for the teacher that has this kid in class. I imagine he's a disruptive little monster who has trouble behaving. Lots of parents these days think "that's so sweet" when their kids act up and out. I can't decide who needs a good swat on the butt more- the kid or the parents.

 

[dburkhead]

#1. 10 year old kids do not have "the Right To Free Speech". I don't care if he's a little Einstein just out of diapers, he's 10 years old. He has no basis to be spouting off anything like "gay rights". I very seriously doubt he can actually grasp the meaning of "gay rights", or the myriad of subtexts to the argument. Please.

I'm sorry but I can't seem to find an age limit on free speech in the Constitution. Perhaps my copy is defective.

If you're going to go with the argument that "of course they didn't mean" think long and hard about it. What can be done for you can be done against you.

#2. Mommy is obviously encouraging this. Whether it's for the vicarious thrill, or intentional use of her child to push her agenda, I don't know. We all try to instill a sense or right and wrong in our kids as they grow up, but most of us try to set the foundation then allow the kids to gain their own prespective. Again, 10 year olds have no perspective, and barely have the foundation started.

And? Even if you're right that mommy is encouraging this, do not parents have the right to teach children the values they hold? If the child had been, for example, giving a speech on "gun rights" and somebody criticized "mommy" for "encouraging" that, would you be so critical of "mommy" then?

#3. We used to be proud of our nation. Saying the Pledge was a way to show your pride in the United States, and our (former?) way of life. I do believe Americans are the only ones who yell "Jingoist" at each other for actually having the temerity to think we really are the best country on Earth, even with the few warts there always is.

One does not have to swear an oath to a piece of cloth to have or even express pride. Insisting that someone adhere to a particular form of expression is not pride, it's arrogance. It's confusing the symbol for the substance.

I feel sorry for the teacher that has this kid in class. I imagine he's a disruptive little monster who has trouble behaving. Lots of parents these days think "that's so sweet" when their kids act up and out. I can't decide who needs a good swat on the butt more- the kid or the parents.

You imagine? What one imagines is not evidence of anything. It would be one thing to say "I've known a lot of kids who refused to say the Pledge and without fail they were disruptive little monsters." Or better, "I've known 15 kids who refused to say the pledge in school. Two never caused any trouble. The other thirteen ended up in the principles office for one discipline problem or other an average of once a week." But the above? How is that different from the anti who says, "He owns a gun? I imagine he's a violent psychopath, ready to snap an start murdering people at any moment"?

 

[Indecision]

Ignoring the age, I agree with the principle of what he was doing 100%. Taking age into consideration, I agree he may have been pushed by his parents. Then taking in how much has changed in the short 15 years since i've been 10, that may not be the case. A lot has changed, people say that kids are a lot smarter at the same age than they were 20 years ago.

 

[eatsnopaste]

I'm sorry but I can't seem to find an age limit on free speech in the Constitution. Perhaps my copy is defective.

No your copy is probably ok, but the supreme court has ruled that children in school do not have the same free speech rights adults have.

 

[jedi]

I'm sorry but I can't seem to find an age limit on free speech in the Constitution. Perhaps my copy is defective.

No your copy is probably ok, but the supreme court has ruled that children in school do not have the same free speech rights adults have.

The the supremes must have gotten an incorrect copy of the Constitution!

 

[El Cazador]

I'm sorry but I can't seem to find an age limit on free speech in the Constitution. Perhaps my copy is defective.

We both know "free speech" as listed in the Bill of Rights was written protecting dissenting points of view politically.

The Bill of Rights, and the entire Constitution, was written to protect adults, because children were protected by their parents. And the parents were responsible for the child's actions, including running their mouth over something the had no true knowledge of, or solid basis to set their opinion on. Adults are also only able to vote. Children aren't for the very same reason.

Are you ready to give this precocious little mouthpiece the right to vote? You're ready to give him the right to free speech. He has no foundation for either.

And? Even if you're right that mommy is encouraging this, do not parents have the right to teach children the values they hold? If the child had been, for example, giving a speech on "gun rights" and somebody criticized "mommy" for "encouraging" that, would you be so critical of "mommy" then?

OK, your turn. My copy of the Bill of Rights lists "gun rights" right near the top of the document. I cannot seem to find the "gay rights" Amendment. Maybe my copy is the defective one, eh?

Nonetheless, again, 10 year olds are children, and do not have the reasoning ability to debate or define a topic like 2nd amendment rights. They can know that they had a grand time shooting or hunting with Mom and/or Dad. They can realize the firearm is a tool, which can be dangerous if not treated with respect, much like a circular saw, or a lawnmower. They need to understand touching one without an adult near is WRONG. They can get that, it's at their level of learning. But understanding "gay rights" or the subtleties of "what's wrong with the Pledge of Allegiance" is beyond his ken.

One does not have to swear an oath to a piece of cloth to have or even express pride. Insisting that someone adhere to a particular form of expression is not pride, it's arrogance. It's confusing the symbol for the substance.

You two who are dead set that repeating the Pledge by a third grade class is the same as the Knights of the Round Table Swearing Oath to the King are amusing. They're 10 year olds. They can't legally enter into any legally binding agreement. It's all for show. How's that? OK? It's cheerleading, for Pete's sake.

You imagine? What one imagines is not evidence of anything. It would be one thing to say "I've known a lot of kids who refused to say the Pledge and without fail they were disruptive little monsters." Or better, "I've known 15 kids who refused to say the pledge in school. Two never caused any trouble. The other thirteen ended up in the principles office for one discipline problem or other an average of once a week." But the above? How is that different from the anti who says, "He owns a gun? I imagine he's a violent psychopath, ready to snap an start murdering people at any moment"?

My saying I imagine means it was my opinion, from my experience, that children who act out in class like this are disruptive. That's normally pretty plain to most people, I'd hope. I did not cite any evidence, any study, any spreadsheet, for me to imagine, from my experience, the boy is likely to be a disruptor in an environment that needs to have some discipline. Don't try the lawyeresque micro-parsing of what I typed with me. I've read enough of your dissertation length opinions on here to understand you're trying to create an argument out of spider webs. I stand by my opinion.

 

[dburkhead]

We both know "free speech" as listed in the Bill of Rights was written protecting dissenting points of view politically.

Actually, I believe that the First Amendment means exactly what it says.

The Bill of Rights, and the entire Constitution, was written to protect adults, because children were protected by their parents. And the parents were responsible for the child's actions, including running their mouth over something the had no true knowledge of, or solid basis to set their opinion on. Adults are also only able to vote. Children aren't for the very same reason.

Are you ready to give this precocious little mouthpiece the right to vote? You're ready to give him the right to free speech. He has no foundation for either.

So you're okay with that whole "militia" thing?

OK, your turn. My copy of the Bill of Rights lists "gun rights" right near the top of the document. I cannot seem to find the "gay rights" Amendment. Maybe my copy is the defective one, eh?

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

A right does not have to be listed to be retained by the people. It says so, right in the Constitution. If your copy doesn't say that then your copy is defective.

Nonetheless, again, 10 year olds are children, and do not have the reasoning ability to debate or define a topic like 2nd amendment rights. They can know that they had a grand time shooting or hunting with Mom and/or Dad. They can realize the firearm is a tool, which can be dangerous if not treated with respect, much like a circular saw, or a lawnmower. They need to understand touching one without an adult near is WRONG. They can get that, it's at their level of learning. But understanding "gay rights" or the subtleties of "what's wrong with the Pledge of Allegiance" is beyond his ken.

"Beyond his ken." Funny thing is that's exactly what a lot of people say about you and me when it comes to understanding the Constitution. It's only those lawyers with thousands of hours of experience in twisting words to suit their own ends who can properly "interpret" it.

You two who are dead set that repeating the Pledge by a third grade class is the same as the Knights of the Round Table Swearing Oath to the King are amusing. They're 10 year olds. They can't legally enter into any legally binding agreement. It's all for show. How's that? OK? It's cheerleading, for Pete's sake.

If it's cheerleading, then why make a big deal one way or another? If it's cheerleading then why be bothered by his not saying it?

My saying I imagine means it was my opinion, from my experience, that children who act out in class like this are disruptive. That's normally pretty plain to most people, I'd hope. I did not cite any evidence, any study, any spreadsheet, for me to imagine, from my experience, the boy is likely to be a disruptor in an environment that needs to have some discipline. Don't try the lawyeresque micro-parsing of what I typed with me. I've read enough of your dissertation length opinions on here to understand you're trying to create an argument out of spider webs. I stand by my opinion.

Ah the old "my opinion" argument. "Opinion" is a valid argument when it comes to value judgements--"Red is prettier than blue," "Freedom is more important than security," etc.--but isn't much of a defense when it comes to matters of fact. Whether or not the boy is a disruptive influence or not is either true or false regardless of what you may believe. And the assumption that just because the boy refused to say the pledge and, when asked, gave reasons for doing so (whether one agrees with those reasons or not) is just that, an assumption.

You can prove anything if you get to make up your data, and that's exactly what you're doing there. It is no better than the anti saying "you own a gun, therefore...."

As for "dissertation length replies" if you prefer reasoning by soundbites and oversimplifying to the least common denominator, that is your right. Some people see the world as a tad more complicated than that. You might want to try reading the writings of folk like Hamilton, Jefferson, Paine, Adams, Madison, et al, the actual writings, not just the distilled quotes that people pull from out of them. You might be amazed at the amount of time spent on fine details and considering things from multiple angles--what you call "spider webs." While I wouldn't dream of putting myself in that company, I do consider that a pretty good model to follow and a nice target to aspire to.

 

[level.eleven]

Well, from watching the video, I thought the person did a fine job of explaining his believes, his interest in law, and his goals of one day being a lawyer. It was also mentioned that he actually skipped a few grades. So I am not going to assume he is a trouble maker, unlike the people he cites as calling him a "gaywad".

Critical thinking should never be discouraged, regardless of age. Honestly, it would appear this person is asking himself some of the same questions all men should be asking themselves from time to time. He just seems to be doing it at a much younger age. The one size fits all, compulsory, education system certainly isn't structured to allow for such free thought. Hopefully this little guy won't get bogged down by all the media attention and continues to focus on the questions he wants answered. There seems to be a great learning opportunity here.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

We both know "free speech" as listed in the Bill of Rights was written protecting dissenting points of view politically.

The Bill of Rights, and the entire Constitution, was written to protect adults, because children were protected by their parents. And the parents were responsible for the child's actions, including running their mouth over something the had no true knowledge of, or solid basis to set their opinion on. Adults are also only able to vote. Children aren't for the very same reason.

As you say, it's the parents' responsibility for the child's action, and to protect the children. How, then, are the teachers in a public school able to override what the parents believe and think is okay? The mom doesn't say the Pledge, doesn't believe in it. Should her opinion be overridden by a substitute teacher who has no bearing over the child's future? I would like to point out that most of us here were up-in-arms over the fact that some teachers were having their children sing praises to Obama in their classes. This is the same thing. The teacher is forcing the child to do something that, at the very least, the parents don't agree with. How is this any different?

Are you ready to give this precocious little mouthpiece the right to vote? You're ready to give him the right to free speech. He has no foundation for either.

Of course not. But everyone has the right to say whatever they want. The Declaration of Independence states very clearly that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights. Are they only unalienable after 18? Or are they actual self-evident God-given rights every child is born with right along with the ability to bear arms? Liberty includes freedom of speech just as much as life includes the right to bear arms for protection.

OK, your turn. My copy of the Bill of Rights lists "gun rights" right near the top of the document. I cannot seem to find the "gay rights" Amendment. Maybe my copy is the defective one, eh?

I don't know, I would consider gay rights to be protected, at the very least, by the 1st Amendment. I'd consider it close to a religious view as well as speech. Then again by the 14th Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I think that's pretty fair to gay folks, too.

Nonetheless, again, 10 year olds are children, and do not have the reasoning ability to debate or define a topic like 2nd amendment rights. They can know that they had a grand time shooting or hunting with Mom and/or Dad. They can realize the firearm is a tool, which can be dangerous if not treated with respect, much like a circular saw, or a lawnmower. They need to understand touching one without an adult near is WRONG. They can get that, it's at their level of learning. But understanding "gay rights" or the subtleties of "what's wrong with the Pledge of Allegiance" is beyond his ken.

So when the teacher tells them that guns are evil and not to be touched are you going to argue the subtleties of that? Are you going to explain to the child why the teacher is wrong? Would they not, therefore, gain a better understanding of the concept? Or, at the very least, have an opinion of yours they can regurgitate when they dispute that with the teacher? If the mom has armed the kid with these points then who are you to say she's wrong? Who is the teacher to say she is wrong? Teachers, last I remember, are supposed to teach the children how to read, write, and do math. Not promote personal ideals on them.

You two who are dead set that repeating the Pledge by a third grade class is the same as the Knights of the Round Table Swearing Oath to the King are amusing. They're 10 year olds. They can't legally enter into any legally binding agreement. It's all for show. How's that? OK? It's cheerleading, for Pete's sake.

This is cheerleading, too.

My saying I imagine means it was my opinion, from my experience, that children who act out in class like this are disruptive. That's normally pretty plain to most people, I'd hope. I did not cite any evidence, any study, any spreadsheet, for me to imagine, from my experience, the boy is likely to be a disruptor in an environment that needs to have some discipline. Don't try the lawyeresque micro-parsing of what I typed with me. I've read enough of your dissertation length opinions on here to understand you're trying to create an argument out of spider webs. I stand by my opinion.

I am glad that this is staying civil, at the very least, but I just feel my major point is that these rights that are protected are the rights of every man, woman, and child. They are protected by the government even if we disagree with them.

Personally, I don't blame the kid. If my child was told that he must recite some governmental pledge that I disagreed with, I would have a discussion with him, too. If he decided to stand and say it, that's his choice. But if he agrees with me, even at the age of 10, and refuses to say it... I say good for him. I'd rather him listen to me than the teacher.

 

[shibumiseeker]

From "Silent Running" Mike and Mechanics:

"Show allegiance to the flag whatever flag they offer.
Never hint at what you really feel.
Teach the children quietly for some day sons and daughters.
Will rise up and fight where we stood still."

While I don't think a 10 year old really has a deep understanding of what it means to take a stand, I do remember being forced in school to profess to things I didn't really believe in.

A pledge is something that is undertaken VOLUNTARILY. Otherwise it is a shotgun wedding. All this really boils down to is a battle of wills between the teacher and the child. Regardless of the outcome, the teacher lost when it was allowed to happen in the first place. But then, that's the educational system for you, full of incompetent people. A good teacher could have used that to teach something. Instead what the child learned was that the system does not care one whit about you.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I would first like to say, "Hooray" for the little lad for having the strength, courage and fortitude to stand up for something he truly believes in. It is extremely rare to get adults to take a stand on about anything and here is a 10 year olde who has a conviction.

That said, it is truly unfortunate that he has not been educated enough to understand why America is worthy of a pledge.

I believe that he has overlooked that fact that he lives in one of the few nations on this earth where the people themselves can enforce justice on the system. It is not always fair, pretty or easy, but it can be done.

When our nation was first founded there was no other country that gave so much respect and responsibility as Americans citizens received. We were the only nation that had, in our charter and laws, the concept that people possessed unalienable rights that could never be infringed by those who ruled.

Of course we have had injustice in our history. I doubt there is any nation that has not suffered tyranny and evil practices.

What makes our country great is that the citizens themselves can organize, protest and gather power to enforce a peaceful change that will benefit all Americans. What this lad fails to understand is the civil rights movement brought equality to those who did not have it. The womens movement brought the vote to those who should have had it long ago. The labor movement brought greater protection to workers who were abused at the turn of the century.

What he has not been taught is that Justice is like Freedom. It is a constant struggle to maintain with a balance between the liberties of all those who are governed, so that my "liberty" does not trample your liberty.

I hope someone takes the time to teach him that we pledge our allegiance not because we are all wrapped in the blanket of justice, but because we, the people, have the power to wrap that blanket of justice and freedom upon those whom are suffering without, and we do not have to ask the permission of any king or tyrant to do so.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

[El Cazador]

Actually, I believe that the First Amendment means exactly what it says.


So you're okay with that whole "militia" thing?

"Militia thing?" As in the 2nd amendment?


Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

A right does not have to be listed to be retained by the people. It says so, right in the Constitution. If your copy doesn't say that then your copy is defective.

I think maybe we ought to back up a bit and agree on a definition of "gay rights". Individuals who favor the "gay" lifestyle do not have any more or less rights under the Constitution that any other person does. (I'm sure someone will come up with some parse or exception to that. Again, .) However, I cannot find where as a group, "gay" individuals lose (not loose, by the way) any of the Rights enumerated or not.


"Beyond his ken." Funny thing is that's exactly what a lot of people say about you and me when it comes to understanding the Constitution. It's only those lawyers with thousands of hours of experience in twisting words to suit their own ends who can properly "interpret" it.

En Garde, Mssr. Non Sequitor!!

If it's cheerleading, then why make a big deal one way or another? If it's cheerleading then why be bothered by his not saying it?

Oh, maybe because of my idealistic and possibly a impossibly naive wish that people would be proud of who we are as a nation, and not want us to be 300 million little separate-unto-ourselves fiefdoms. And I'm not bothered by his refusal to join in to the Pledge itself, but I'm still of the opinion (again) that's he's being coached for publicity's sake, and some vicarious thrills.



Ah the old "my opinion" argument. "Opinion" is a valid argument when it comes to value judgements--"Red is prettier than blue," "Freedom is more important than security," etc.--but isn't much of a defense when it comes to matters of fact. Whether or not the boy is a disruptive influence or not is either true or false regardless of what you may believe. And the assumption that just because the boy refused to say the pledge and, when asked, gave reasons for doing so (whether one agrees with those reasons or not) is just that, an assumption.

OK, it's my valued judgment the kid is more than likely a thorn in his teacher's side. Better? He could well be a disruptive influence in the class.

You can prove anything if you get to make up your data, and that's exactly what you're doing there. It is no better than the anti saying "you own a gun, therefore...."

I'm not trying to "prove" anything. This is not an experiment, or a geometry equation. It's my (once again) my opinion, based on my experiences and observations.

As for "dissertation length replies" if you prefer reasoning by soundbites and oversimplifying to the least common denominator, that is your right. Some people see the world as a tad more complicated than that. You might want to try reading the writings of folk like Hamilton, Jefferson, Paine, Adams, Madison, et al, the actual writings, not just the distilled quotes that people pull from out of them. You might be amazed at the amount of time spent on fine details and considering things from multiple angles--what you call "spider webs." While I wouldn't dream of putting myself in that company, I do consider that a pretty good model to follow and a nice target to aspire to.

"Brevity is the soul of wit"

I have and have read all you have listed and more, and have, oddly enough, some plays of a certain English playwright as well, including the one quoted from above. But this is the internet, and is not very reader-friendly, at least to me.

 

[El Cazador]

To All,

I would first like to say, "Hooray" for the little lad for having the strength, courage and fortitude to stand up for something he truly believes in. It is extremely rare to get adults to take a stand on about anything and here is a 10 year olde who has a conviction.

That said, it is truly unfortunate that he has not been educated enough to understand why America is worthy of a pledge.

I believe that he has overlooked that fact that he lives in one of the few nations on this earth where the people themselves can enforce justice on the system. It is not always fair, pretty or easy, but it can be done.

When our nation was first founded there was no other country that gave so much respect and responsibility as Americans citizens received. We were the only nation that had, in our charter and laws, the concept that people possessed unalienable rights that could never be infringed by those who ruled.

Of course we have had injustice in our history. I doubt there is any nation that has not suffered tyranny and evil practices.

What makes our country great is that the citizens themselves can organize, protest and gather power to enforce a peaceful change that will benefit all Americans. What this lad fails to understand is the civil rights movement brought equality to those who did not have it. The womens movement brought the vote to those who should have had it long ago. The labor movement brought greater protection to workers who were abused at the turn of the century.

What he has not been taught is that Justice is like Freedom. It is a constant struggle to maintain with a balance between the liberties of all those who are governed, so that my "liberty" does not trample your liberty.

I hope someone takes the time to teach him that we pledge our allegiance not because we are all wrapped in the blanket of justice, but because we, the people, have the power to wrap that blanket of justice and freedom upon those whom are suffering without, and we do not have to ask the permission of any king or tyrant to do so.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Nicely said. Although you left out two words in the Pledge, ya know....

 

[cce1302]

Actually, I believe that the First Amendment means exactly what it says.

Seriously? Are you using the first amendment to the constitution to defend the right of children to speak out, be disruptive, and generally do whatever they want to while they are in a gov't controlled school classroom?