10 Year Old Student Refuses To Say Pledge

[dburkhead]

Originally Posted by dburkhead
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?

Yup. People claim that it doesn't give rights to "the people" (meaning folk like you and me) but to "the militia."

How is what you're doing any different?

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.

You might also want to define "gay lifestyle" as well.

The above is the point. Neither more nor less. Yet not having any less under the Constitution has not stopped people from discriminating against gays for a very long time.

Supposed to have the same rights as anyone else. Supposed to have equal protection under the law. Reality hasn't worked out that way for much of US history.

This is not to say that the more extreme examples seeking things like redress for past wrongs done to other people are not equally wrong, but for many folk "gay rights" is neither more nor less than the right to be treated the same as everyone else under the law.

"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!!

Nope. You claim that understanding is "beyond his ken." I point out that others make the same claim about our understanding of the Constitution (like, say, what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means).

If your argument is allowed to stand then so must theirs likewise be allowed to stand.

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.

You can't have it both ways. If it's "just cheerleading" your words, then it is not that important. If he's too young to understand the issues around why he chose not to say the pledge, then he's too young for simply mouthing the words to have any meaning.

As for being proud of who we are as a nation, one does not have to swear fealty to a piece of cloth for that. How about this one:

"I, David Burkhead, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and of the officers appointed over me, according to the Regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Combined with:
"I am a United States Fighting Man. I am prepared to give my life for my country."

Somehow, I think that trumps whether or not one swears to a piece of cloth.

This is not to denigrate those who do find meaning in saying the Pledge. That's fine. I'm perfectly capable of recognizing the intent and accepting it. However, consider, if what you really are objecting to is a lack of pride in the US, then how exactly is requiring people to say the pledge going to change that? You might get people to mouth the words, but if anything it will be counterproductive to any actual generation of pride in country. It's more confusing symbol with reality.

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.

Nope. "Value judgements," in this context are things like "bacon is better than ham," they express what a person values, or not. You're still making a statement of fact (right or wrong) and calling it "opinion" doesn't change that.

He "could well be," sure. But he might not too. You're guessing from a single data point.

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.

And your "opinion," without more to offer than you provide here, remains no better than that of the anti-gun nut's "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.

"Brevity is the soul of wit"

Hamelt, act 2, scene 2. Polonius. And Polonius was written in that play as a buffoon.

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.

A common joke among both writers and speakers is "I'm sorry my speech/article is so long, I didn't have time to make it short." Writing and speaking so as to present arguments well in few words is something that takes a good deal of time and effort. As you said, this is the Internet. People don't spend days/weeks writing and rewriting to present arguments clearly, intelligently, and in few words.

 

[dburkhead]

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?

Um. No. How in the world do you get that out of anything I've written.

My objection is to the "children don't have rights" claim. Children do have rights. My view is that those rights, however, are held "in trust" by the parents on their behalf. The parent may, if said parent so chooses, delegate that trust to others (such as the school) but the rights still belong to the child. It's a subtle distinction but an important one. In particular, the school does not have the just authority to overrule the child's actual rights (real rights, not the entitlements that the Left is so fond of) unless granted those rights by the parent/guardian.

I've discussed my thoughts on that matter in more detail elsewhere and won't repeat the full case here lest El Cazador complain about "dissertation length posts" (I know, I know. Too late. )


Here's the thing: You have the right to "free speech." You do not, for instance, have the write to attend a meeting that I'm hosting. Thus, if you say something I dislike at a meeting I'm hosting, I am within my rights to have you ejected. That doesn't violate your right to "free speech." If you want to attend the meeting I'm hosting, you'll follow the rules I set. If you don't want to follow those rules, you'll do it elsewhere.

Now, had the school, say, required memorizing the Pledge (for example as part of history) and required an oral exam to demonstrate accomplishing said memorization, that would be one thing. But I do tend to worry when the public schools start requiring the repetition of oaths--any oaths--as ritual. Providing time when those so inclined can do so is fine. Requiring it is something else.

 

[cce1302]

Um. No. How in the world do you get that out of anything I've written.

it was pretty clear from your post (#33 in this thread).

My objection is to the "children don't have rights" claim. Children do have rights. My view is that those rights, however, are held "in trust" by the parents on their behalf. The parent may, if said parent so chooses, delegate that trust to others (such as the school) but the rights still belong to the child. It's a subtle distinction but an important one. In particular, the school does not have the just authority to overrule the child's actual rights (real rights, not the entitlements that the Left is so fond of) unless granted those rights by the parent/guardian.

Interesting point of view. is there a legal precedent or did you just make it up yourself?

I've discussed my thoughts on that matter in more detail elsewhere and won't repeat the full case here lest El Cazador complain about "dissertation length posts" (I know, I know. Too late. )


Here's the thing: You have the right to "free speech." You do not, for instance, have the write to attend a meeting that I'm hosting. Thus, if you say something I dislike at a meeting I'm hosting, I am within my rights to have you ejected. That doesn't violate your right to "free speech." If you want to attend the meeting I'm hosting, you'll follow the rules I set. If you don't want to follow those rules, you'll do it elsewhere.

I don't know what this has to do with a student disrupting his class by choosing to make a political statement about homosexuals. That's a very nice story, though. The kid is required by law to attend school. His right to speak freely does not give him the right to disrupt his class. That he disrupted the class is not in question.

Now, had the school, say, required memorizing the Pledge (for example as part of history) and required an oral exam to demonstrate accomplishing said memorization, that would be one thing. But I do tend to worry when the public schools start requiring the repetition of oaths--any oaths--as ritual. Providing time when those so inclined can do so is fine. Requiring it is something else.

That's pretty much what you can expect when the government runs the indoctrination camps. Does that surprise you?

 

[dburkhead]

it was pretty clear from your post (#33 in this thread).

"Pretty clear" when you go beyond the actual words: "Actually, I believe that the First Amendment means exactly what it says."

That's twelve words. Which one causes problems?

Interesting point of view. is there a legal precedent or did you just make it up yourself?

It's a matter of philosophy. I don't limit my ideas of right and wrong to what some stuffed shirt dictated from the Bench.

On the whole it seems to follow pretty naturally out of other aspects of the law--things like findings of mental incompetence where a guardian (may be an individual, may be the "state" or the "court") is assigned to look after the interest of the individual, and so on. The individual still has their rights. Those rights, however, are executed on their behalf by the guardian.

The law, at its heart, should be simple. While the devil, as they say, is in the details, the core should be kept as simple as possible so that the inevitable complications arising from an untidy world don't make things totally unwieldy (something that legislators and judges seem to have forgotten if the idea had ever entered their heads). Creating entirely different classes of things to handle the same basic situation (individual not competent to manage their own affairs) just creates needless complication.

[/quote]I don't know what this has to do with a student disrupting his class by choosing to make a political statement about homosexuals.[/quote]

Interesting choice of words. I do expect better than that kind of "loaded language" though. The article doesn't say anything about the kid being disruptive, just that he had decided not to rise and say the pledge. In fact, it appears there was no trouble until a substitute teacher started prodding him to participate.

How is it "disruptive" not to participate in a particular ritual? Would you feel the same way about someone being censured for not participating in "Muslim Awareness Week" or whatever the California school doing that called it and praying (or at least pretending to pray) in the direction of Mecca every day? The "disruption" is caused by the people pressing the issue.

If he decides not to participate, then he decides not to participate. The disruption is caused by those pressing the issue.

If you want to blame someone for disrupting the class, then blame the substitute teacher.

That's a very nice story, though.

Keep that story in mind and you won't have to ask have the "rhetorical" questions you ask about what I mean by things like "Actually, I believe that the First Amendment means exactly what it says." You'll already know the answer.

The kid is required by law to attend school.

Right. He doesn't get the choice. And in the real world, most parents don't have the option of choosing a school either. In addition, the parents are the ones "hiring the hall". After all, where do you think the money to pay for the school comes from? The left seems to think it springs full grown from the head of Zeus, but most of the folk here recognize that it comes from the people in the first place.

His right to speak freely does not give him the right to disrupt his class. That he disrupted the class is not in question.

Remaining seated when others rise to say the pledge is not disrupting the class any more than having a holstered handgun, even one "open carried" is "threatening" or "brandishing" (or whatever other terms the antis like to use).

That's pretty much what you can expect when the government runs the indoctrination camps. Does that surprise you?

That it doesn't surprise me does not make it right.

 

[cce1302]

"Pretty clear" when you go beyond the actual words: "Actually, I believe that the First Amendment means exactly what it says."

That's twelve words. Which one causes problems?

I said post #33, not just those 12 words. You can pretend that the rest of the post is irrelevant if you want to.

It's a matter of philosophy. I don't limit my ideas of right and wrong to what some stuffed shirt dictated from the Bench.

On the whole it seems to follow pretty naturally out of other aspects of the law--things like findings of mental incompetence where a guardian (may be an individual, may be the "state" or the "court") is assigned to look after the interest of the individual, and so on. The individual still has their rights. Those rights, however, are executed on their behalf by the guardian.

The law, at its heart, should be simple. While the devil, as they say, is in the details, the core should be kept as simple as possible so that the inevitable complications arising from an untidy world don't make things totally unwieldy (something that legislators and judges seem to have forgotten if the idea had ever entered their heads). Creating entirely different classes of things to handle the same basic situation (individual not competent to manage their own affairs) just creates needless complication.

I don't know what this has to do with a student disrupting his class by choosing to make a political statement about homosexuals.[/quote]

Interesting choice of words. I do expect better than that kind of "loaded language" though. [/quote] loaded language??? what are you talking about? It's precisely what the 10 year old did.

The article doesn't say anything about the kid being disruptive, just that he had decided not to rise and say the pledge.

Sitting when the teacher said "stand" is called disobedience, where I come from, and is disruptive, by its very nature. if we can't agree on this, then we clearly have no common grounds to even begin discussion.

In fact, it appears there was no trouble until a substitute teacher started prodding him to participate.

if the regular teacher allowed the students to throw spitwads, and the substitute didn't, would you be blaming the teacher? Judging from your response to this situation, it would be consistent.

How is it "disruptive" not to participate in a particular ritual? Would you feel the same way about someone being censured for not participating in "Muslim Awareness Week" or whatever the California school doing that called it and praying (or at least pretending to pray) in the direction of Mecca every day? The "disruption" is caused by the people pressing the issue.

yeah...go ahead and keep making things up. It really supports your side.

If he decides not to participate, then he decides not to participate. The disruption is caused by those pressing the issue.

If you want to blame someone for disrupting the class, then blame the substitute teacher.



Keep that story in mind and you won't have to ask have the "rhetorical" questions you ask about what I mean by things like "Actually, I believe that the First Amendment means exactly what it says." You'll already know the answer.



Right. He doesn't get the choice. And in the real world, most parents don't have the option of choosing a school either. In addition, the parents are the ones "hiring the hall". After all, where do you think the money to pay for the school comes from? The left seems to think it springs full grown from the head of Zeus, but most of the folk here recognize that it comes from the people in the first place.



Remaining seated when others rise to say the pledge is not disrupting the class any more than having a holstered handgun, even one "open carried" is "threatening" or "brandishing" (or whatever other terms the antis like to use).



That it doesn't surprise me does not make it right.

I'm not going to address any of these, because they're pretty much just repetition of what I replied to earlier in this post.

 

[KDUBCR250]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[dburkhead]

I said post #33, not just those 12 words. You can pretend that the rest of the post is irrelevant if you want to. I don't know what this has to do with a student disrupting his class by choosing to make a political statement about homosexuals.

So which words?

Interesting choice of words. I do expect better than that kind of "loaded language" though.

loaded language??? what are you talking about?

Choosing not to participate in a ritual that is generally not mandatory (not in any schools I've looked at in recent years).

When I was a child reciting the Pledge was mandatory. In the schools I attended for first and second grade (and half of third grade), a prayer--led by the teacher--was said before lunch too (and these were public schools). When my family moved in the middle of my third year, I found it very odd that at the new school they didn't do either.

Go read the OP article. The school does not require students to recite the pledge.

It's precisely what the 10 year old did. Sitting when the teacher said "stand" is called disobedience, where I come from, and is disruptive, by its very nature. if we can't agree on this, then we clearly have no common grounds to even begin discussion.

Again, in that school reciting the pledge is not required. There is a phrase for ordering a student to do something that is not actually required. It's called "exceeding ones authority."

I'll save you looking it up. The very last line of the article: "The West Fork School District responded by saying that they don't require students to say the pledge."

The school district does not require it. Saying the pledge is not mandatory. The substitute teacher did not have authority to require it. Had the teacher not exceeded his or her authority then the incident would not have happened.

if the regular teacher allowed the students to throw spitwads, and the substitute didn't, would you be blaming the teacher?

If the teacher did not have authority to require students not to throw spitwads, then yep.

"The West Fork School District responded by saying that they don't require students to say the pledge." The teacher was wrong to attempt to require it.

When it comes to spitwads, however, most teachers do have the authority to forbid that.

Judging from your response to this situation, it would be consistent.

Then you haven't been reading.

yeah...go ahead and keep making things up. It really supports your side.

I didn't make up the "Muslim Week" (or whatever it was called) case. Turns out that the school denies the claim and the rumors were overblown but it was discussed here (can't find the thread unfortunately). But I guess you would have been okay with schools mandating something like that and would have called any students who objected or refused to pray to Allah "disruptive."

And I didn't make up "The West Fork School District responded by saying that they don't require students to say the pledge."

I'm not going to address any of these, because they're pretty much just repetition of what I replied to earlier in this post.

 

[BloodEclipse]

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

He quoted it as is was originally written. It was amended later to include "under god"

 

[JustGone]

I don't know bout yall but I have know a few 10yr olds with more general knowledge and better reasoning abilities than most adults...

I'm just saying for all you people who doubt that a 10yr old can have mature reasoning and analytical abilities.

 

[lashicoN]

Why does everyone keep saying the 10 year old disrupted the class? It says in the article that the teacher kept nagging the kid about standing up and saying the pledge, three times. Only then, when the teacher had disrupted the class plenty did he give his reasoning for not standing up and reciting the pledge. It really doesn't sound like he disrupted anything. Also, how mature is this teacher? The kid got in trouble for his reason? Why not just shrug off his reason and RESUME CLASS. Do you guys want your tax dollars paying teachers to actually teach things or would you rather see it go to corralling the children up to recite the pledge and make examples out of those who don't? One last thing...and this is from personal experience. Free thinking children turn into free thinking adults. Let's welcome the kid.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

It is far more patriotic to understand when your nation is not living up to its former standards of glory and to protest it than to idly go along pretending everything is fine.

Imagine if just one German citizen stood up during the daily indoctrinations of the National-Socialist party during 1939-1945 and said 'Now, hang on, just one second, there, teacher....'

Flag-burning is legal, and for reason - what is so disrespectful about it? Flags are supposed to be burnt when they are no longer fit to be flown. (United States Code demands it, in fact.) If the Republic for which it once stood no longer resembles what it once stood for, why fly such a majestic symbol in travesty? It is far more offensive to me that the Stars and Stripes now fly over a place which now more resembles the former Soviet Union or the "People's" Republic of China than it ever has, than to see it burnt. In my opinion, every flag should be burnt alive - as the flag is considered to be a living thing - until and unless this Republic ever reverses course and once again resembles the America in which we have grown up - some of us, raised children, had a wife (or maybe more than one in succession due to divorce - isn't the beauty of this nation grand?)... isn't it also disrespectful to keep our noble flag flying over a country which is less and less free by the day? Isn't it just as destructive to the flag to pretend that nothing is wrong whilst we goosemarch daily into a fascist Nation as to lick at its mighty blue field of courage, thirteen stripes of blood and valor, and fifty spangles of Statehood with flame?

Maybe this kid doesn't believe what he's doing and just wants the attention.

But maybe, just maybe, even at a ripe tender age of ten years old, he can sense that there is something fatally wrong with our once-mighty, and hopefully eternally-righteous Republic; maybe he knows deep down that this is no longer what America was made to be; maybe he can sense that we have slid to become something closer to resembling 'Amerika'... and maybe it is a far better thing to honor our flag by not letting it fly over a fascist nation in which rights are now-dead.

Just my two cents' worth of what I'm sure will come across as incendiary - but before a single person says one word against it, I will say that I believe in this firmly, and in upholding the honor of our nation, and of our flag. No matter what it takes.