New School Requirements

[Adam D]

Originally posted by Dropzone
the key words here are "opt out"

if they dont want to they dont have to.

yea im shure some backwater school would neglect to tell thier students and parents about this. and im shure that some hairy backed dad will refuse to sign it for his "commie fag kid".
thats when the court cases start.

but if you dont want to you dont have to. choice....the taste of democracy.

and well, if you dont know why your saying the pledge then your teachers and parents havent educated you well enough, or you just dont care enough to know. which in both cases is sad.

but the flag. eh, fuck the flag. id rather swear allegiance to the constitution and the idea of the United States. not a scrap of cloth.

My point though is that it should be the student, and the student alone who decides what s/he should be swearing to.

Originally posted by Adam D
My point though is that it should be the student, and the student alone who decides what s/he should be swearing to.

agreed

[johnny861]

Originally posted by Adam D
This sends the message that students are not capable of making a decision on who or what they feel they should pledge allegience to. You remove that choice, and not only do you violate the freedom of speech, but you move away from a free society altogether.

There are many laws the remove a child's choice to do something or not do something.

Truancy laws, drinking laws, driver's education laws...

Children for generations have had comformed traditions, either with their family at home, or in the community. Such rearing is important for a child to develop. Parents are no longer raising their kids on the farm or in the family business.

What was the name of the child pornographer that made the statement that he feels a child can make the decision for themselves whether they want to sleep with him or not, or be photographed in provocative positions, etc... does a child really wish something like that upon themselves? how hard is it to convince an innocent child to do such acts? to believe what every grown up says?


Nations have had long standing traditions that give identity to people. Children need to feel apart of something together. No child wants to be singled out as being different. It's the basis for many things, holidays, traditions, sports... to be part of the group... Provide this to the children, so they can mature unburdened with the chaos of free will they will experience later in life...

[[aNNa]]

Originally posted by Dropzone
the key words here are "opt out"

right on the money.


that it exactly what struck me as absurd.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by johnny861
There are many laws the remove a child's choice to do something or not do something.

Truancy laws, drinking laws, driver's education laws...

Children for generations have had comformed traditions, either with their family at home, or in the community. Such rearing is important for a child to develop. Parents are no longer raising their kids on the farm or in the family business.

Sure, there are instances where safety or education are put ahead of choice. That happens with adults too. But when it comes to something like deciding your own political beliefs and choosing what beliefs you express, that's an entirely different issue. It's more than just a Constitutionally recognized right, it's a basic human right that's textualized in the Declaration of Human Rights.

Traditions are great, but they shouldn't be put ahead of the individual's rights and the individual's right to choose to engage in those traditions.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by Adam D
Sure, there are instances where safety or education are put ahead of choice. That happens with adults too. But when it comes to something like deciding your own political beliefs and choosing what beliefs you express, that's an entirely different issue. It's more than just a Constitutionally recognized right, it's a basic human right that's textualized in the Declaration of Human Rights.

Traditions are great, but they shouldn't be put ahead of the individual's rights and the individual's right to choose to engage in those traditions.

Voting is restricted to 18 as well.

This is a restriction on choice. As I am sure we'd probably get a lot more votes for Bugs Bunny, which would make Warlord happier, I am not sure a child is ready to make such a choice until they can grasp the concept of what is taking place. Free choice of a child can be more a burden to them than a freedom...

Highschool, however, is different altogether. These are young adults beginning to cultivate the knowledge and traditions they have been taught. They can formulate free opinions.

[[aNNa]]

you're exactly right. it is a restriction on choice.

that's what's so hypocritical about the great USA.
supposedly america is the land of the free.
and we applaud ourselves on how we are free to
make a variety of decisions/choices.

but when it comes to the pledge..
we need a parent to opt-out.

gimme a break.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by johnny861
Voting is restricted to 18 as well.

This is a restriction on choice. As I am sure we'd probably get a lot more votes for Bugs Bunny, which would make Warlord happier, I am not sure a child is ready to make such a choice until they can grasp the concept of what is taking place. Free choice of a child can be more a burden to them than a freedom...

Starting children out in schools telling them they have to recite the ideals of a particular paradigm daily does little promote or ready them for making choices in the voting booth when they turn 18. One of my biggest complaints with saying the pledge in school at all is that the schools spend little or no time discussing what it means. I don't think it's right to obligate students to repeat a pledge they do not understand. That's just brainwashing.

Highschool, however, is different altogether. These are young adults beginning to cultivate the knowledge and traditions they have been taught. They can formulate free opinions.

There isn't any knowledge taught, as I explained above. I think the message behind the pledge is more important than the words. But nobody is obligating schools to teach the message. Moreover, if you coerce students to repeat the pledge, then you're ingraining that paradigm beforehand, and it coopts the ability for many to formulate free opinions. I'm of the mindset that people shouldn't say something until they understand what it is they are saying. To that extent, I don't think students should be instructed to pledge without understanding what the meaning of the pledge is and what the words within it mean.

I don't think you can really give a clear brightline for when students should and should not be forced to say the pledge. Is a 15 year old capable of deciding for a particular reason that a 14 or 13 year old cannot? I would say it's generally a bad idea to suggest that the government can mandate when people can and cannot think for themselves and make their own choices on their beliefs. I don't think it takes a political scientist to see what road that leads to.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by Adam D

Starting children out in schools telling them they have to recite the ideals of a particular paradigm daily does little promote or ready them for making choices in the voting booth when they turn 18. One of my biggest complaints with saying the pledge in school at all is that the schools spend little or no time discussing what it means. I don't think it's right to obligate students to repeat a pledge they do not understand. That's just brainwashing.


Really? What school did you go to? I remember my grade school teachers explaining to me what the pledge meant and why we did it... They explained it right up till about 4th grade...

I'm not for sure how any cultural traditions promotes or readys them for making choices in the voting booth when they turn 18? Do you? If so, please do explain?

Are you concerned that children are growing up experiencing the same traditions their parents and their grandparents before they did? Surely, school's sole purpose isn't to prepare them to vote.

I think education should play more roles than just saluting a flag. The system is not having them stand saluting their entire school career and their parents, learned individuals of a similar school system, have the authority to omit their child from such a ritual. It has been argued that school also helps a child to develop social skills and customs for dealing with the world when they come of age. Why else would they teach home economics and speech communication?


As for brainwashing in the context you have provided, Would not all traditions, religions and culture be considered brainwashing? if this is the case, wouldn't the U.S. intervening in other customs and cultures be considered liberating those people of brainwashing? Your own arguments on this forums could be considered forms of brainwashing. If you keep arguing your stance, eventually people will be swayed to believe what you believe? It may be a lie, or it may not, but to paraphrase Joseph Goebbels, If you tell a lie big enough and long enough, the lie eventually becomes the truth.


I feel you maybe blowing this discussion out of proportion to the topic at hand, like I demonstrated above. Theoretically, any form of controlled stimulus could be twisted to be that of brainwashing. Rearing of children could be considered brainwashing. Why disipline a child when they are doing something wrong? wrong is only defined in the eyes of the punisher yes? Any controlled stimulus could be considered an act of brainwashing as you could potentially argue. The child may be endangering themselves. Or they may just be trying to learn english... Why correct their grammer if they say a word wrong?

I find your spin on brainwashing is a bit absurd in the context of discussing traditions.



There isn't any knowledge taught, as I explained above. I think the message behind the pledge is more important than the words. But nobody is obligating schools to teach the message. Moreover, if you coerce students to repeat the pledge, then you're ingraining that paradigm beforehand, and it coopts the ability for many to formulate free opinions. I'm of the mindset that people shouldn't say something until they understand what it is they are saying. To that extent, I don't think students should be instructed to pledge without understanding what the meaning of the pledge is and what the words within it mean.


Is that so? I repeated the pledge for most of my elementary school years, however, I feel the phrase "under God" should be taken out of the pledge as it is a conflict with our seperation of church and state. I mentioned earlier in this thread, "aside from seperation of church and state." I must have therefore made a free opinion on the subject before hand on this discussion of brainwashing.



I don't think you can really give a clear brightline for when students should and should not be forced to say the pledge. Is a 15 year old capable of deciding for a particular reason that a 14 or 13 year old cannot? I would say it's generally a bad idea to suggest that the government can mandate when people can and cannot think for themselves and make their own choices on their beliefs. I don't think it takes a political scientist to see what road that leads to.

So then you agree with the child pornographer/ pedophile, that suggest young children should be able to decide for themselves, whether they should have sex with him and not the law?

Good thoughtsboth of you guys. This is one of the few threads where people are talking with eachother, rather than breaking down into insults.

Maybe there is hope after all.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by johnny861
Really? What school did you go to? I remember my grade school teachers explaining to me what the pledge meant and why we did it... They explained it right up till about 4th grade...

I think there's a much larger message to be taught than what's taught about it in elementary school. Hell, there are extensive volumes of political writings dedicated to what pledging allegience to a nation-state really means. I hardly think the brief lecture in elementary school really explains this at all. Suggesting that six year olds really understand what the pledge means, I mean, what it really means to pledge allegience beyond just what the wording itself means is a little beyond reason. I'm not suggesting that students should not say it, or that schools should not encourage it, but obligating students to say it sends a very different message than "liberty and justice for all" before students have been endowed with a proper understanding of it.

I'm not for sure how any cultural traditions promotes or readys them for making choices in the voting booth when they turn 18? Do you? If so, please do explain?

I would make the argument that historically, the US cultural traditions don't do this at all. I think social sciences are woefully inadequate and undertaught in this nation. That, I think is a reason why apathy is so rampant in the political arena.

Are you concerned that children are growing up experiencing the same traditions their parents and their grandparents before they did? Surely, school's sole purpose isn't to prepare them to vote.

I agree with the later here, I think school has a larger role than that. I would argue that schooling is responsible for preparing individuals to be knowledgeable, competent adults. To that extent, students ought to be readied for political involvement, even at the minimal level of voting.

As far as the traditions discussion, I think the two of us are arguing from two completely different points. I haven't really touched on the traditions debate, so I will now. Traditions, by nature, are concentual repetitions of prior acts. I think it's important to acknowledge them as concentual. Nobody forced the pilgrims by gunpoint to continue Thanksgiving, nobody obligated anybody to continue traditions, especially of this nature. When you absolve students of their moral agency to decide whether to continue a tradition or not, you remove that critical consent to the act. Furthermore, while I think traditions are important on some level, I think they are of less importance than our rights and our ability to choose which traditions we partake in. Realize also that it is a part of this tradition that people voluntarily choose to recite the pledge, and forcing students to do so provides a very different tradition.

Ultimately I think you're arguing a categorically dangerous standard. To such that we should blindly repeat traditions would justify slavery and other injustices, simply because prior generations engaged in these acts. That's a dangerous standard of action.

I think education should play more roles than just saluting a flag. The system is not having them stand saluting their entire school career and their parents, learned individuals of a similar school system, have the authority to omit their child from such a ritual. It has been argued that school also helps a child to develop social skills and customs for dealing with the world when they come of age. Why else would they teach home economics and speech communication?

Sure, I think both politicization and socialization are inevitable acts of education, and society in general. But I think educating students of freedom ought to be an important aspect of that. By eliminating that degree of moral agency from the student not only impairs that, but I would argue it politicizes students of a very different culture from the ones our parents and prior generations grew up in, where they consented to say the pledge. My contention is that teaching students they must pledge allegience to the flag sends the message that students are not free to make their own political judgements from an early age, and that carries into adulthood.

As for brainwashing in the context you have provided, Would not all traditions, religions and culture be considered brainwashing? if this is the case, wouldn't the U.S. intervening in other customs and cultures be considered liberating those people of brainwashing? Your own arguments on this forums could be considered forms of brainwashing. If you keep arguing your stance, eventually people will be swayed to believe what you believe? It may be a lie, or it may not, but to paraphrase Joseph Goebbels, If you tell a lie big enough and long enough, the lie eventually becomes the truth.

I'm not suggesting that schools no longer encourage the recitation, nor am I suggesting that people should not say it. But for those who choose not to, should not be obligated to do so. I'm arguing that the tradition of recitation being a voluntary act be maintained. So no, it isn't a violation of other cultures or traditions.

I don't necessarily suggest that all traditions, religions and culture be considered brainwashing. I think it's a means of socialization and politicization. It becomes brainwashing when you absolve people of their moral agency to choose to partake in them. When you tell students they have no individual choice to partake in a political statement, that's inevitably going to be a brainwashing function.

I feel you maybe blowing this discussion out of proportion to the topic at hand, like I demonstrated above. Theoretically, any form of controlled stimulus could be twisted to be that of brainwashing. Rearing of children could be considered brainwashing. Why disipline a child when they are doing something wrong? wrong is only defined in the eyes of the punisher yes? Any controlled stimulus could be considered an act of brainwashing as you could potentially argue. The child may be endangering themselves. Or they may just be trying to learn english... Why correct their grammer if they say a word wrong?

I would agree with this, as I explained above. Socialization and politicization are inevitable in any culture. That's fine, because people have consent as a moral agent to engage in what they have been politicized and socialized to, even as they are being taught it. When you remove that capacity, then you start a move towards brainwashing. You can punish a child for doing something wrong, but the child still has the choice to believe their action was not wrong. Here, you give them no choice. They have to recite the pledge or seek an unknown punishment.

I find your spin on brainwashing is a bit absurd in the context of discussing traditions.

That's because I'm arguing from a different point of view. This sort of Rand's Razor argument isn't going to sidestep my contentions.

Is that so? I repeated the pledge for most of my elementary school years, however, I feel the phrase "under God" should be taken out of the pledge as it is a conflict with our seperation of church and state. I mentioned earlier in this thread, "aside from seperation of church and state." I must have therefore made a free opinion on the subject before hand on this discussion of brainwashing.

You had consent to say the pledge, or not say it. Now, students no longer have that option, and I think at very least that risks a confinement of thought. I'm not suggesting that this means all students will come out of school completely accepting of the government, but I think the removal of moral agency on what the student is pledging to is very constraining and ultimately a poor option for this nation where people are already accepting of government propaganda and action without any public debate.

So then you agree with the child pornographer/ pedophile, that suggest young children should be able to decide for themselves, whether they should have sex with him and not the law?

I think you're making a very different point here. Children, especially young children, don't really understand sexuality because they have not been properly educated on that subject. And, I don't think that education can be adequate prior to puberty where children understand what sexual desire and the like really mean. Also, you're arguing a safety issue, which is a completely different issue altogether. But it does appreciate my argument far more than yours. If children are undereducated on the issue of sexuality, I don't think they can make a proper decision on what they are consenting to.

[Element4040]

Personally I don't see what the harm is in having children recite the pledge. I'm with Johnny, this is one of the few "traditions" we have as Americans. If the parent's of the kid don't want him reciting the pledge they sign a form and he doesn't have to, end of story. What's the big deal?

As for kids being able to make up their own minds, yeah right. If they could make up there own minds, their school lunch would consist of brownies and ice cream. It should be left up to the parent's to decide, it's their responsibility to determine their children's values.

Now pledging allegiance to the Texas flag is a whole different scenario that I will not support. It just seems a little overboard, and I don't see the point of pledging allegiance to a state. Again, didn't the Civil War teach us anything?

[Adam D]

Originally posted by Element4040
Personally I don't see what the harm is in having children recite the pledge. I'm with Johnny, this is one of the few "traditions" we have as Americans. If the parent's of the kid don't want him reciting the pledge they sign a form and he doesn't have to, end of story. What's the big deal?

As for kids being able to make up their own minds, yeah right. If they could make up there own minds, their school lunch would consist of brownies and ice cream. It should be left up to the parent's to decide, it's their responsibility to determine their children's values.

Now pledging allegiance to the Texas flag is a whole different scenario that I will not support. It just seems a little overboard, and I don't see the point of pledging allegiance to a state. Again, didn't the Civil War teach us anything?

I'm not suggesting that children ought to be permited to make every decision in their lives. I don't think they are educated enough to do so. What I am suggesting is that children ought to have the freedom to decide their own opinion and what they choose to advocate as their opinion.

I think it sends a detrimental message that you no longer have the choice to support the government. No you just have to. And that's purely anti-democratic.

I don't think anybody would argue that this nation purports to have a tradition of democracy. Whether it's valid or not is another issue, but at very least, I think we can all agree that this nation contends to have one. The fundamental tenet of democracy is the idea that people are moral agents capable of governing themselves, even in a representative fashion where they choose their leaders. How do you expect to carry on that tradition if you absolve people of that moral agency as children? Moreover, how do you pass on a tradition which preaches "liberty...for all" by uniquely repealing the liberty this tradition advocates? You surely cannot. If you begin politicization in this society by teaching students they do not have the moral agency inherent in democracy, you cannot by any means continue to believe the society is democratic. It's an afront to critical thought, democracy and undermines the fundamental tenets therein. That's a dangerous line to cross.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by Adam D

I'm not suggesting that children ought to be permited to make every decision in their lives. I don't think they are educated enough to do so. What I am suggesting is that children ought to have the freedom to decide their own opinion and what they choose to advocate as their opinion.

I think it sends a detrimental message that you no longer have the choice to support the government. No you just have to. And that's purely anti-democratic.



I think if a child is able to form their own opinions on this activity, they will certainly question the activity. If not their teachers, their parents. This questioning should certainly open healthy dialog between their parents/gaurdians and themselves or their teachers. Parents have the authority to opt their child out... They are not bound by law in this sense. If the child does not want to participate, they have an option. They have the freedom to exercise this by petitioning an act to their parents.


I don't think anybody would argue that this nation purports to have a tradition of democracy. Whether it's valid or not is another issue, but at very least, I think we can all agree that this nation contends to have one. The fundamental tenet of democracy is the idea that people are moral agents capable of governing themselves, even in a representative fashion where they choose their leaders.


We are a representative democracy. But we have determined that a child lacks the proper education to govern themselves and therefore, a gaurdian must act in their interests. A representative of their needs.


How do you expect to carry on that tradition if you absolve people of that moral agency as children? Moreover, how do you pass on a tradition which preaches "liberty...for all" by uniquely repealing the liberty this tradition advocates? You surely cannot. If you begin politicization in this society by teaching students they do not have the moral agency inherent in democracy, you cannot by any means continue to believe the society is democratic. It's an afront to critical thought, democracy and undermines the fundamental tenets therein. That's a dangerous line to cross.

This is under the assumption that we strive for total freedom. This is not true. Total Freedom equates to anarchy. As with, total order equates to totalitarianism. Our government is a balance between freedom and order through representative democracy.

As I stated earlier, the parents fill this role for the child while they learn the necessary tools for later in life..

[hepkatmama]

i think a moment of silent reflection is good

the pledge to the texas flag is just taking precious moment out of their education.

they do the national pledge of allegiance.

they stopped saluting the texas flag with the confederacy.

wtf