Can you clarify what you mean by "company person"?
 

That's where I am. It's one of those issues where you can get a dozen people on each side to fight about it forever, but ultimately it's one of the least important things. Too many real issues to fight about.

If nothing else, it supplies a somewhat useful platform for kids to learn about civil disobedience by not participating    

But yes, it is kind of creepy propaganda to foist onto elementary aged kids.
(as well as the separation of church and state issue -- where that line wasn't even added until the '50s)
 

Had to refresh my memory with a trip down Wikipedia lane, but I thought I remembered the pledge was written by a socialist. Turns out he was a "christian socialist", for whatever that's worth. Another wrinkle in the complicated tale of church and state in America.

Again, no.

Our government and culture is built of bricks that by themselves aren't important. They all, in total, end up building the foundation and walls of our nation and culture. Everything we do, everything we say, everything we beleive in...plays into who we are and what we stand for. People that do not understand make decisions about topics and things that they don't understand. Until a day comes where you've signed away your rights and have nothing. If you look at our current government a lot of our Consitution has been slowly chipped away...brick by brick...tiny issue by tiny issue....untii they expand into what we have now. 

And again, it's actually not. Nothing is beling established and no one is being prohibited from expressing their religion. God, in this, has no context with no set religion. It can be any god of any religion nor does god itself belong to any religion or church. You could try to argue Atheism is being discriminated against, but Atheism isn't a religion. The clause was created to give all people free exercise of their religion...which you can't do if they don't have one so it doesn't apply. Unless Atheism is declared a religion, which I don't think it ever has been, it just doesn't apply. You have no religious affliation to discriminate against in this case. And it cuts both ways. Is it ok for the state to tell Churches they can't tell possibly LGB individuals things? That the State can force churches to adopt babies to couples with opposing viewpoints or religions? That marriage, a religious ceremony, must allow LGB to get married even if it goes against the Church's beliefs? There are lots of problems with the clause being abused on both sides. 
 

Because you immediately brought up that you're against gay marriage out of nowhere I know we would have common ground on almost nothing, but regardless of your religious opinions, it is still strange to have preschoolers stand up in front a flag that represents a country they know nothing about and "pledge allegiance" to it while comprehending adults never even think about the pledge. If a class of North Korean children did it and you weren't used to it, it might seem a little indoctrinate-y.

Maybe not the most jingoist propaganda ever, but it's a little weird. And again, ultimately so unimportant it's not worth debating. Let's stop climate change, prevent global pandemics, and stop nuclear proliferation, issues that will literally end humanity rather than a poem only kids recite that literally everyone forgot until this thread came up.

Thanks for typing up this response that I was too tired to attempt.
 

Did I say I was against gay marriage? No. 

I said:

"That marriage, a religious ceremony, must allow LGB to get married even if it goes against the Church's beliefs?"

If the Church has a stance on something, that belongs to religion, what right does the State have to infringe upon it? The separation of church and state goes both ways. I brought it up as an example of separation of powers on the other end. Read what I wrote next time as it's written.

If I can't trust you to figure out something as simple as a pledge of alliegence in preschool...what right do you have to tell me about global warming, nuclear proliferation, global pandemics...and so forth? How can you solve the big problems when you can't even figure out the small ones? Your "preschool" example is a perfect example. You're telling me, that because adults fail to educate themselves, we should also fail to educate our children in what it means to be good citizens and people?  We shouldn't tell them to be unified with eachother, fight for liberty and justice for all as that's such a horrible thing for children to learn....(saracasm btw). Because that is totally the same as an abusive cruel dictatorship. 

Do you not see the problem that division causes? Small things are not small when they are compounded. You are living in a country that is severaly politically divided and we all wonder why nothing can be solved. This is part of the reason why. 


 

I was not a favorite among my teachers for this aspect of school. I was quoted in saying once "I'm not willing to participate in your séance to a piece of fabric." It's representation of freedom INCLUDED my choice to abstain from participation. My mindless teachers didn't seem to agree.

Bro, we don't. Not once in my school years was there ever, nor is there still, an alliegance chant in any form to be recited by the kids in attendance.

I grew up with the catholic church still involved in the education system and ONE especially pious teacher in all my school years had the kids recite hail mary every morning, and even that wasn't enforced. And that has been regulated out 2 decades ago already.
 

Here's what I read from your post.

>Division is bad
>You are being divisive by not agreeing with me
>Please remain indoctrinated, we'll be better off
 

Again, no.

Part of being a good citizen is learning civics which is why one goes to school. You must learn why the government is the way it is, what it means to be a good citizen, what we stand for...and so forth. if you learned that, you'd know in order for justice to occur and liberty for all in times of injustice, you must be disobediant and be against injustice done by whomever including the governent. The Consitution is literally a document that states this and the foundation of who we are.



 

Right, but people are possibly indoctrinating children into blind patriotism to have the exact opposite effect: it seemed pretty clear that people didn't share you views on civil disobediance when a pro football player didn't want to participate in the rites.

It is entirely possible that you think everyone has the same understanding as you on these matters, but it would be wrong to assume so. While you managed to have enough knowledge and understanding of your society's history, there is no denying that the pledge of allegiance did in fact create a bunch of flag worshipping zombies.

And now for my follow up: ritually pledging allegiance and learning one's national history have nothing to do with each other.

While what he is doing is civil disobedience, he's wrong. While I can not tell you why they think so. I can tell you his whole stance and his entitlement is wrong. I partially covered why previously.

The second statement is assumptive with no basis. You do not know it was the pledge that created "zombies". I could, using that same argument, that colleges have indoctrinated impressionable young minds into causes.

I've covered why several times already how it goes together. 

Are allegories forbidden? Do I have to explain that zombies are by definition mindless and that I can equate that aspect of zombies to people bashing others' relationship to the flag rather than the constitutionality of their actions?

In any case, I understand and share your view on the US Constitution. I don't feel that most citizens understand it as you do and the repression of most forms of dissent in the media, such as the footballguy's story, is anecdotal proof that I can run with. He was criticized for all the disrespect to the flag he was exhibiting (or at the very least this was the starting point for people to start scrutinizing the guy's stance and motives -- you are proof of that), now I ask: where would all his critics' inherent flag-respect stem from? They were taught that somewhere.

I think you are smart enough to understand what I am implying here. You don't have to agree with me, that's fine. But I know you get my point.

 

"one nation, under god" basically makes the entire thing meaningless to an atheist.

What entitlement are you talking about?

 

I appreciate the spirit of your point, but the pledge of allegiance is not the vessel for teaching those things.  Having students repeat something mindlessly for thirty seconds a day to the point that it becomes meaningless (assuming the meaning was ever explained in the first place) doesn't teach them how to be unified with each other.  I think your point is that it's part of a culture of patriotism, unity, etc., but the concept of preaching unity as a reality instead of an ideal rightly falls on deaf ears when so many facets of our current country are obviously unjust and corrupt.  I think that the ideals America was founded on have a lot of merit, but it only takes a few generations before the natural result is that Americans are taught that they are awesome instead of that they can be awesome.  And then you get all the blind 'Murica nationalism we have now (not saying that's you) where people believe and vocalize that America is the greatest country on Earth and ignore the fact that the data contradicts that on so many metrics.

And now I'm hearing the opening scene from season 1 of The Newsroom...I recommend anyone who hasn't seen it looks it up.
 

It's different when you teach bc you're saying as an adult. I just say it with extreme convinction day in and day out. I could give the pledge on stage draw a tear by the end. I think the amount of blind merica nationalism is WAY smaller than the amount of too cool to care about your country, especially around young ppl. The pledge is good for em. I much prefer the Star spangled banner personally. It's easily the thing the students should hear every morning over the pledge.

You jump around a lot so let me try to get them all and you are making a lot of assumptions.

1) Again, it's one brick. The pledge is a brick, one brick of many, that leads to an end goal. If you keep chipping away at the bricks you will be left with nothing. If I tell you to build a wall and I only give you a brick...how are you suppose to know how and what it looks like? You don't even have the skills or materials to build the wall. That is why it is part of the civics you must learn to understand it. Knowledge is gained through time and experience. I doubt many children in, say preschool, know that crossing the road in front of a car will kill them. But, we still tell them not to do it anyway. Am I passing my "do not let children be killed by car" propoganda by telling them something they don't understand? In time, they will learn and develop as we all have with the ability to think for themselves.

2) What is unjust? What is corrupt?

3) You think the foundation of the country has "a lot of merit"? And then you blame the spoiling of future generations and "'murcia" nationalism? What data?

I just...I just don't know where to start with how wrong everything you said is. The blind claims, with no data or philisophic reasoning, you make the the half quotes from Jeff Daniels character to a group of students on some TV show? I've never had someone half quote a TV show at me before as reasoning....

I honestly suggest less TV and more reading. Locke is a good starting point if you haven't already.



 

and this is what California will do to you. rot your brain and feed you .... will you can fill this part in.

Let's be fair here.  The Jeff Daniels reference was not reasoning...it was mentioned because it popped into my head due to the direction my post went.

Oh, I love Locke.  He was one of my favorite characters on Lost.
 

Just to briefly respond to points 1 and 2...

1)  I don't think that comparison works because protecting kids from getting hit by a car is for their own safety (serving the self), but pledging allegiance is about loyalty to a nation.  It's an indoctrination about what their belief system should include (I think that's fair to say, whether you find the belief system right or wrong).

2)  Are you just asking me to specify, or do you not believe there is corruption in our country?
 

So you ranted something you didn't understand because it sounded good?

1) No. Both are concepts young children do not understand and must be taught through repetition. One just happens to be for personal safety and one happens to be about civics. The very civics that tells them to be disobiedent to the government if said government betrays them/becomes tyranical. If they do not learn, even the most basic concepts of who their people are and basic civics, how can they judge anything? What ethical or moral standard do they hold? What baseline do they have? Which, again, is about the Constitution/liberty/justice for all. Liberty, justice, equality, freedom, and disobedience towards tyranny are the very basic tennants of what it is to be an citizen of the United States and the Consitution. If you hold no loyality to the people around you...how can I even trust you? How can I believe anything you say? How can the people around us form a society if everyone views things utterly differently?

The same very system that says you don't have to even say the pledge. You have the right to refuse compelled speech from the government. The very fact you can do that is because of the belief system you already hold because you've already been indoctrinated by your family and friends into the culture long before the school system asked you to say the pledge. Our Constitition is the culmination of countless life times of knowledge into civics and was born in the fires of revolution. Those that knew the follies of other systems and thought they could build a better system. 

If telling children to believe in justice, liberty, and the Consitution is wrong...then I will gladly be wrong in your eyes. Any person is allowed to change their belief system(in any arena) at any point in this country. And the requirement for that is the Constitution...flat out. If the people around you all believe their system is right and with no freedoms granted by said Consitution...congrats you now have real oppression. 

2) You gave no examples and no proof. You just made a blanket statement and expected me to agree with you. You could be taking about corruption/injustice at the local golf store or corruption/justice in the government. You're doing a lot of generic blaming...most of your posts have been blaming someone else. 


I'm pretty much done. This is going no where. 

I had some hope for this conversation at first, but now I can agree with you that this is not going to be able to go anywhere.