I Pledge Allegiance...Umm, no I don't!

[miraclefan]

My class always sounded like the borg when they were reciting it, which myself and a few others found very amusing. We even used to throw in a little "resistance is futile" or "you will be assimilated" for fun.

You should have said ''HAIL AMERICA'' with the hitler salute. I could only imagine the looks on there faces!

 

[miraclefan]

I've got to nitpick something. Altering a letter to make a "statement" does not make you smarter, does not make your argument more believable or you look credible. AmeriKa is no more than a laughable excuse to thrown in an insult meant to sting. Much like Micro$oft is or altering fanboy to fanboi.

True, this is Misc so silliness is permitted but if you want to be taken more seriously by your opposition, try to make it more difficult, not less to laugh off your arguments.

Noted!

 

[SeerSGB]

My class always sounded like the borg when they were reciting it, which myself and a few others found very amusing. We even used to throw in a little "resistance is futile" or "you will be assimilated" for fun.

You should have said ''HAIL AMERICA'' with the hitler salute. I could only imagine the looks on there faces!

Well if it had been a certain one of my old teachers, he would have smiled and said "that's very good Goji...now can you recite the races that are a threat to our freedom?"

Hells, when I was in elementary school we had mandatory pledge daily and mandatory bible stories (another word for church service) bi-weekly and i was sold to us and the parents as "civics".

 

[Teelie]

I've got to nitpick something. Altering a letter to make a "statement" does not make you smarter, does not make your argument more believable or you look credible. AmeriKa is no more than a laughable excuse to thrown in an insult meant to sting. Much like Micro$oft is or altering fanboy to fanboi.

True, this is Misc so silliness is permitted but if you want to be taken more seriously by your opposition, try to make it more difficult, not less to laugh off your arguments.

Noted!

I see it too often to ignore it any more. I try to but I just find sometimes it's irresistable to not say anything.

 

[miraclefan]

Well if it had been a certain one of my old teachers, he would have smiled and said "that's very good Goji...now can you recite the races that are a threat to our freedom?"

Hells, when I was in elementary school we had mandatory pledge daily and mandatory bible stories (another word for church service) bi-weekly and i was sold to us and the parents as "civics".

YOUR KIDDING?!?! RIGHT?

 

[Count Zero]

I've got to nitpick something. Altering a letter to make a "statement" does not make you smarter, does not make your argument more believable or you look credible. AmeriKa is no more than a laughable excuse to thrown in an insult meant to sting. Much like Micro$oft is or altering fanboy to fanboi.

True, this is Misc so silliness is permitted but if you want to be taken more seriously by your opposition, try to make it more difficult, not less to laugh off your arguments.

Noted!

I see it too often to ignore it any more. I try to but I just find sometimes it's irresistable to not say anything.

What does it even mean?

 

[miraclefan]

Noted!

I see it too often to ignore it any more. I try to but I just find sometimes it's irresistable to not say anything.

What does it even mean?

Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satiric_misspelling#.E2.80.9CK.E2.80.9D_replacing_.E2.80.9CC.E2.80.9D

 

[SeerSGB]

Well if it had been a certain one of my old teachers, he would have smiled and said "that's very good Goji...now can you recite the races that are a threat to our freedom?"

Hells, when I was in elementary school we had mandatory pledge daily and mandatory bible stories (another word for church service) bi-weekly and i was sold to us and the parents as "civics".

YOUR KIDDING?!?! RIGHT?

Nope. My 4th grade PE teacher (long since retired) was one a massive bigot and racist. Of course being kids we just thought we he was a hateful ass in general, it didn't really set in that he was a racist. We used to here racial slurs all the time in PE. We had a handful of black students in the school, and that just made his day when he could spout off in front of them.

And yeppers about the "bible stories". twice a month as part of "civics" we had to sit through an 45 minute to hour long "story". Everything from "Noah's Ark" to sermons (and even as a young kid I knew a sermon when I heard) on why America was god's country and various other topics.

 

[miraclefan]

Well if it had been a certain one of my old teachers, he would have smiled and said "that's very good Goji...now can you recite the races that are a threat to our freedom?"

Hells, when I was in elementary school we had mandatory pledge daily and mandatory bible stories (another word for church service) bi-weekly and i was sold to us and the parents as "civics".

YOUR KIDDING?!?! RIGHT?

Nope. My 4th grade PE teacher (long since retired) was one a massive bigot and racist. Of course being kids we just thought we he was a hateful ass in general, it didn't really set in that he was a racist. We used to here racial slurs all the time in PE. We had a handful of black students in the school, and that just made his day when he could spout off in front of them.

And yeppers about the "bible stories". twice a month as part of "civics" we had to sit through an 45 minute to hour long "story". Everything from "Noah's Ark" to sermons (and even as a young kid I knew a sermon when I heard) on why America was god's country and various other topics.

I thought AmeriCa (happy?) was supposed to be free of a state religion? & WHY do so MANY so-called christions think America is god's COUNTRY? where does it say that in the BIBLE?

 

[DarkHelmet]

It's just a piece of cloth.

I don't agree, but I respect your opinion and I know it's shared by many others.

 

[Michael Chris]

As a patriotic American I will never pledge allegiance to the flag or the country. I'll stand for the anthem, I see that as more of a celebration of what America has been, but a pledge? HELL NO.

 

[JuanBolio]

I don't think it should ever be required or encouraged, but if someone wants to stand up and do it, by all means, go ahead.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

I enjoy saying the pledge, I just leave out the 'under god' part.

Once again we have both sides of the dual lunatic fringes weighing in..

On one side we have the "saying the pledge is garbage and you're a fool if you do, caue Amerikkka is EVIIIILLLLLL" folks.

On the other we have the "you're a dirty commie if you don't say it, get out of MY GOOOOOODDDDD fearing country" people.

Meanwhile the vast majority of normal people are caught in the middle of this foolishness.

Say the pledge. Don't say the pledge. Who cares?

If you're forced to say it, then it doesn't mean much anyway.

If you go to a school that doesn't say it and it is important to you, GO HOME and say it privately.

If you go to a school that does say it, and you don't want to, either sit through it, or if you are told to stand and that your grade will suffer if you don't... simply stand and say nothing...or mouth gibberish...if you don't believe in it already it isn't going to somehow indoctrinate you against your will.

See, I just fixed everything for all of you! And it works for prayer too!

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, but it's obvious TLS is ironically blinded by his own devotion to the Republican Party to see how backwards his avatar and his argument are about Constitutional rights.

Is it really a good idea to go down that road in Misc considering everything that's just happened?

I don't think anything I said can be interpeted as sexist but if I did, then I apologize for offending the women of the board.

I'll take this up by PM

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't think it should ever be required or encouraged, but if someone wants to stand up and do it, by all means, go ahead.

Agreed.

I have no problem with the pledge *or* the "Under God" part (I happen to believe it, after all ) but I won't get bent out of shape if people don't do it. Better that we demonstrate our allegiance by our actions, anyway.

 

[JuanBolio]

I don't think it should ever be required or encouraged, but if someone wants to stand up and do it, by all means, go ahead.

Agreed.

I have no problem with the pledge *or* the "Under God" part (I happen to believe it, after all ) but I won't get bent out of shape if people don't do it. Better that we demonstrate our allegiance by our actions, anyway.

Actually, I do think the inclusion of "under God" should be dropped, as well as the proclamation "In God we trust" on currency. Also let's get rid of congressional sessions opening in prayer, and the President constantly blessing people in his damn speeches. Their job is a secular one, lets leave the incantations out of it. One government for the people - ALL of them - need not include God in any way.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Can someone explain why someone might not wish to do so and ACTIVELY prevent another from doing so? Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbbJPC306o&feature=related

That video has absolutely nothing to do with them being opposed to saying the Pledge of Allegiance under normal circumstances or restricting others from doing so, and everything to do with their protest (which involved not taking part in any of the activities for the session), however silly it may seem. But you already knew that and were just looking for a more controversial and less honest slant on the issue as per your standard operating procedure.

As for the simplest of many reasons why someone might not wish to recite the Pledge, it's not required by the First Amendment according to the findings of the US Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette in 1943. I refer to the words of Justice Robert Jackson in writing the majority opinion:

... struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but, at other times and places, the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity.

As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure, but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

Or perhaps the more brief but no less important words of Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas:

"Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions."

 

[Aurian]

Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would want to pledge allegiance to a flag in the first place. It's just a piece of cloth.

Exactly.

Well, technically it is a piece of cloth. But it is also a symbol and as such it is not too wierd to honor the flag.


I don't. But im not american and we dont have the same attachment to our statesymbols.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Can someone explain why someone might not wish to do so and ACTIVELY prevent another from doing so? Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbbJPC306o&feature=related

That video has absolutely nothing to do with them being opposed to saying the Pledge of Allegiance under normal circumstances or restricting others from doing so, and everything to do with their protest (which involved not taking part in any of the activities for the session), however silly it may seem. But you already knew that and were just looking for a more controversial and less honest slant on the issue as per your standard operating procedure.

As for the simplest of many reasons why someone might not wish to recite the Pledge, it's not required by the First Amendment according to the findings of the US Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette in 1943. I refer to the words of Justice Robert Jackson in writing the majority opinion:

... struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but, at other times and places, the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity.

As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure, but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

Or perhaps the more brief but no less important words of Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas:

"Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions."

Um, how do you know that the video has "absolutely nothing to do with them being opposed to saying the Pledge of Allegiance under normal circumstances"? Can you provide the evidence for this? Otherwise your take on my "standard operating procedure" doesn't hold much water.

And again, I have no problem if anyone wants to protest. I do have a problem with two of these people actively preventing another person of their own party from participating. Protesting through coercion just isn't really a protest now is it? Because you see, the only person being coerced was the guy being held down, not the people standing up.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Um, how do you know that the video has "absolutely nothing to do with them being opposed to saying the Pledge of Allegiance under normal circumstances"? Can you provide the evidence for this? Otherwise your take on my "standard operating procedure" doesn't hold much water.

You want evidence of something that is plainly obvious from the very video you posted and the idiotic attempts of right wing politicians, pundits, and bloggers to paint this primarily as an act of disrespect to the symbolism of the flag when it was just an incidental part of a larger protest where they were taking no part in ANY activities of the session?

If the New York State Senate Democrats were always opposed to saying the Pledge then not saying it on this particular day wouldn't be abnormal at all, would it? Why is it only a problem on this one day then? Don't you think the right wing blogs would have caught on earlier and said something if this was typical for them? No, because it doesn't have anything to do with refusing to say the Pledge under normal circumstances.

Now watch me as I violate your face in a completely non-sexually phrased way:

SENATOR GOLDEN STATEMENT ON FAILURE OF DEMOCRATS TO RECITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN STATE SENATE CHAMBER

Posted by Martin J. Golden on Wednesday, June 24th, 2009
Share This:

Albany- State Senator Martin J. Golden (R-C-I, Brooklyn) today is issuing a statement in response to the failure of all of New York’s Democratic State Senators to join their Republican colleagues in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of yesterday’s special session.

Senator Marty Golden stated, “I was shocked that with all 62 State Senators in the historic Senate chamber, only 31 Republican members stood up and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. It is the normal order of business for the New York State Senate at the start of each day of session and, for elected officials to dismiss their civic duty, is by far one of the most unpatriotic acts I have ever witnessed.”

Link

Oh, look at that, it's the normal order of business for all State Senators; Democrat and Republican, to recite the Pledge. Which is precisely why their opponents are making such a big deal out of it this time even though it's just a stupid tangent to the real issue designed to make an easy appeal to their base - which is people who think flag pins and pledges are more important than actual deeds - for outrage.

And again, I have no problem if anyone wants to protest. I do have a problem with two of these people actively preventing another person of their own party from participating. Protesting through coercion just isn't really a protest now is it? Because you see, the only person being coerced was the guy being held down, not the people standing up.

Held down? Oh noes, they lightly tugged on his jacket to remind him that they were sitting this one out, and he did so completely on his own. It's like his own personal tiger cage in Vietnam.

He was obviously the dingleberry who would unwittingly remain standing in place while everyone else took a step back when asked to volunteer for a dangerous mission. Or that one idiot on the Jets that doesn't know when to spontaneously break out into song and dance numbers before a rumble.