Pledge of Allegiance in Virginia

[Pah]

Complete article from Fredericksburg's Free Lance-Star

Pledge policy changed

Spotsylvania overhauls policy on Pledge of Allegiance; Cole bill would force protesting students to get parents' consent before they sit it out

By BILL FREEHLING

Date published: 1/11/2005

The Spotsylvania School Board changed its policy on the Pledge of Allegiance last night, allowing students who object to sit through the daily recitation.

But a bill introduced in the General Assembly yesterday by Del. Mark Cole, R-Spotsylvania, would force students under the age of 18 to get parental consent if they want to sit out the pledge or not recite its words.

Gabriel Allen, a 12-year-old seventh-grader at Ni River Middle School, is at the center of the dispute. Gabriel disagrees with many U.S. government policies, and he doesn't want to pledge allegiance to a flag he thinks represents the administration.

Spotsylvania's policy, adopted in July 2002, required all students to stand and salute the flag for the pledge, although they didn't have to recite the words.

The School Board voted 6-0 last night to allow objecting students to sit--a policy consistent with state law. It was the second time they'd voted to make the change, meaning the policy now takes effect.

Looks like I need another letter to my state representation

Bob

 

[Valjean]

Just another step in the US' descent into facsism. Mandatory loyalty oaths.

 

[lilithu]

Just another step in the US' descent into facsism. Mandatory loyalty oaths.

Children under 18 have NEVER enjoyed the full range of liberties that adults enjoy. Not saying this is right or wrong; it's just the case.

I see this whole thing as another step in the US' descent into extreme individualism. Of course we have the right to not say the pledge, just as we have the right to burn the flag, and I would never move to take that right away. But that doesn't mean that I respect anyone who exercises their free speech in either of those ways. Everything's about "me me me me," instead of "what can I do to help my country to truly live up to the ideals that it espouses?" We think that we deserve rights with no responsibilities.

 

[Pah]

Would it not be a responsibility to respect another's freedom of expression?

Bob

 

[lilithu]

Would it not be a responsibility to respect another's freedom of expression?

As I said, I would never move to censor or coerce. Are you suggesting that beyond that I have to personally hold everyone's choices in equal esteem? I don't think so.

 

[Pah]

As I said, I would never move to censor or coerce. Are you suggesting that beyond that I have to personally hold everyone's choices in equal esteem? I don't think so.

I'm thinking of respect in a broader sense than esteem. I personally don't like some opinions proclaiming pedophilia but I respect the right to speak of it. We are probably more in agreement than the words we used seem to suggest.

Bob

 

[lilithu]

I'm thinking of respect in a broader sense than esteem. I personally don't like some opinions proclaiming pedophilia but I respect the right to speak of it. We are probably more in agreement than the words we used seem to suggest.

I think so too. We're tripping on the way I used the word "respect" in my first post. I have absolute respect for someone's right to free speech. That is sacred to me. But I don't always have respect for how someone chooses to use that right.

If the kid wants to sit out the pledge of allegiance, so be it. And personally I don't think he should have to get his parent's consent. But it makes me sad. There are much more constructive ways to respond if he's unhappy with the way that his country is handling itself right now. Responses focused on community and service rather then empty individual expression.

 

[retrorich]

Why does ANYONE need to recite a pledge of allegiance? Reminds me of Nazi Germany.

 

[Valjean]

My opinion exactly, retro.

 

[Mister Emu]

Why does ANYONE need to recite a pledge of allegiance?

Because them darn commies are out there.

We should investigate every child who won't say the pledge for communist ties.

 

[Pah]

If we can burn the American flag as a right of expression and we can force a "moment of silence" for religious expression to avoid the peer pressure for dissenting students, why do we require them to stay in the classroom and sit through others pledging allegiance? Why force the issue in the first place?

Bob?

 

[lilithu]

Why does ANYONE need to recite a pledge of allegiance? Reminds me of Nazi Germany.

Who said anything about need?

There is a huge amount of grey area between reciting a pledge to one's country and Nazi Germany. I just don't see why y'all think that it's such a terrible thing to make a commitment to one's community - to support the interests of something greater than oneself.

 

[Master Vigil]

"I just don't see why y'all think that it's such a terrible thing to make a commitment to one's community - to support the interests of something greater than oneself."

Because perhaps some people don't believe in god. Or they believe that if one were to support the interests of something greator than one's self, would be to overide the commitment to the country. Or just feel that it is unecessary. Personally, I wanted to do homework instead of saying the pledge of allegiance. I'd rather sit and read plato than say that. So I did, I sat. And if the teacher asked, I said I was jehovahs witness just to get me out of it.

 

[lilithu]

Because perhaps some people don't believe in god.

That's a whole nother issue. I think the "under God" part should be stripped from the pledge.

 

[Master Vigil]

I agree that the "under god" part should be taken out of it. But I for one would still not like to pledge allegiance to an inanimate object. And would rather pledge allegiance to the universe, not just one tiny small part of it. I just think it has become an obsolete ritual that is not needed anymore.

 

[lilithu]

But I for one would still not like to pledge allegiance to an inanimate object. And would rather pledge allegiance to the universe, not just one tiny small part of it

I don't see it as a pledge to an inanimate object. I see it as a pledge to the republic for which it stands. It's symbolic. And I don't think that making a commitment to the well-being of the community that is my country precludes me from also caring about the well-being of the community that is my world, or even my universe. Tho the whole universe thing becomes an abstraction. I'd rather focus on things on a more local level where my actions make a difference to real beings.

Think universally; act communally. something like that.

I just think it has become an obsolete ritual that is not needed anymore.

That's what it is if that's what you make of it.

 

[Pah]

My pledge was 20 years of my life in active duty and 5 more in civilian support of the Army in Europe. I love my country, I loved it then, and I love it now. But don't for one minute consider that a puny pledge is a continuence of that loyalty and patriotism. I'll stand to attention when others recite the pledge, when the National Anthem is played and when the flag goes passed but I will not salute unless I'm in uniform and I will not place my hand over my heart. That, my friends, is for civilians if they so choose to participate. My service was for the right to pledge and the right not to pledge and no government dictum should govern any of those that I protected.

Bob

 

[lilithu]

My pledge was 20 years of my life in active duty and 5 more in civilian support of the Army in Europe. I love my country, I loved it then, and I love it now. But don't for one minute consider that a puny pledge is a continuence of that loyalty and patriotism. I'll stand to attention when others recite the pledge, when the National Anthem is played and when the flag goes passed but I will not salute unless I'm in uniform and I will not place my hand over my heart. That, my friends, is for civilians if they so choose to participate. My service was for the right to pledge and the right not to pledge and no government dictum should govern any of those that I protected.

Bob

No argument with anything you said, pah. But may I ask why you won't salute/hand-over-heart? I'm not asking you out of judgement of which I would have no right anyway, just out of desire to understand your pov.

 

[Pah]

No argument with anything you said, pah. But may I ask why you won't salute/hand-over-heart? I'm not asking you out of judgement of which I would have no right anyway, just out of desire to understand your pov.

Salutes are rendered as a sign of respect and when reporting to a superior officer - that is accomplished only in uniform. Civilians use the hand over the heart as a salute and is inapporpiate for military members - I am still military with the status of inactive reserve. Should I become a member of a civilian/military organization (i.e., Veterans of Foriegn Wars) based on active duty service and wear military style headgear, I would salute as that would be in uniform.

Those are the rules as I understand them.

But maybe pride enters into it as well. I am special and not an ordinary citizen - I like knowing the difference. Not saluting and rigid attention (hands clinched along the seams of my trousers and my feet at a 45 degree angle, facing the music being played or the flag displayed) distinguishes me from those who have not served.

Bob

 

[Valjean]

A loyalty oath morally binds you to support the actions of an agent other than yourself. An agent that sometimes undertakes immoral, unjust or self-serving action.

When a German citizen recited the mandatory loyalty oath to the Leader, he abdicated his moral agency and right to resist the will of the agent he pledged loyalty to. If he were subsequently ordered to assist in the roundup and extermination of his Jewish neighbors it would have been immoral for him not to comply. Non-compliance would be oath-breaking, and if an oath is not considered sacred and inviolable it is a transparent sham and a vain self-serving display.

Of course, it would also have been immoral for Hans Citizen to comply with such an order as well, a self-made Hobson's choice.

The pledge of allegiance is a formal declaration of moral abdication. It puts the pledger in a dangerous moral position, inasmuch as one cannot voluntarily, "in the eyes of God," divorce oneself of individual responsibility for one's actions. Still, it morally binds one to the whims of whomever one swore allegiance to. He's "damned if he does and damned if he doesn't".

Why would anyone want to encourage their children to become amoral tools of a government who's primary interest is to maintain and increase its power, influence and wealth?