Jump to content

Boy removed from school and is under investigation by DHS for repelacing "USA" with "ISIS" in the Pledge of Allegence


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

TAT,

My son and I do not recite the pledge.  Not the most popular positon with his cub scout troop.

If more people took that stand it would eventually be dropped. So, fight the good fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Swordfish,

Then why are so many school children encouraged to recite it in class day after day after day?

Because some people seem passioniate about it.  Habit.  Tradition.  Probably some other reasons.

None of which changes the fact that i think it's pointless, so i'm not sure why you asked.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I've had people call me a coward and a traitor (on facebook so take it with a grain of salt) for refusing to recite the pledge.  People's attachment to an unqualified loyalty oath has perplexed me for some time.

Well...  yes.  As i said, i have no idea why some people are so passionate about it.

I also have no idea why some people feel so passionate against it, that they decide it's something that warrants taking a stand against.

But YMMV.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Unqualified oaths of loyalty to governments.  Yeah, that warrants taking a stand in my opinion.

Utterly non binding and meaningless oaths,

What is the consequence of reciting the oath that you are trying to prevent?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The idea that reciting such things is a public good.

 

Fair enough.  i still don't get why this is a battle that needs to be fought.  It seems to me to be largely tilting at windmills, but as i said, YMMV.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I've had people call me a coward and a traitor (on facebook so take it with a grain of salt) for refusing to recite the pledge.  People's attachment to an unqualified loyalty oath has perplexed me for some time.

scot, erich fromm (and others of the frankfurt school) have the answer:
 

Quote

 

What do we mean by “authoritarian personality”? We usually see a clear difference between the individual who wants to rule, control, or restrain others and the individual who tends to submit, obey, or to be humiliated. To use a somewhat friendlier term, we might talk of the leader and his followers. As natural as the difference between the ruling and the ruled might — in many ways — be, we also have to admit that these two types, or as we can also say, these two forms of authoritarian personality are actually tightly bound together.

What they have in common, what defines the essence of the authoritarian personality is an inability: the inability to rely on one’s self, to be independent, to put it in other words: to endure freedom.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The pledge was written as an assignment from the owner of the Youth’s Companion to a socialist minister, Francis Bellamy.  In context, at the time it was written, the Civil War had ended a mere 30 years prior, and the owner of the youth magazine was into patriotism and national unity, which is very right-winged now, but at the time, was most likely a rather liberal stance.  The 1892 version that Bellamy wrote began, “I pledge allegiance to my flag.”  The “my” was eventually dropped in 1923  because the thought was the flood of immigrants to the US would be pledging loyalty to the flag of their country of origin.  Eisenhower added the “under God” mess, and thankfully, the Bellamy salute that looked almost exactly like the Heil Hitler salute was dropped too.  

The writing of the pledge and the changes thereto make sense when viewed in historical context.   Present day, the Supreme Court has already ruled that school children cannot be made to recite the pledge or punished for failing to do so.  So, Scot, you know there is no need to recite the pledge if you don’t want to.  I’m certain there are social constraints that make it difficult or strange for you not to do it, but that is more difficult to police.  (There is an internal inconsistency with your reciting the Boy Scout Oath with its duty to country and God and not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance as Nestor deftly noted, but we all harbor inharmonious thoughts, I suspect.) 

As for the kid who inserted ISIS, calling the police, given our own historical context, may have been correct, or it may have been an overreaction.  That is difficult to gauge, and no one wants to be the idiot who does not alert authorities when a kid does that and then bombs the place.  Kids certainly do have all sorts of fun with the words of the pledge, and perhaps he was joking.  Not too smart of him to do, but the police acted appropriately at least.   

As for the pledge itself, “pledging” is somewhat strange and certainly not my favorite part of what was written. I prefer the 1892 version with "my flag" and no "under God" if one feels compelled to pledge.  I did always like the end of the pledge best—liberty and justice for all.  That idea, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The historical information is actually quite interesting, thanks for that. :)

But in what sense may it have been correct to call the police? Was a crime being committed? Was someone in danger? I really can't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, mormont said:

The historical information is actually quite interesting, thanks for that. :)

But in what sense may it have been correct to call the police? Was a crime being committed? Was someone in danger? I really can't see it.

Was it a crime?  Debatable.  At play are the competing ideas of the right to free speech under the First Amendment versus the somewhat scary and overreaching auspices of the Department of Homeland Security.  

The teacher and principal made a judgment call.  Most likely because of liability and terrorism fears, they felt their actions were warranted.  Other teachers would have spoken to the kid during or after class or would have sent the kid to the principal's office; these are also judgment calls.   

Imo, of interest in this story are the fact that some of the kid's classmates clearly heard him reference "ISIS" during the pledge.  You can well imagine then the flip side of this tale:  Classmates who heard the reference go home and tell parents about the incident; parents inquire as to what was done; classmates say kid was sent to the principal's office; parents are outraged by the lack of protection being provided by the school, threaten local school board and/or file suit.

Also, and perhaps most significantly, the kid has not been allowed to rejoin classes, and instead is being taught in a Board of Education Annex building.  The police determined there was no danger, but the federal officials declined comment.  Is the Department of Homeland Security still investigating this kid?  If not, they should so state, and then perhaps the kid would be allowed to return to class.  This kid's being in the limbo of DHS' declining to comment disturbs me the most.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far as I know, it's not in any way debatable. It's not a crime to do this. If you disagree, can you explain exactly what that crime might be, instead of making vague references to the Department of Homeland Security?

Any parent who was outraged that the kid was 'only' dealt with internally is, to be blunt, being stupid. If the justification for the school calling the police is to cover themselves against possible parental stupidity, that's simply not a justification. It's not a valid reason to call the police. In fact, it sounds like wasting police time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ravenhair,

 

Quote

(There is an internal inconsistency with your reciting the Boy Scout Oath with its duty to country and God and not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance as Nestor deftly noted, but we all harbor inharmonious thoughts, I suspect.)

I do see you and Nestor's point on that.  However, I think there is a qualitative difference between "pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic" in an unqualified fashion and promising "to do my duty to God and my Country".  The first, to me, is external allowing the government (the Republic) to determine what that allegiance means while the second, to me, is internal allowing the person making the promise to determine what their duty is.  Therefore, to me, I do not see an inconsistency.  If you see that differently, so be it.  

I still think the pledge is an unqualified loyalty oath and that this school overreacted badly to what was probably a joke in very poor taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...