Is it disrespectful to sit during the Pledge?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yep, here:

The U.S. Supreme Court said this back in 1943, in the landmark case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. As Cornell Law School points out, the decision hinged on the idea that any state action making it compulsory for public school children to salute the flag and pledge allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

In his court opinion, Justice Robert Jackson offered this kernel of wisdom:

“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.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Vi ... ._Barnette

[Satuga]

Well apparently, the old US of A think otherwise.

I was under the impression that SCOTUS ruled several years ago that if you object to say or stand during the pledge, you have that right and can’t be forced by school authorities to do anything.

Which is exactly true because it's a violation of the 1st amendment.

[Kernen]

Well apparently, the old US of A think otherwise.

I was under the impression that SCOTUS ruled several years ago that if you object to say or stand during the pledge, you have that right and can’t be forced by school authorities to do anything.

The paradigm is itself the issue. That this is a thing that is so rote that nobody questioned the idea that not participating was itself punishable shows that the entire concept has been unfortunately normalized. Daily mass loyalty oaths shouldn't have been commonplace in the first instance.

[Kernen]

Let's not pretend that there are never consequences for not standing, since there were Supreme Court cases on exactly this.

Yes there have been schools that attempted to force students to stand which is in fact illegal, but you should never just assume your school is going to do that just because a few other schools did.

You should always assume those in power are looking to step on you. It's better to be surprised by their benevolence than surprised by their malice.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I was under the impression that SCOTUS ruled several years ago that if you object to say or stand during the pledge, you have that right and can’t be forced by school authorities to do anything.

Which is exactly true because it's a violation of the 1st amendment.

If I were in the position, I’d quote the 1943 case. You can’t be forced to stand or say the pledge if you have an objection to it.

[Satuga]

The paradigm is itself the issue. That this is a thing that is so rote that nobody questioned the idea that not participating was itself punishable shows that the entire concept has been unfortunately normalized. Daily mass loyalty oaths shouldn't have been commonplace in the first instance.

Maybe it wasn't an issue before because people were much more patriotic than they are now>

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The paradigm is itself the issue. That this is a thing that is so rote that nobody questioned the idea that not participating was itself punishable shows that the entire concept has been unfortunately normalized. Daily mass loyalty oaths shouldn't have been commonplace in the first instance.

Maybe it wasn't an issue before because people were much more patriotic than they are now>

Actually, the ruling is from 1943.

[Fahran]

But why then, should we be doing something that the Nazis themselves did and would support?

The Nazis supported a wide array of policies, including certain types social welfare and public works programs. Just because the Nazis did something doesn't make it a bad idea automatically. Hitler was vegan. That doesn't mean that all vegans are the epitome of evil.

Wouldn't you have something to say about it if you heard that German schoolchildren were forced to praise their nation and the values of the Nazi regime?

Praise their nation? No. Praise the Nazi regime? Yeah, because the Nazi regime was totalitarian and genocidal. If they were praising an indivisible republic with liberty and justice for all, I'd have no reason to complain.

Why is it different just because America is one of the "good guys"?

Because the fundamental values behind the pledge of allegiance are different.

[Harnandia]

Possibly a late jump on the bandwagon, but felt like throwing in my own two cents: No, it is not disrespectful, as it is purely subjective. The fact that kids are forced to pledge the allegiance in some schools in the first place seems far more disrespectful to me, as it goes against basic freedom of choice (not to mention it is very much reminiscent of brainwashing, forcing people to blindly follow the pledge, instead of teaching young people to think for themselves, forming their own opinions and always QUESTIONING the world around them).
But to further scrutinize the act of sitting during the pledge-it is a right that the soldiers during their time fought for. People should have the right to express their ideas in whatever context they feel expressing themselves.

[Kernen]

The paradigm is itself the issue. That this is a thing that is so rote that nobody questioned the idea that not participating was itself punishable shows that the entire concept has been unfortunately normalized. Daily mass loyalty oaths shouldn't have been commonplace in the first instance.

Maybe it wasn't an issue before because people were much more patriotic than they are now>

That shouldn't matter. If a state cannot induce loyalty without compelling it, the state doesn't deserve loyalty.

[Satuga]

Yes there have been schools that attempted to force students to stand which is in fact illegal, but you should never just assume your school is going to do that just because a few other schools did.

You should always assume those in power are looking to step on you. It's better to be surprised by their benevolence than surprised by their malice.

But how are you going to test their benevolence if you continue to do the same thing and never actually change to see how they'd react?

[Fahran]

In which you can, but don't expect to be clapped at when you do.

Who's expecting to be clapped at?

"Please clap."

[Salandriagado]

The paradigm is itself the issue. That this is a thing that is so rote that nobody questioned the idea that not participating was itself punishable shows that the entire concept has been unfortunately normalized. Daily mass loyalty oaths shouldn't have been commonplace in the first instance.

Maybe it wasn't an issue before because people were much more patriotic than they are now>

Yeah, no.

[Kernen]

You should always assume those in power are looking to step on you. It's better to be surprised by their benevolence than surprised by their malice.

But how are you going to test their benevolence if you continue to do the same thing and never actually change to see how they'd react?

I'm not trying to test their benevolence. I'm trying to live as I please without interference. If I am not stopped, there's no reason to change. But there is also no reason to trust.

[Satuga]

Maybe it wasn't an issue before because people were much more patriotic than they are now>

That shouldn't matter. If a state cannot induce loyalty without compelling it, the state doesn't deserve loyalty.

However it's not compelling it anymore is it? As it is in fact illegal to force it, so if people are getting angry that doesn't mean the state is forcing it, it means people have a different opinion.

[Fahran]

But how are you going to test their benevolence if you continue to do the same thing and never actually change to see how they'd react?

I'm not trying to test their benevolence. I'm trying to live as I please without interference. If I am not stopped, there's no reason to change. But there is also no reason to trust.

Do you hold allegiance to the United States?

[Satuga]

But how are you going to test their benevolence if you continue to do the same thing and never actually change to see how they'd react?

I'm not trying to test their benevolence. I'm trying to live as I please without interference. If I am not stopped, there's no reason to change. But there is also no reason to trust.

What was the point of the benevolence or malice then? Cause it seems to me you're all over the place with your points, if you never change neither will the environment that is effected by said change, if no one ever came out as homosexual do you think the homosexual movement would have occurred? There can not be a change without and effect.

[Kernen]

I'm not trying to test their benevolence. I'm trying to live as I please without interference. If I am not stopped, there's no reason to change. But there is also no reason to trust.

Do you hold allegiance to the United States?

I hold no personal allegiance to any government.

That shouldn't matter. If a state cannot induce loyalty without compelling it, the state doesn't deserve loyalty.

However it's not compelling it anymore is it? As it is in fact illegal to force it, so if people are getting angry that doesn't mean the state is forcing it, it means people have a different opinion.

Then there's no need for a daily institutional rendition on school, is there?

[Kernen]

I'm not trying to test their benevolence. I'm trying to live as I please without interference. If I am not stopped, there's no reason to change. But there is also no reason to trust.

What was the point of the benevolence or malice then? Cause it seems to me you're all over the place with your points, if you never change neither will the environment that is effected by said change, if no one ever came out as homosexual do you think the homosexual movement would have occurred? There can not be a change without and effect.

I have little understanding for why schools feel a need to be malicious in their use of power. I think you've a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument.

[Satuga]

Then there's no need for a daily institutional rendition on school, is there?

And what of those who do those daily recites? Do they not get to now?

[Kernen]

Then there's no need for a daily institutional rendition on school, is there?

And what of those who do those daily recites? Do they not get to now?

They get to do it on their own time. Just like they get to for prayers.

[Satuga]

I think you've a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument.

I think this goes both ways.

[Satuga]

And what of those who do those daily recites? Do they not get to now?

They get to do it on their own time. Just like they get to for prayers.

Why should the majority of people be forced to change their schedule for the few who don't want to do it?

[The Rich Port]

Aren't American soldiers fighting for our right to free speech?

They should be proud when people rebel.

Besides, Star Spangled Banner is a shit national anthem.

Should be the Battle Hymn of the Republic or Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom.

Or at least play Jimi Hendrix's version of the Star Spangled Banner.

American soldiers fight for the interests of the state, primarily resources.

Everything else is secondary.

Wow. Way to shit on the mission of literally every single branch of the armed forces of America for a stupid argument.

And... Why the FUCK should we respect that pledge, then?

Fuck the resources and fuck the Corporate Armed Forces.

[Kernen]

I think you've a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument.

I think this goes both ways.

No, I got yours locked in. You seem to think there's no harm to opting out of a mandated oath. I'm arguing several points:

1. One should always be suspicious is of those in power, because those in power dont have your best interests at heart;

2. The paradigm of the oath being the default and no oath being the exception is itself absurd, so there should be no oath, especially administered by schools for minors.