Students forced to recite Pledge of Allegiance, VA

[Metania]

They did this pledge BS at my elementary school. I just mumbled gibberish instead. Fooled 'em over 200 times, nobody ever caught on. Issue solved.

[Newmanistan]

I agree.... but if the courts ruled against the parents who have legal standing, how will they most likely rule on a minor whose parents have stated that they want their kid to recite the allegiance.

Anyway he could try and go and assert his rights.

Sure he could go ahead and try it out. I'm sure the school and state of VA in general have already had a team of legal eagles on this though, but you could fight it out. That's part of what America great; ironically, that American the OP says he hates and does not respect.

To me, it seems like the school has covered their bases here, but you never know. Thanks to that flag the OP won't salute, you have this measure of action to take.

Gotta love that irony.

Therefore it is NOT A PRECEDENT to what the facts would be in this case, which continues to be my argument.

The point is, it's not true under law that pre-18 individuals have no rights.

I was being a bit witty when I said they have NO rights. Took to me too literally, but that's my bad since this is a thread themed on literal interpretations. Obviously they have some.

[Offenheim]

As many people have already said, West Virginia vs. Barnette solved this in 1946. Any resistance to you deciding not to should fade away if you bring up the text of this. I know, I've personally gone through this situation, and Barnette is the case. The language of the decision makes it clear; mandatory enforcement of displays of patriotism is not patriotism.

I don't like the Pledge mainly because I think we already have a perfectly good Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Also, what good is a pledge that has to be constantly repeated? Also, the writer of the pledge originally used this as the accompanying salute:



That's from 1941.

Then there's the issue of "under God", which is valid. Generally, on the whole, I think the pledge is about as effective as requiring people celebrate the Fourth of July; if you make patriotism mandatory and non-spontaneous, it's not really patriotism. To me, patriotism is standing up for your nation/country or its ideals when incentives are against you. That's why we refer to the American Revolutionaries as patriots. Or the participants in the Easter Rising as Irish patriots. Or Bolivar's revolutionaries as patriots, etc., etc.

You have the right to freedom of speech. Sometimes, saying nothing is speech.

[Allanea]

Also, the writer of the pledge originally used this as the accompanying salute:

So the Nazis stole the salute. What's your point?

[South Norwega]

Also, the writer of the pledge originally used this as the accompanying salute:

So the Nazis stole the salute. What's your point?

It's a modification of the Roman salute, anyway.

[Newmanistan]

however, no student can be compelled to recite the Pledge if he, his parent or legal guardian objects on religious, philosophical, or other grounds.

As I read that, the student's objection alone is sufficient, whatever the parent/guardian says.

I read it as both are required. The word OR is included between parent or legal guardian, NOT between he and his parent.

[Newmanistan]

As many people have already said, West Virginia vs. Barnette solved this in 1946.

As I'm reading it now, WV vs Barnette is dealing with punishment. The facts of the case by the OP does not mention punishment, punishments that included expulsions and prosecutions. The school has not attempted that, based on what he has said. Prosecutions are not at issue, therefore I can't see it as a direct precedent. Mentioned in court if he tried, sure, but I'm not seeing it as a complete & direct precedent.

[Seangoli]

I agree.... but if the courts ruled against the parents who have legal standing, how will they most likely rule on a minor whose parents have stated that they want their kid to recite the allegiance.

Anyway he could try and go and assert his rights.

Sure he could go ahead and try it out. I'm sure the school and state of VA in general have already had a team of legal eagles on this though, but you could fight it out. That's part of what America great; ironically, that American the OP says he hates and does not respect.

To me, it seems like the school has covered their bases here, but you never know. Thanks to that flag the OP won't salute, you have this measure of action to take.

Gotta love that irony.

The State? Absolutely, that's why the statute is worded as such. The school board? I doubt it. School board policy does not necessarily go through legal channels, and is not necessarily comprised of people with knowledge of the law. If this policy did, it likely would not have passed as it rather obviously impinges on an individuals civil rights(particularly towards speech). Likewise, a great deal of precedent is present against any form of compulsory speech in schools, and an immense amount of cases involving student's rights. As for the part about parental involvement, one cannot sign away the civil rights of another simply because they are their legal guardian, or parent. Once again, civil rights exist for everyone, regardless of age and condition, and it is very clear both in precedent and in intnet of the law that one cannot be denied civil liberties by any other person, particularly when pertaining to state organizations.

That said, he'd have a rather easy time if he contacted the ACLU I would imagine, and the school board's policy would be beat down and hard. Compulsion to speech, of any kind, is highly frowned upon, particularly in terms of schools.

Although I never spoke the pledge in High School due to it being rather counter-intuitive, and counter-productive given the fundamental principles of our country(and I am most certainly not referring just to "Under God"), I disagree with his reasons(Rather trivial, really). However, the beauty of civil liberties is that you don't need a good reason to practice them. Hell, you don't even need a reason at all. So the point on why he disagrees with the pledge is entirely moot, as the only thing that needs be adressed is the point of compulsion to say the pledge.

[North Calaveras]

LOL nationalist

Damn straight.

Seriously I can see objecting to saying a pledge that violates your personal beliefs in a deity, I'd further agree this country has made plenty of mistakes, but what I don't respect, what I disagree with are people who are young and snobbish, who never had to sweat and bleed, who are calling this country so goddamn awful.

If it's so awful, than leave it. Otherwise help try and change it.

This guy ^

[Seangoli]

As I read that, the student's objection alone is sufficient, whatever the parent/guardian says.

I read it as both are required. The word OR is included between parent or legal guardian, NOT between he and his parent.

Well, the problem is in grammar. Particularly in the fact that as written, that comma is just shorthand for "or", given the context of the sentence. I'm not even extrapolating, it's basic english.

The wording can be either
"he, his parent, or legal guardian"
OR
"he, his parent or legal guardian"

And the meaning is the same. Placing an extra comma there doesn't change the meaning of the sentence(And as I recall both are grammatically correct). If you read the entirety of the sentence, you would note that it would make not a damn like of sense if it meant that only his parent or legal guardian could decide on that. As worded, it should be rather clear that it refers to all three, equally. Not in conjunction, not one superceding another, but equally. Thus, if the student OR the parent OR the legal guardian can refrain the student from recitation. If one argues against this, then I gotta tell you, the entire fabric of the English language has apparently gone out the window, and one can just interpret it willy-nilly at a whim.

[Seangoli]

Damn straight.

Seriously I can see objecting to saying a pledge that violates your personal beliefs in a deity, I'd further agree this country has made plenty of mistakes, but what I don't respect, what I disagree with are people who are young and snobbish, who never had to sweat and bleed, who are calling this country so goddamn awful.

If it's so awful, than leave it. Otherwise help try and change it.

This guy ^

Look, the kid is a kid. His life is easy right now. However, he has the right to bitch and complain as much as he wants, and saying you should leave(although equally protected, and one has a right to say it) is going against the spirit of our nation, and the fundamental principles involved. I heavily disagree with that sentiment, as it violates the spirit of the First Amendment, and a long-standing historical tradition of not getting-the-fuck-out when you don't like where the country is headed. I agree, his views are rather slanted, and rather wrong in my eyes, however he has every right to say it in the end, and proclaiming he shouldn't be here violates what we should be protecting, upholding, and fighting for irregardless of belief.

[Apollonesia]

In the state of Virginia, students are required to stand and say the pledge unless they have an exemption from their parents. I am 17 and I not only disagree with the wording in the pledge of allegiance (one nation, under god); I also refuse to pledge my allegiance to the United States government. I find the laws and actions of this country appalling and heinous (particularly prohibition). My parents have refused to sign an exemption because they don't agree with my views.

I will not just stand up, I have dignity and a right to practice civil disobedience. I don't have any respect for the flag or this country, and I won't stand up for it. I suggest students in a similar predicament to sit down, don't give in just because people tell you to. Now I may be facing some sort of disciplinary action from the school for refusing to recite a pledge; it's the land of the free and home of the brave I suppose.

Here's an excerpt from the Virginia Senate Bill 1331:

Pledge of Allegiance. Requires (i) all students to be required to learn the Pledge of Allegiance and to demonstrate such knowledge and (ii) each school board to require the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in each classroom of the school division and to ensure that an American flag is in place in each classroom. Each school board must determine the appropriate time during the school day for the recitation of the Pledge. During the Pledge of Allegiance, students must either stand and recite the Pledge while facing the flag with their right hands over their hearts or in an appropriate salute if in uniform; however, no student can be compelled to recite the Pledge if he, his parent or legal guardian objects on religious, philosophical, or other grounds. Students who are thus exempt from reciting the Pledge must remain quietly standing or sitting at their desks while others recite the Pledge and must not make any display that disrupts or distracts others who are reciting the Pledge. School boards must provide appropriate accommodations for students who are unable to comply with these procedures due to disability. School board codes of conduct shall apply to disruptive behavior during the recitation of the Pledge in the same manner as provided for other circumstances of similar behavior. The Office of the Attorney General must intervene on behalf of local school boards and must provide legal defense of these provisions.

Here's a link to the full text.

I do apologize for the verbose nature of this post, but I felt that this community was the right place to share my plight.

I fucking hate your country, if it makes you feel better

Shouldn't be mandatory. Bloody nonsense.

[Newmanistan]

*snip(
The wording can be either
"he, his parent, or legal guardian"
OR
"he, his parent or legal guardian"

*snip*
If one argues against this, then I gotta tell you, the entire fabric of the English language has apparently gone out the window, and one can just interpret it willy-nilly at a whim.

The general gist of what you are saying is not applying here, in my opinion. When used in any statement, parent or legal guardian is always separated by an "or" because it refers to two entities which are different, though considered equals. Therefore, it is expected to be there.

Mathematical logic would be that 3 * 4 + 5 is expressed as 3 * (4 + 5).

[North Calaveras]

This guy ^

Look, the kid is a kid. His life is easy right now. However, he has the right to bitch and complain as much as he wants, and saying you should leave(although equally protected, and one has a right to say it) is going against the spirit of our nation, and the fundamental principles involved. I heavily disagree with that sentiment, as it violates the spirit of the First Amendment, and a long-standing historical tradition of not getting-the-fuck-out when you don't like where the country is headed. I agree, his views are rather slanted, and rather wrong in my eyes, however he has every right to say it in the end, and proclaiming he shouldn't be here violates what we should be protecting, upholding, and fighting for irregardless of belief.

I'm not concerned with his right to do it, I'm just looking at how stupid it is. People should at least show some kind of patriotism, its healthy. It's not to hard to just say the pledge of allegiance we are not asking them to march and salute our president ha.

[Laerod]

As I read that, the student's objection alone is sufficient, whatever the parent/guardian says.

I read it as both are required. The word OR is included between parent or legal guardian, NOT between he and his parent.

That's all fine and dandy but that's not how the English language works. If it was to be interpreted the way you read it, then it needs to say: "...he and either his parent or legal guardian..." The comma clearly indicates three parties with veto power.

[Newest Accord]

I don't believe in any god, but I still say the part about "one nation, under God". Why? Because it is an accurate statement. Something like ninety percent of USian citizens are Christians.

It should read "One nation; under the Sun" to be accurate.

"under God" was added in 1954.

[Apollonesia]

To Vesintor: I fucking hate your country, if it makes you feel better

Shouldn't be mandatory. Bloody nonsense. Plus, you need a parent's signature? Eh. If I were in a classroom in this situation, I'd stand quietly and do nothing else. What could they possibly do to you for not reciting the pledge? And what could they possibly do that you couldn't respond with "this consequence is completely inappropriate and unjustified. I disagree! You cannot make me recite the pledge! Argh!!!"

[Seangoli]

*snip(
The wording can be either
"he, his parent, or legal guardian"
OR
"he, his parent or legal guardian"

*snip*
If one argues against this, then I gotta tell you, the entire fabric of the English language has apparently gone out the window, and one can just interpret it willy-nilly at a whim.

The general gist of what you are saying is not applying here, in my opinion. When used in any statement, parent or legal guardian is always separated by an "or" because it refers to two entities which are different, though considered equals. Therefore, it is expected to be there.

Mathematical logic would be that 3 * 4 + 5 is expressed as 3 * (4 + 5).

Math is not grammar. Grammar is, well, idiotic.

Anywho, the exact sentence states:

"During the Pledge of Allegiance, students must either stand and recite the Pledge while facing the flag with their right hands over their hearts or in an appropriate salute if in uniform; however, no student can be compelled to recite the Pledge if he, his parent or legal guardian objects on religious, philosophical, or other grounds."

Taken the last part, as it is a seperate clause, states:

"however, no student can be compelled to recite the Pledge if he, his parent or legal guardian objects on religious, philosophical, or other grounds."

Now, let me ask you something right now. Parent and legal guardian refer to one entity, essentially, under your argument. Thus, if we were to remove "legal guardian" from the text, it would read this:

"however, no student can be compelled to recite the Pledge if he, his parent objects on religious, philosophical, or other grounds"

Can you please to me what "he, his parent objects on religious... ground." means? Because right now, there is no context as to what the comma refers to(And? Or? Nor?). The sentence is entirely meaningless if the comma does not mean "or". And frankly, if you are pulling for the comma meaning "and" then the original sentence is equally dumbfounding and essentially worthless.

Likewise, parent and legal guardian are not necessarily considered equals(However often times the parent is the legal guardian). The "or" refers to those individuals who are not the parent of the invidual, however are personally vested in the rights of the child.

Thus, the sentence, by all grammatical laws and such, reads, quite clearly:

"however, no student can be compelled to recite the Pledge if he "OR" his parent or legal guardian objects on religious, philosophical, or other grounds."

It is simply the way the English language functions.

[Seangoli]

I don't believe in any god, but I still say the part about "one nation, under God". Why? Because it is an accurate statement. Something like ninety percent of USian citizens are Christians.

It should read "One nation; under the Sun" to be accurate.

"under God" was added in 1954.

And where the hell does that come from? The original text of the Pledge had one not pledging under anything in the instance of "Under God".

However, now that I think about it, I think you may be joking.

[Seangoli]

I read it as both are required. The word OR is included between parent or legal guardian, NOT between he and his parent.

That's all fine and dandy but that's not how the English language works. If it was to be interpreted the way you read it, then it needs to say: "...he and either his parent or legal guardian..." The comma clearly indicates three parties with veto power.

I'm really quite curious as to where the idea that it is read differently comes from. Under the grammatical rules in such cases, when there is a comma it is refering to whichever conjunction is used. The comma that is present quite clearly indicates that there are at least three seperate clauses present, and the presence of the conjunction "or" indicates that the student, the parent or the legal guardian are each an individual clause.

That said, I'm waiting for someone to point out my bad grammar.

[The Archregimancy]

Here's an excerpt from the Virginia Senate Bill 1331:

Pledge of Allegiance. Requires (i) all students to be required to learn the Pledge of Allegiance and to demonstrate such knowledge and (ii) each school board to require the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in each classroom of the school division and to ensure that an American flag is in place in each classroom. Each school board must determine the appropriate time during the school day for the recitation of the Pledge. During the Pledge of Allegiance, students must either stand and recite the Pledge while facing the flag with their right hands over their hearts or in an appropriate salute if in uniform; however, no student can be compelled to recite the Pledge if he, his parent or legal guardian objects on religious, philosophical, or other grounds. Students who are thus exempt from reciting the Pledge must remain quietly standing or sitting at their desks while others recite the Pledge and must not make any display that disrupts or distracts others who are reciting the Pledge. School boards must provide appropriate accommodations for students who are unable to comply with these procedures due to disability. School board codes of conduct shall apply to disruptive behavior during the recitation of the Pledge in the same manner as provided for other circumstances of similar behavior. The Office of the Attorney General must intervene on behalf of local school boards and must provide legal defense of these provisions.

I find the highlighted section of the Virginia statute, particularly the underlined part, interesting for personal reasons.

Nearly 30 years ago, I had recently moved to the USA for the first time (from the UK), and attended a state high school in Maryland. We lived in the DC suburbs, in an area with a fairly heavy diplomatic presence (though we were not a diplomatic family). The Pledge of Allegiance was recited once a week. Since I wasn't a US citizen, I innocently decided that I was exempt from pledging allegiance to the flag of another country, and the first time this happened, I stayed in my seat.

The teacher - an otherwise popular chemistry teacher, if my memory's correct - screamed at me to stand up up for the pledge. I forget the precise content of the scream, but it was certainly made clear to me that I was to stand up and join in the pledge.

On subsequent occasions, I stood up and kept my arms by my side while remaining silent, and there were no further objections. I remember one of my fellow students bringing me the relevant Maryland state statute in support of my 'refusal' to stand. But in fact I hadn't meant to advance a political agenda by sitting down that first time - I just didn't realise that I would cause offence if, as a citizen of a foreign country, I remained seated while my fellow students were pledging allegiance to one of their own national symbols.

So I find it interesting that Virginia specifically allows its exempt students to sit. Though peer pressure being what it is, it would be a brave student who remained sitting unless perhaps it was very clear that they weren't a US citizen.

For what it's worth, I also had to sign up for selective service the second time I moved to the US, thereby putting me in the position of potentially being drafted (should the draft have been reactivated) into the armed forces of a country of which I wasn't a citizen, and to whose national symbols I by then refused on principle (simply because, stubbornly, there were those who would try to force me) to swear allegiance to.

[Innsmothe]

Here's an excerpt from the Virginia Senate Bill 1331:

I find the highlighted section of the Virginia statute, particularly the underlined part, interesting for personal reasons.

Nearly 30 years ago, I had recently moved to the USA for the first time (from the UK), and attended a state high school in Maryland. In the DC suburbs, in an area with a fairly heavy diplomatic presence (though we were not a diplomatic family). The Pledge of Allegiance was recited once a week. Since I wasn't a US citizen, I innocently decided that I was exempt from pledging allegiance to the flag of another country, and the first time this happened, I stayed in my seat.

The teacher - an otherwise popular chemistry teacher, if my memory's correct - screamed at me to stand up up for the pledge. I forget the precise content of the scream, but it was certainly made clear to me that I was to stand up and join in the pledge.

On subsequent occasions, I stood up and kept my arms by my side while remaining silent, and there were no further objections. I remember one of my fellow students bringing me the relevant Maryland state statute in support of my 'refusal' to stand. But in fact I hadn't meant to advance a political agenda by sitting down that first time - I just didn't realise that I would cause offence if, as a citizen of a foreign country, I remained seated while my fellow students were pledging allegiance to one of their own national symbols.

So I find it interesting that Virginia specifically allows its exempt students to sit. Though peer pressure being what it is, it would be a brave student who remained sitting unless perhaps it was very clear that they weren't a US citizen.

For what it's worth, I also had to sign up for selective service the second time I moved to the US, thereby putting me in the position of potentially being drafted (should the draft have been reactivated) into the armed forces of a country of which I wasn't a citizen, and to whose national symbols I by then refused on principle (simply because, stubbornly, there were those who would try to force me) to swear allegiance to.

Good on you arch, fight the Prussian School of student brainwashing!

[Autumn Wind]

students must either stand and recite the Pledge while facing the flag with their right hands over their hearts or in an appropriate salute if in uniform;

Did the writers of this bill just throw this in to be on the safe side?

How many highschoolers are authorized to wear military uniforms? Do boyscouts render military salutes or something?

[Laerod]

students must either stand and recite the Pledge while facing the flag with their right hands over their hearts or in an appropriate salute if in uniform;

Did the writers of this bill just throw this in to be on the safe side?

How many highschoolers are authorized to wear military uniforms? Do boyscouts render military salutes or something?

Boy Scouts and cubs do their respective salutes while in uniform, yes.

[Autumn Wind]

Ah.