Did anyone hear the call on WDWS this morning about the Boy Scouts that would not be allowed to recite the Pledge at an Urbana Park on Thursday ? The caller said the Urbana Park District said the Pledge would offend some people and the Park District had received some complaints. I tried to call the director of the District and was told she was in meetings all day today but she would return my call tomorrow. I will post any updates as I receive them. It's too bad that the Pledge of Allegiance offends some people, But that is the symbol of the United States. More often than not the people that can't stand to see anyone honor the Flag are the same ones that sneak into this country to reap the free health care and other give aways that Uncle Sam has so generously provided.
More often than not the people that can't stand to see anyone honor the Flag are the same ones that sneak into this country to reap the free health care and other give aways that Uncle Sam has so generously provided.
More often than not the people that feel the need to blatently make connections up to attack one of the hardest working groups in the country are the ones who like to torture kittens, stomp babies and post nonsense on the internet.
I can honestly say that I've NEVER seen a single illegal immigrant protest the honoring of the flag, while I have seen thousands of people refuse to say the pledge.
Personally, I think the pledge is crap. If anything, the revised pledge is a symbol for one of the LEAST democratic eras in the history of our nation.
Xian, while I find your post generally true. I did see protests televised from out west that showed illegal immigrants carrying the American flag flying upside down.
As far as a "few people complaining" it still gets down to the people in charge deciding to agree with those that maybe offended, rather then those in the majority that want to hear the pledge. So yes it would be a good idea to call the director and the board and see why they are choosing to offend the Boy Scouts.
Does the Park district control everything that is said and done on Park District property (public) or just speech when it has the word "God" included?
This reminds me of an incident at the Catholic school where my wife teaches. I draw no general conclusions from this, but it's funny in a "the pledge is crap" sort of way.
The faculty and kids recite the pledge of allegiance outside by the flag every day. One day during the pledge, my wife was standing next to a father of one of her students, He is an Australian national. When he saw what the children were doing he said "Fascists."
John
The "fascists" comment is dead on. My problem with the pledge is that the kids have no idea what they're saying, and it serves as a form of blind indoctrination. I remember when I first learned it in school - we spent a couple of weeks studying the words in the context of American history (as well as six-year-olds can). Even after that, I still didn't know what the hell I was saying, much less pledging, until I was older. Kids cannot distinguish a republic from a dictatorship, have no idea what "indivisible" means, and don't understand the symbolism behind the American flag.
Now that I fully understand what the pledge means, I have no problem saying it. But I don't think kids should just blindly recite some promise. Until they understand what they're saying, their recitation just dilutes the meaning of the pledge.
"Now that I fully understand what the pledge means, I have no problem saying it. But I don't think kids should just blindly recite some promise. Until they understand what they're saying, their recitation just dilutes the meaning of the pledge."
Nicely said. In addition, since those kids certainly know how to Google, we should encourage them to search on "pledge of allegiance mccarthy" to see where "under God" came from. OK, they could substitute "knights of columbus" for "mccarthy" and get mostly the same hits, but I was giving them a break since it's a Catholic school...
I learned the formula for calculating the volume of a sphere long before I had learned what "derivation" meant, let alone understood the difference between calculus and algebra were. Perhaps my teacher forcing us to recite that formula was pointless... perhaps I shouldn't have learned it until I had learned how the formula was derived and the importance of the mathematics that surrounded that derivation as well as its application in other questions.
Then again perhaps pledging allegience to the flag of one's nation is an important thing to recite in the realm of socializing children to have a dedication to their nation to promote working towards bettering it generally and towards bonding with their community even at the macro and micro-scopic level. And perhaps the ideals mentioned in it, with or without the god bit, are worth mentioning, even if the greater concept cannot yet be appreciated by a young mind. Perhaps it is worth mentioning in order to guide them to realize why those ideals are critical in our society... republican form of government, liberty, and justice, not for some, but for all.
But perhaps it is unwise to socialize children to idealize equality in nation that has known so much inequity. The last thing we'd want to do is encourage progress towards our ideals. *cough*
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Some call it "indoctrination", some call it "value education". The question just becomes which "values" we allow, and who gets to decide.
(Another great reason for school vouchers.)
This is becoming more interesting.
The pledge speaks to a number of worthy qualities for a nation -- unity, liberty, justice.
Fascism at its core is nationalism run amok.
Pledging allegiance to our flag is nothing if not a show of nationalism, yet we wouldn't relate that act to Mussolini's fascism. Kids need to reach a certain level of intellectual maturity before they can handle philosophical shades of grey, so we must exercise judgment when we introduce such concepts to them.
Glock makes an excellent point about having to learn some things by rote before you really understand them. The same kids in that Catholic school who were reciting the Pledge of Allegiance also recite prayers every day that may not make much sense to them. I grew up in that system, and although I have fallen way short of maintaining most of the religious principles I learned, I certainly appreciate all the basics, the building blocks both religious and secular, that formed the foundation of my ongoing education.
As a parent, I also understand the frequent necessity of explaining some facts or laying down some rules to those who don't really understand the underlying principles but would certainly engage in an exhausting Q & A nonetheless.
Nationalism alone is not fascist nor by itself necessarily bad. Extreme nationalism is almost always detrimental as we saw with fascism, but so is putting too much faith in government and entrusting the government with far too much power as we also saw with fascism. The pledge is inherently anti-fascist with its appeal to liberty as fascism promotes the idea that the government, through an elite body within the system, must guide its citizens, often harshly, as a parent would a child.
A simple pledge in support of the ideals of our nation that doesn't even jump into areas of national superiority and totally conflicts with the idea of fascist elitism hardly qualifies as fascist in any way shape or form.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
A simple pledge in support of the ideals of our nation that doesn't even jump into areas of national superiority and totally conflicts with the idea of fascist elitism hardly qualifies as fascist in any way shape or form.
My point was that the kids don't understand the meaning of the pledge, so the rote of saying it mirrors fascist pledges. Let's take a look at the Hitler Youth's pledge of allegiance:
"I promise to do my duty in love and loyalty to the Führer and our flag."
You're saying that little German kids pledging their allegiance to their flag and country, while wearing khaki uniforms and Hitler saluting, in no way resembles little American kids pledging their allegiance to their flag and country, while wearing khaki uniforms and putting their hand over their heart? Hell, just picture them doing it with a Bellamy salute!
I really hope you don't misunderstand my point: I'm not at all implying that Nazi Germany and the modern USA are similar in beliefs or practices, or that the HJ and BSA are similar entities. I just think that this indoctrinated nationalism closely mirrors methods employed by fascists only 60 years ago.
I'm also not making a Reductio ad Hitlerum "argument", nor an illogical Godwin's law. I hate those "arguments." I just think that impressing nationalism upon our youth is quite un-American.
since when do Aussies get to express an opinion? something's really wrong here when people can come from another country and express an opinion that's different from john bramfield's. it's unamerican!!!!
Glock:
I agree completely with your last post, as it also serves to illustrate my point even better than I had. Let's say the kids were 8-10 year olds. Would they understand the following:
"The pledge is inherently anti-fascist with its appeal to liberty as fascism promotes the idea that the government, through an elite body within the system, must guide its citizens, often harshly, as a parent would a child.
A simple pledge in support of the ideals of our nation that doesn't even jump into areas of national superiority and totally conflicts with the idea of fascist elitism hardly qualifies as fascist in any way shape or form."
If they don't understand this at face value, should we explain it to them? To what extent? Or do we simply expect them to recite the pledge until they are capable of understanding the issues you have so eloquently explained? I'm not making a judgment here; I don't know the answer.
Or do we simply expect them to recite the pledge until they are capable of understanding the issues you have so eloquently explained?
Yes. Why? Because we are building character, and instilling values. Before we got so hung up on being "nonjudgemental", this was not controversial.
Building character = reciting an advertising campaign daily?
RSWB:
Mine wasn't a rhetorical question, and I understand your answer up to a point. It isn't about being "non-judgmental" or PC for me, it's about what our role should be as parents or educators in helping these kids understand what they're reciting.
You answered my second question but not the first: When (if ever) should we make sure they understand the meaning behind the words? You would think the easy answer is "they learn it at school when they're old enough to understand." Do they? Maybe we need a curriculum consult from Xian or TeacherMan.
I personally think they should be getting educated on our system of gov't as part of social studies/civics/history every year. Illinois used to require the passing of a Constitution test before graduation from high school - that would be soon enough for me to verify they understand the meaning.
"You're saying that little German kids pledging their allegiance to their flag and country, while wearing khaki uniforms and Hitler saluting, in no way resembles little American kids pledging their allegiance to their flag and country, while wearing khaki uniforms and putting their hand over their heart? Hell, just picture them doing it with a Bellamy salute!"
I'm saying that our pledge espouses the ideals of our nation and our pledge affirms loyalty to those ideals regardless of who is in power (not very fascist), as opposed to simple loyalty to a government or to some authoritarian ruler of it. And the resemblence between the pledges is roughly equivalent to the uniforms... one pledge is authoritarian in nature, the other other one isn't... one uniform is military in nature, the other is simply a school uniform. The similarities in the pledges and oaths of the Hitler Youth quickly disappear beyond the simple pledge to the flag... where they were forced to recite their willingness to die for the cause, for Hitler, and their nation. In other words, all the parts that make it clearly fascist where their simple flag pledge did not.
"I'm not at all implying that Nazi Germany and the modern USA are similar in beliefs or practices..."
Nah, you're directly saying Nazi Germany and the modern USA have a similar practice. No implication required.
I'd argue that you are narrowing down the comparison to such a small part of the two cultures that it ignores a great deal of the context that makes them blatantly dissimilar. Even the the similar parts of the pledge cannot negate the fact that one espouses liberty and the ideals of our nation and loyalty to those ideals and nation without regard to those in power, and the other is simply a pledge to be loyal to and obey an authoritarian government. Extremely different at the core. As one widens the scope of the comparison... the clothes... military style uniforms versus traditional school dress... the additional Nazi loyalty oaths that truly get fascist in nature... the environment thereof, etc... the comparison just continues to fall more and more apart and there wasn't much to begin with.
I'm also not making a Reductio ad Hitlerum "argument", nor an illogical Godwin's law.
You're not?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
You're not?
If other Western countries regularly had their six-year-old children recite some pledge of allegiance, I would have used them as a comparison. However, they don't. As far as I know, the last examples of Western countries having something of this sort are fascists and communists. I figured the fascist comparison was more appropriate, since the pledge was written by a nationalist-socialist to sell flags and promote blind nationalism.
As for my narrowing the comparison, your analysis is flawed. My argument has never been that the USA wholly resembles Nazi Germany. An initial anecdote brought about the fascist comparison, and I commented on its validity for this activity. The government's (virtually forced) indoctrination of small children through the use of a pledge that speakes of allegiance and liberty is self-serving, hypocritical, and un-American. It mirrors the blind nationalism that caused two world wars, and we remain the only participant of those wars that clings to this practice. Accordingly, I think it should be stopped - I think it only detracts from our nation. Our international image is already that of a religious, self-centered, nationalist country, and this ritual only further distances us from our allies.
Our international image is already that of a religious, self-centered, nationalist country
Heaven forbid.
I am at a loss to understand the various complaints from the leftniks here that school age children are too young to understand the pledge. The assumption is also made that these same children are not also being introduced to basic concepts about this country in their history, geography and social studies classes at the same time. At least two of the naysayers are teachers. Maybe they are telling us something about themselves.
Children are too young to form their own values, so we form values for them. By rote they learn they cannot steal. They learn to be polite to their elders and each other. They learn to look before crossing by rote long before they fear death. They also learn to love and stick up for their family and friends long before they learn how important it is to do that.
At the same time, we teach them by rote, by example and through instruction to love and respect their country. I don't know whether to pity or run out of town those who equate this with fascism, nationalism and hypocrisy. I suppose pity will have to do, but one can hope these critics of the pledge will find the perfect country and move there on their own. It must be a really great place. Maybe I will move there too.
John
"It mirrors the blind nationalism that caused two world wars, and we remain the only participant of those wars that clings to this practice."
But it doesn't mirror the blind nationalism of other nations. The cults of personality and devotion to authoritarian governments that left the globe in ruins were not based on allegiances to liberty, but to the authoritarian governments of those nations. It was the extreme nationalist doctrines of those nations and their people that helped lead to those wars. Not some simple childhood pledge to the values of liberty and justice.
You seem to be conflating our pledge of allegiance with policies that go way beyond and necessarily conflict with our pledge. Where you see similarities I see only the tiniest bit of similarity that in context becomes irrelevant... they both had recitation of loyalty... but ours is different. The similarity isn't even that similar, especially in context. Even if there was a similarity that similarity alone does not lead one to the grand leap of believing that our pledge somehow is leading us down some dark path of global wars.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I originally posted this yesterday. I have talked to the Urbana Park District this afternoon. The Urbana and Champaign Park Districts had a meeting yesterday about this and they decided that the Pledge was not in the best interest of the kids in the " Pony" and the "Colt" leagues, the names of the youth baseball programs for the respective cities, the Boy Scouts and the American Legion asked if they could do the Pledge before a game Thursday in Urbana. I was told that the Urbana had an unnamed complaint about the request. I was also told this was done as not to disrupt the fun of the kids who were just playing baseball, The Districts will allow the Pledge to be done off Park property next to the ball park. I wonder just how long it will be before someone complains about the American flag flying at the ball park or for other flags flying on Urbana Park District buildings will become "offensive" to someone?? and Urbana will cave to the offended. Baseball "The Great American pastime" To those of us who still honor the Flag it is sad.
I figured the fascist comparison was more appropriate, since the pledge was written by a nationalist-socialist to sell flags and promote blind nationalism.
Actually, the pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist, so that would have been a more appropriate comparison.
The government's (virtually forced) indoctrination of small children through the use of a pledge...
There's nothing "virtually forced" about it. It's up to the schools to determine if they want to have their children recite this. When I grew up, I went to some schools that had a pledge, but most didn't. We never experienced any government clamp down.
...we remain the only participant of those wars that clings to this practice....Our international image is already that of a religious, self-centered, nationalist country...
I'm not really sure if we are the only ones to still have oaths and pledges used in everyday life, but if that's so, then it wouldn't surprise me. We are also the only Western country that can put several hundred thousand combat troops in the field, while the Europeans mostly sniff at our barbaric nationalist ways while blithly ignoring the fact that their defence depends on us. I don't think that our nationalism is completely unrelated to being able to defend ourselves, as well as a roster of other countries as well. Just because we're the only ones to do something doesn't make it wrong.
It is so unfortunate that so many of the discussions over here are degenerating into name-calling and concrete positions that will never be budged. Whatever happened to Peace, Love, and Understanding?
Yes, Illinois students have to pass Constitution tests at the middle and high school levels. In Urbana they are required to take an entire semester dedicated just to American government, which also covers state and local. So sure, they should know what a republic is.
In my classes I always take a day to have the kids write out the pledge and then interpret or explain each line. We do this together. They agree with most of it. I tell them they have a choice to say the pledge or not. They are not required by law to say the pledge, they are only required to be exposed to it and (maybe) stand. I am not sure about the standing part. I make my kids stand, but whatever.
You know the part the kids really don't agree with? "Liberty and justice for all". No matter how hard I have tried to explain that this is the ideal, they can only very rarely believe this is true. It might have something to do with the number of cops who roll by a black family having a picnic in the park versus the number of cops who don't roll by the 17 year old white girl's kegger party. I'm not sure.
For me, as a teacher, I am interested in helping my students to make choices. They should choose to say the pledge, or to not say it. Not because they're lazy, or they don't care, but because they have thought about the pledge and made a choice. It brings me as much satisfaction to see a kid fold his arms because he is opposed as it does to see a kid gladly recite the pledge because she is proud of her country and her flag.
No doubt raising critical thinkers is difficult. MUCH easier to raise kids to stay in line and recite things from rote memorization. But where's the fun in that? And, more importantly, is that really what the founders envisioned for the enlightened masses who hold the power in our democracy?
No doubt raising critical thinkers is difficult. MUCH easier to raise kids to stay in line and recite things from rote memorization
I don't have a problem with critical thinkers, but I think we should be cautious as to when we expect this to happen. Grade school kids need to learn the basics; they don't need to reinvent the wheel, nor should we let them waste their time trying to do so. Once they have obtained enough background knowledge and maturity, then they can be critical of the wisdom of their forefathers and teachers.
I think those that want to should call and complain. If they have had only one complaint, then my complaint should balance that one out and one more should fix the problem. These problems are so easy to fix.
My experience is that critical thinking is like language: it may be learned at any age, but Piaget the small sample-size fool aside, it's easier to learn the earlier one starts.
TM's strategy with the pledge is truly wonderful teaching. It models exactly what we should do with traditions and social institutions: teach about them and allow students to make their own choices. What could be more democratic?
The strategy that RSWB discusses I believe would damage children in majority and empowered populations, but only minimally and would work in many situations.
However, with minority populations, there is often a skepticism of government imposed "values"--especially those that appear to be hollow in their practice. To impose the pledge will often alienate members of those populations and divide the very population we are describing as "indivisible" in the pledge.
Anyone who would say "So?" probably doesn't care too much about liberty, nor justice, at least not for all...
I should clarify a bit.
I think there is a definite role for rote memorization in schools. It's not very sexy, but I think kids should have to memorize the states, oceans, continents, etc. Honestly, it's lots of fun to help kids memorize stuff. Little sing-songs and whatknot can be great fun and a good way to see tangible progress.
But memorization is only one piece of the puzzle, and it should be a small piece at that. I think a lot of teachers have almost completely done away with memorization and it is actually harmful to their students, especially the lower achieving kids. Memorization is really just a strategy for learning and we all do it all the time. Pretty tough to get through, say ... Anatomy 101 without busting out the old flashcards.
So there doesn't need to be a strong dichotomy between traditional learning and progressive learning. But should work together. In the case of the pledge, just the fact that the schools are required to recite the pledge is a tantalizing enough lesson right there. Instead of just having the kids stand and run through it, why not break it down and try to get to the bottom of the pros and cons of this kind of law? Once that has been done then let the kids decide.
In the case of the UPD's position, I have to say that it seems a little weird to have the pledge at a baseball game. The National Anthem? Sure. God Bless America? Why not? But the pledge just doesn't seem right for some reason. It's bad enough they have to deal with it EVERY DAY OF THEIR SCHOOL LIFE FROM K-12 in Illinois. Now they have to say it before they can play baseball? I don't know ...
Wait why isn't my complaint as important as the next persons?
Anyone else catch the piece on PBS about Jehovah's witnesses. It was interesting in general, but also had a long section on the treatment of JWs who wouldn't say the pledge during WWII.
"I am at a loss to understand the various complaints from the leftniks here that school age children are too young to understand the pledge. The assumption is also made that these same children are not also being introduced to basic concepts about this country in their history, geography and social studies classes at the same time."
The only thing school age children are old enough to understand is sex, which is why we need comprehensive sex education immediately for K-12. That takes care of multiplying, and reading and writing can wait until college.
They should start teaching kids how to roll good joints when they're in kindergarten.
Question: If I teach my kid both that one should not steal and why one should not steal, and then John's kid calls my kid a "leftnik" and steals his binder, should my kid make a sound?
Your kid should punch his kid.
This has got to be the strangest thread I've ever read on IP...it just keeps getting weirder and weirder.
Xian is not paying attention.
Your kid is too dumb to understand why he is not supposed to steal. Kids can't understand anything in grade school except rote memorization of the rules and, of course, blind patriotism to their nation which, btw, ensures "liberty and justice for all".
You can "explain" it like the Lefnik that you are (you Leftnik with all your "explanations" ...), but the kids is too dumb to know what you are talking about. We don't want thinkers, mister. We want PATRIOTS!
What if he's a pacifist leftnik? :P (Not that I'm a pacifist, but remember, my kid's going to have choices...)
The bottom line is that about half the commenters do not think patriotism is a worthy enough virtue to teach.
John
The bottom line is that about half the commenters do not think patriotism is a worthy enough virtue to teach.
Eh, a good portion of the American public are essentially fair-weather patriots. No flags, no voting, no patriotism until something bad happens (e.g., 9/11). Then those magnetic ribbons and bumper stickers come out of the woodwork. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate seeing the flag more often, but I think many of these people aren't patriotic, just chic.
Further, if patriotism means having our children daily pledge their allegiance to an invisible (sic) nation, or a nation under an invisible (sic) deity, then I don't think that it is a worth virtue.
I guess my main complaint is that our children are reciting a sales jingle, and not something that defines us as a nation. Let them learn and recite the Preamble or part of the Declaration. Those words define our nation and our values, and learning these founding words is far more important than learning a century-old advertising campaign. Once you learn and understand those, who wouldn't pledge allegiance to them?
Wonderful sentiments, Thought Police, but not very convincing. Those who don't like the pledge are not out there advocating for more education on the wonders of this country. Instead, we hear words like "fascist." I would be very impressed to hear you recant that earlier comment. I find it hard to believe you meant it. I think instead, it is something you learned by rote.
John
Obviously, some of those who don't like the pledge are advocating for more education. I'm also glad that this discussion never got into the whole "under God" fiasco it easily could have. I'm also surprised that wenalway didn't show up and call everyone that's ever seen a flag, knows the pledge, been to a baseball game, etc. a HSQD.
Hah, not at all rote. I just think it's a ritual we need to abandon - the days of indoctrinated nationalism have passed. Further, I refuse to recant the earlier comment - the entire ritual is far more fascist than American, and I stand by my comment.
None of us are going to agree on this issue, nor change any viewpoints, nor gain any insight. However, on the topic of patriotism and the flag, I'm curious what everyone thinks about the current Flag Code - most unconventional representations of the flag are patriotic and respectful, but violate proper Flag Code etiquette. Am I the only one that thinks the flag is more of a symbol than a piece of cloth meant to only be attached to a pole? Technically, the Flag Code explicitly describes two acceptable replicas on one's person: flag patches on uniforms (although, not on sports uniforms), and lapel pins. In my opinion, any tasteful display or representation of the flag should be allowable and encouraged.
I just think it's a ritual we need to abandon - the days of indoctrinated nationalism have passed.
In these days of amnesty for all, I think we need to do more to encourage the "melting pot", not less.
I stand by my comment
Well, you can take back your "fascist" comment or not, but since you said that you made it based on the fact that the writer of the pledge was a "national-socialist" (i.e. a Nazi) when he was in fact a socialist, I would think that you would want to take it back just for the sake of being correct. Why would a socialist write a fascist pledge? I know that many people believe that the extremes of right and left meet and have more in common than not, but shouldn't we then at least be arguing about the socialist pledge?
...the days of indoctrinated nationalism have passed.
Says you. The fact that children are still reciting the pledge by the millions seems to indicate that those days have certainly not passed, but rather that you wish that they would pass. And the fact that the children will probably continue to recite the pledge by the millions shows that most people don't agree with you. Anyway, "indoctrination" is one of those loaded words that can mean whatever you want it to - is taking your children to church indoctrinating them with your religious beliefs? Is teaching them to be respectful and tolerant of other people indoctrination? What about teaching them intolerance? It all depands on where you stand - I am providing a loving, fatherly hand of guidance to my children, while people that I disagree with are indocrinating their children with crazy leftnik ideas.
since you said that you made it based on the fact that the writer of the pledge was a "national-socialist" (i.e. a Nazi) when he was in fact a socialist
I made no such claim. I asserted that he was a nationalist-socialist, which he was. He was a socialist and a nationalist. A socialist that believed strongly in nationalism is far more closely associated with fascism than communism, as communism's ideology would be free of any nationalism.
Anyway, "indoctrination" is one of those loaded words that can mean whatever you want it to - is taking your children to church indoctrinating them with your religious beliefs? Is teaching them to be respectful and tolerant of other people indoctrination? What about teaching them intolerance? It all depands on where you stand - I am providing a loving, fatherly hand of guidance to my children, while people that I disagree with are indocrinating their children with crazy leftnik ideas.
All of your counter-examples involve the parents choosing how to raise their kids. I have absolutely no problem with that. I have a problem with the government trying to do it for them. Which is why I fully support school voucher programs - if anyone wanted to send their kids to a school that taught religion, recited the pledge, etc., they should be able to.
Which is why I fully support school voucher programs - if anyone wanted to send their kids to a school that taught religion, recited the pledge, etc., they should be able to.
Agreed. I don't think my kids and your kids could be taught in the same school to the satisfaction of both of us.
I don't think my kids and your kids could be taught in the same school to the satisfaction of both of us.
I think you're jumping to conclusions. I'm not left-wing nut - I just don't like forcing every kid to recite the pledge. I'd want mine to recite it, once I've thoroughly explained its meaning.
After reading your posts on another thread, I think you are probably right - I did jump to conclusions. My apologies.
Now me and Teacher Man, I think we have some deeper opposing views :-)
Mmm, maybe. But I'm just always curious where all these "voucher" schools are going to come from. This one recites the pledge but teaches evolution so you can't go there. That one teaches creationism but isn't sufficiently patriotic on Veteran's Day so you can't go there. How would a family ever decide?
All kidding aside, what about the point of this post? I wonder who on here is actually in favor of saying the pledge of allegiance before a baseball game? Again, it's not the national anthem, or another rendition of "God Bless America". It's the pledge of allegiance. Does that seem strange to anyone else?
I think the UPD is right on this one. The flag is still flying, the national anthem can be played over the intercom while the players put their hats over their hearts. Where's the beef?
Again, it's not the national anthem, or another rendition of "God Bless America". It's the pledge of allegiance. Does that seem strange to anyone else?
yeah, it seems strange to me too. I just don't like the park district, based on the complaint of 1 person, outlawing it.
I made no such claim. I asserted that he was a nationalist-socialist...
I stand corrected, and hereby retract my comment that you thought that Francis Bellamy was a national-socialist (Nazi), as opposed to a nationalist-socialist (a socialist who was a very patriotic American).
For the record, the Nazis have been referred to as national socialists, national-socialists, nationalist-socialists, and most other possible combinations of those two words.
Well, I was waitin for the appropriate time and place for this revolutionary idea, perhaps its time has come.
Ever since the Chief was removed from Fighting Illini sports I have been thinking, what can be done to improve on the half time events that would appease everyone and possibly be even better.
It hit me one day, like a ton of bricks. Seriously!
Memorial Stadium is getting a monumental makeover and this would be the perfect time to rededicate the stadium to those who have died and will die fighting for our country as was in its charter dedication. Hence FIGHTING ILLINI!
Here is my vision--half time comes and the band kicks into "America The Beautiful' as a color guard with reinactors from all the major wars escort the flag out to the fifty yard line. The announcer gives a tribute to the men and women who have given their very lives through service and we rededicate the stadium to these patriots.
At this point those who would like to rededicate themselves to the country can join in "The Pledge of Allegiance". Would that not be the most awesome half time event to be repeated every game at Memorial stadium and the Assembly hall. A place where Fighting Illini is taken with the greatest respect and loyalty to country is worn on our sleeve. (flag patches)
This part might be controversial. Imagine if the band kicked in with "Hail to the Chief" and the President of the United States made some type of showing, perhaps in person, perhaps on the Jumbotron for the offical dedication. I'm sure he could talk about the "three in one" as he is such a good Christian as well.
Then as the color gaurd exits "God Bless America" to conclude the half time event.
Imagine the publicity the U of I would get from this. Every red white and blue chip player in America would be drawn in as well, I'd sure want my kids going to that progressive institution. The money would role in, all the pro Chief folks would be on board.
Kids would not have to take part either, it would be all ellective, if you did'nt like it go take a ..... or get a coke.
Seems like a reasonable idea. Kinda Radical in that the left would just go nuts, but really it is dedicated to those who died fighting for our country, the least you could do is recite the Pledge showing support for there ultimate support of your country.
God Bless you all. On a personal note, if you think reciting the pledge is innapropriate, your a moron from my perspective and oughta take a long hike, hope you can walk on water.
your a moron from my perspective
Nice.
Ok folks I started this thread and glad to see such a response to it, This was originally about the pledge of Allegiance but it has evolved into much more. The one thing I tried to get through is that the Flag is a symbol of Our Country and should be respected, If you do not agree that is your right, it's also my right to honor it. I don't go bananas when I hear of the Kansas City Airport installing some foot washing sinks for the Muslim cab drivers out there, or the Muslim cabbie who wont pick up people that have been drinking or blind people with seeing eye dogs because they "The Muslims" don't like dogs, or pork or anything else that "Offends" these minority groups, What offends me is that a small group can make policy for the majority, The Chief issue, the smoking ban, the single Jew that complained about the Christmas tree in a U of dorm a few years ago, the list goes on and on. I'm all for people doing their own thing but it seems to me that the this political correctness has gotten out of control. You can burn my flag or piss on my bible but if someone says something a minority does not like or agree with your ass is grass. Think about the flag this Memorial Day and all the brave Americans that have died fighting for the right for you to basically do and say what ever you want in this country. If you think I'm wrong look at what happens in Iraq if you criticize the leadership, you get you head on a platter. I'm not singling the Muslims out just using them as an example. If this offends you please feel free to use the minority of your choice.
Wow. That is some comment.
This might be helpful since you seem to have a bit of ... um ... animosity toward Muslims:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=329
Have a great day! I'm off to burn another flag and piss on another Bible. Good times!
"You can burn my flag or piss on my bible but if someone says something a minority does not like or agree with your ass is grass...
If you think I'm wrong look at what happens in Iraq if you criticize the leadership, you get you head on a platter... I'm not singling the Muslims out just using them as an example. If this offends you please feel free to use the minority of your choice."
Gregg,
This is really unnecessary. Way, way over the top.
Wonderful sentiments, Thought Police, but not very convincing. Those who don't like the pledge are not out there advocating for more education on the wonders of this country. Instead, we hear words like "fascist." I would be very impressed to hear you recant that earlier comment. I find it hard to believe you meant it. I think instead, it is something you learned by rote.
Yes, yes, all of the people in this thread who don't like the pledge are not "out there" advocating for more education on the wonders of this country. We are in our classrooms educating on the wonders of this country. Or we are engaged in community activism on the wonders of this country. Or wait, maybe we are advocating for more investigation of the democratic process instead of NCLB testing based instruction in our classrooms.
Oh sorry, I forgot that democratic process doesn't count as a "wonder of our country".
I would be very impressed to hear you recant this earlier comment. I find it hard to believe you meant it.
Thanks, John--there's little more entertaining than unintentional comedy.
From Gregg:
If you think I'm wrong look at what happens in Iraq if you criticize the leadership, you get you head on a platter...
Hey, aren't WE the ones who installed the leadership in Iraq?
I don't understand: Who has told you to "shut up and take it"?
I said that I don't like the pledge, which I hope is still my right to say. Then I supported why by referring to its linkage to a shameful time in the nation's history. (I assumed that people didn't think that blacklisting people for their political ideology was a good thing). Then I pointed people to the treatment of JWs who refused to say the pledge.
I gave my opinion and supported it with evidence. I linked my position to what I would hope everyone here would see as good American values.
Meanwhile, I was told that anyone who doesn't honor the flag or pledge is an illegal immigrant, anti-education, a leftnik, and worst of all, a minority. Finally, we got the typical, whining, and unlinked to reality, "the majority are the victims" card.
I'm sorry, it seems perfectly reasonable that you be questioned when your opinion is unsupported. The fact that some feel that their position is great simply because it exists is a wonderful instructive example of privilege-in-action.
This thread seemed to get a bit heated. Probably understandable as the subject revolves around devotion to liberty... a passionate subject for sure.
Both sides appear to be equally convinced that they are supporting liberty better by either encouraging the recitation of the pledge or discouraging it in certain circumstances. One side encourages it because the pledge itself is also to liberty and thus considers it aiding liberty under certain circumstances. The other side discourages it because they believe it indoctrinates children before they have the capability to come to such an allegiance of their own free will, thus detrimental to liberty under certain circumstances.
And this was spawned from a dispute over whether or not one group could be allowed to recite it at public sports event in light of a complaint. Both sides seem to think the other side is acting to the detriment of liberty... which of course ruffles feathers since both sides appear to be of the belief that they are in fact the ones helping defend it.
Personally in the example at hand, I'd say restricting the Boy Scouts from reciting the pledge seems to be restricting a freedom that harms no one at the particular venue. Under these particular circumstances, I cannot see how limiting their actions helps liberty. If someone is offended by it, I would encourage them to exercise their right and liberties to speak out against it.
The further examples expanding the debate into schools seems to be making things a bit messy at the moment, a lot more social, governmental, and civil liberty related issues suddenly compound the debate. Could we all at least agree that in the defense of liberty, the Boy Scouts should have the ability to express themselves and recite the pledge even though it may offend someone who equally has the ability to freely express their discontent with their actions but suffers no actual emotional, financial, or physical harm?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Thank you Glock 21, I started this thread, I agree with you, let the Scouts and the American Legion do their thing, and if someone is offended that too is their right, What is the old saying ? "I don't agree with what a person says, But I will defend your right to say it". I would also suspect, but I can't prove it that the person who complained had no intention of attending the game. There are things that offend me too and if I don't like something I try to avoid it.
Sure. I can definitely agree with that. I can think that the pledge is no good, and that it's strange to say it at that time, but certainly poor, and strange speech should be protected.
I do hope that everyone can agree in advance that if someone chooses to butcher the pledge or the flag at the same venue or simply explain the history of the pledge and/or oppose it some way that is also speech that should be permitted.
But looking back at the discussion from my own imbalanced POV, I don't think your characterizations are accurate:
One side encourages it because the pledge itself is also to liberty and thus considers it aiding liberty under certain circumstances. The other side discourages it because they believe it indoctrinates children before they have the capability to come to such an allegiance of their own free will, thus detrimental to liberty under certain circumstances.
From what I read, the first side has very clearly stated that they also consider it "indoctrination" but it is good indoctrination because children are incapable of understanding liberty before a certain age.
The other side believes in educating about the pledge and allowing people to draw their own conclusions. Just because I don't like the pledge or what I think it stands for doesn't mean that I would be upset if my students interpreted it differently as long as they know the history and the meaning behind what they are saying.
The schism is not as to the meaning of the pledge, but rather whether citizens and children should be allowed to study and choose how to interpret it. One side is in favor of them having that right, and the other is against it. You tell me where "liberty" falls in that debate.
A couple of things to keep in mind.
First, as I mentioned above, the State of Illinois mandates that all publicly funded schools (K-12) recite the pledge of allegiance every morning. It is unclear to me how some of the other commenters can so easily complain about the loss of our society's values when this law, enacted in 2002, is such a clear example that our society is in fact continuing to uphold these very traditions that we are supposed to be losing. I am always suspicious when conservatives start to play the victim card, but in this case it isn't even close. I am not sure what else our government could do to legislate the pledge.
Secondly, is it possible that this blow up over the baseball game is really about the Boy Scouts and not about the pledge? The Boy Scouts are, of course, a private organization and the UPD's baseball leagues are public. It is my understanding that the Park District can't turn away any children who want to participate unless those children demonstrate unruly behavior. The Boy Scouts have a long history of discriminatory behavior including the exclusion of minorities and now the exclusion of homosexuals. If the Park District allows the BSA to say the pledge before games, isn't that at least a superficial endorsement of the organization?
I still think it is just plain odd that the Boy Scout Troop, who may or may not even have players on the teams, is demanding to say the pledge before baseball games. I have never heard of this practice before and it seems "off" to me. Again, the National Anthem is great, God Bless America is always a treat, why do we need the Boy Scouts reciting the pledge?
The schism is not as to the meaning of the pledge, but rather whether citizens and children should be allowed to study and choose how to interpret it.
Wrong. The schism is over who gets to decide, for our children, what is a "good" value, and what is not.
I still think the UPD acted to protect the kids playing baseball. Knowing Urbana, there'd probably be some planned protest of the game or something. They should just let the kids play, and not drag them into anything.
Wrong. The schism is over who gets to decide, for our children, what is a "good" value, and what is not.
True. The government or the parents.
Wrong. The schism is over who gets to decide, for our children, what is a "good" value, and what is not.
Right, you believe that you and the government should get to decide and we believe the children should get to decide for themselves.
Children
Teacher Man, I don't remember the Scouts "Demanding" that they be allowed to say the pledge. As for the superficial endorsement of an organization what do you think of the policies of both the Champaign and Urbana libraries as to the use of meeting rooms that are available to anyone to use for what ever kind of meeting they want?? This is a quote from the Champaign Public Library web site, "Use of the library‘s meeting rooms does not constitute endorsement of viewpoints expressed by participants" These facilities are funded by tax payers and by allowing use of the rooms they are indeed endorsing the users. Again they might not agree with them, but agree they have a right to their opinion's. I would like to know what it is about the American Legion that you don't like? You had no problem beating up the Boy Scouts.
I absolutely agree with you Xian. I am just now starting to let my kids decide what cloths to wear. I will ease the bigger decisions on them as they are more able to handle them.
xian... you bring up an interesting point on the divide here, at least as it applies to the school aspect, that many here feel that the pledge is an important and helpful tool of socializing children to be good citizens even if it is taught and recited prior to greater understanding of the underlying concepts. On the other hand the recitation without critical thinking of the underlying concepts and without the greater understanding seems to be irking others.
On the school subject it may come down to a difference of opinion on whether we should mold students to these ideals early on, even prior to understanding the concepts, because we find it beneficial... or whether doing that is unfair to an impressionable student who should first be taught the concepts so he may more freely dissent from such molding.
A fairly messy subject for both sides it would seem as conservatives often tend to oppose school actions viewed as molding students into liberal thought and liberals often tend to oppose school actions viewed as molding students into conservative thought. Not unexpected, for obvious reasons, but I can see where this idea gets messy as one jumps from topic to topic the underlying idea of what the government should or should not be doing regarding socialization conflated with our own personal political philosophies.
Teacher Man... their motives appear to be heavily influenced by politics with kids left in the middle of a bigger political debate when all they want to do is play ball. But is that by itself enough to prohibit political expression at a public venue? I'd say no. In fact as unfair as it may be to the kids to put them in the middle it obvious garnered them some attention to that political issue so in the end it may have been some very well played political expression... or it may backfire. I suppose we'll see.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
On the school subject it may come down to a difference of opinion on whether we should mold students to these ideals early on, even prior to understanding the concepts, because we find it beneficial... or whether doing that is unfair to an impressionable student who should first be taught the concepts so he may more freely dissent from such molding.
That is one concern, but while I'm interested in the potential for dissent, I'm at least as interested in encouraging thoughtfulness from those who embrace the norm.
It's not just that students that might have dissented lose that opportunity. My experience with international exchange tells me that those who make a conscious choice even to concur on an issue perform much better than those who just thoughtlessly agree.
To put it more succinctly: even if you believe that students cannot think critically until a certain age, giving them "Why? Because. (period)" answers will make it likely that they will NEVER ask the good questions on the issue.
In other words, by teaching kids to mindlessly embrace the word "liberty", you make it more less likely that they will understand the concept in the future.
Of course, I do agree that many four-year olds, for a variety of different reasons are not ready to give a treatise on liberty. That's fine--still give them the opportunity to do the best they can.
You'll be surprised. They aren't perfect, but they'll tend to have a better understanding than many adults.
what do you think of the policies of both the Champaign and Urbana libraries as to the use of meeting rooms that are available to anyone to use for what ever kind of meeting they want??
I don't really see how this is relevant to this discussion. I am sure the UPD is more than happy to allow the Boy Scouts into the parks whenever they want. They could even have a Boy Scout pledge of allegiance day and say it over and over to themselves if they so choose. No one here is arguing that the Boy Scouts should not be allowed access to the parks.
What I am saying is that I don't see the point of allowing the Boy Scouts to say the pledge before a public baseball game, where a whole bunch of people are in attendance to watch some youth play a sport. The KKK could meet at the Urbana Free Library for all I care, I don't have to sit in the room and watch if I don't want to. If my son or daughter is in the Colt League she is there to play baseball, not to watch the Boy Scouts recite the pledge.
I have nothing against the Scouts. In fact I achieved the rank of First Class Scout before dropping out at age 15. Those were good times and I have fond memories of Scouting. Again, that's not the point. Anyone who has done any reading on the history of the Boy Scouts knows that it was racially exclusive for decades and to this day does not allow homosexual Scout Leaders. There are a lot of people who are more than happy to let this private organization do what it wants. We just don't want them forcing us to sit through their recitation of the pledge while we are waiting for our kids to play some ball.
Does that make sense? I don't think this is an unreasonable move by the UPD at all, though you bring up a good point about the Legion. If they seriously want to challenge the UPD on this they could always try to find other fields to play on, I guess, though I think the two entities (UPD & AL) have always worked very well in tandem.
This is very relevant to the discussion, You don't want the Boy Scouts who do not allow homosexuals to belong ,to interfere with your watching the ball game, That's fine, that is your right, How about the Scouts and the American Legion people doing what they think is right? Will you be offended when the American Legion color guard "Forces" you to wait until they pass at the 4th. of July parade? or will you not go to that either because some other group might offend you? This is not about teaching kids to blindly recite the pledge, You as school teachers and more importantly as parents need to teach this part of being a good citizen to your children. Teach them of the democratic process, Get involved, Vote!
So wait, I'm confused. Are you for/or against us having the kids decide for themselves about the pledge?
I have just gotten off the phone with the Urbana Park District. They called and ask if I was satisfied with the response i got from them on Tuesday. On Tuesday I was told they had received a single complaint from a person about the program tonight at the ball game, and was also told the District had a policy against pre-game activity of this nature. Today they tell me no one complained. I don't know what to belive, so the pledge will go on off park property. In response to if I'm for against teaching kids the pledge, all I can say is do what ever YOU think is right. I did not start this thread about teaching anyone anything. If you are at a function where the pledge or the National Anthem or the Flag for that matter is being honored and you feel uncomfortable you have my sympathy. I will continue to fly my flag and if that offends anyone thats ok too, thats my right.
That's fine, that is your right, How about the Scouts and the American Legion people doing what they think is right? Will you be offended when the American Legion color guard "Forces" you to wait until they pass at the 4th. of July parade? or will you not go to that either because some other group ...
Well, the reality is that everyone doesn't get to do what they think is right all the time. There is a really clear difference between allowing everyone equal access to, say, a library or a parade and giving certain groups a special privilege to demonstrate their personal message in front of a captive audience that did not gather to watch them. By your justification of this event you are opening the door for any organization to demand the right to do the same thing before the next baseball game. This week the Boy Scouts recite the pledge (which some find offensive) next week the Flag Burning Scouts gets to burn a flag before the game (which some find offensive). That's the precedent you are setting.
Again, I don't really find the pledge offensive. I just think it is weird in this context and I think the UPD has made the right call. Let the Park District have the National Anthem over the intercom. Tell the players to put their hats over their hearts. It's not a problem.
The problem comes when the government allows a single, private group to demonstrate in a public forum. By the nature of our government every other group is equal to those same rights. I don't want to see anyone have to sit through a demonstration of American flag burning just because somebody wants everyone to watch the Boy Scouts recite the pledge.
Thanks for the conversation! This is where I end my part. Cheers!
Xian wrote:
Right, you believe that you and the government should get to decide and we believe the children should get to decide for themselves.
I wrote:
I absolutely agree with you Xian.
I agree that you summarized our two different positions accurately.
I believe authority figures should be shaping the values of kids, and you, giving kids more credit than I do, think they are fine to figure stuff out on their own.
I want my child to say the pledge every day. But I also do understand that some folks think this is an imposition of values on their kid, with which they would disagree.
This is an interesting forum and as it always turns out it those who puff their chest up high and claim the american way and right to hold a bible high, say the pledge of allegiance and state that they have a right to say whatever they want because of their Freedom of Speech.
I agree we all have the right to do these things, to say what we want and do what we want. However, you have to remember that if you want the freedom to do it yourself then you have to allow others to do the same. So if you want to have the UPD to allow the boy scouts and veterans to say the pledge of allegiance before the baseball game, then you should be just as willing to have the UPD have a group there that wants to burn an american flag, recite the Koran or some other behavior that you are against occur. I'm sure you would not like it if some people were allowed to get up and give an anti-war speech right before the baseball game. However, unlike the public library the UPD is conscious of these issues and is not trying to become entrenched in them - they are not trying to offend, not trying to "violate" your rights of free speech - but, they are realizing that if you are going to allow the pledge of allegiance at a public event then these other activities are going to have to be allowed as well. They are concerned about something just as big as the freedom of speech which is equality. That they have to treat everyone the same without judgment or "moral" views.
Pick your poison - dont blame the park district, blame society for the extremist - regardless, whether the pledge was allowed or not you would have one side complaining that it was allowed or not allowed and done on public ground.
Good point. Government should not make any judgments. Which makes me wonder why the park district sponsors baseball in the first place. I mean, that's pretty ethnocentric. Why don't we just put up a sign that says "Foreigners not welcome". And to force people in wheelchairs to pay for other people to play baseball is almost beyond comprehension.
And what about public pools? Why is the city government taking money from Muslims to create a place where people display their nearly naked bodies? I won't even get into all the skin cancer and the wasted water.
I believe authority figures should be shaping the values of kids, and you, giving kids more credit than I do, think they are fine to figure stuff out on their own.
No, I think they may be guided in making their own decisions, but the decisions in the end are going to be their own and to push them in the direction of your choice is ultimately self-defeating.
I know a lot more folks who never did drugs because their parents said, "Know about drugs before you consider using them!" than folks who never did drugs because their parents said, "Just say 'no'!"
I want my child to say the pledge every day.
I think that's great, but I think ultimately you are a very good parent, so good in fact, that if your kid was an awesome human being who also chose to refrain from the pledge you would be very proud.
Good point. Government should not make any judgments. Which makes me wonder why the park district sponsors baseball in the first place. I mean, that's pretty ethnocentric. Why don't we just put up a sign that says "Foreigners not welcome".
Yes, because baseball is not played in foreign countries. Excellent analogy.
I didn't understand your post at all. Was it sarcastic or serious?
We should be afraid of all those unknown extreme groups and use them as an excuse to ban a group like the Boy Scouts because their Homo-Phobic and stick it to the majority at the same time.
So banning a group of people for their sexual orientation is mainstream, but being anti-war is "extreme"?
So banning a group of people for their sexual orientation is mainstream-Apparently and legal according to the Supreme Court.
but being anti-war is "extreme"?-Yes I guess it would be considered so especially if you attack the troops, of course I don't make up the rules public opinion does. I of course think protecting our country and supporting our troops is important.
This is one of the strangest discussions I've ever seen.
I think we all agree that supporting our troops and protecting our country is important, and many folks feel the best way to do this is to be a vocal opponent of the war. Certainly there are some pro-war folks who are for policy that is anti-troop and ultimately works against the protection of our country.
Let me see here. Some of you think the Boy scouts should not be HOMO phobic. That gay guys should be allowed to care for your young impressionable boys and at the same time you think it is wrong for these young impressionable kids to learn and recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I'm at a loss?
Gay scout masters are an abomination. Period.
Foxes do not watch over the coop for a reason. How many of you parents with young men want your children going on over night camp outs with gay men? Why are there no girls?
The Pledge is a simple indoctrination of values for our society as a whole, a quality set at that. For this deliberation over the merit of the pledge to be considered an elective, take it or leave it attitude, to me is one more sign of the times.
Ever seeing and never percieving. Our society is going to ...... in a handbasket. This is not just a right wing conservatives view of the times. This is a reality. Are you really part of a solution or part of the problem. It kills ... to read these freedom of liberty, ACLU stances on our society given the damage they do inflict on our society, (no matter how well intentioned?).
It was so much easier back when life was simple and our enemies were pretty much the commies. God and Country meant life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and was found within virtually every Americans heart and mind. Today the population has been polluted, diluted and generally brain washed into PCism. I do find it disgusting to those who gave their all for this country. To demonstrate for the sake of demonstration is a drain on our society, screw the concept of "its your right", when you are so wrong. But thats just my opinion, and I'm sure many of you think I'm wrong.
One thing is for sure, one side is wrong, is your stance good or bad for our society as a whole? Does your stance really have any negative effect on the child as a developing individual?
HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY! We have lots to be happy about, due to those who died for this country in service, for you and I to agree and disagree WHOLE HEARTIDLY, freely.
Gay scout masters are an abomination. Period.
Foxes do not watch over the coop for a reason. How many of you parents with young men want your children going on over night camp outs with gay men? Why are there no girls?
Well, women are allowed to be scout masters. Also, pedophiles are just pedophiles - they're rarely sexually interested in adults, so their orientation doesn't fit into the "gay or straight" dichotomy. Also, 96% of molesters are male - if we're so concerned about scout masters molesting children, shouldn't we completely abandon having male scout leaders?
"Gay scout masters are an abomination. Period.
Foxes do not watch over the coop for a reason. How many of you parents with young men want your children going on over night camp outs with gay men? Why are there no girls?"
I disagree strongly. You're essentially arguing that gay men are more likely to be child molesters, or that child molesters are more likely to be gay. I've seen no evidence that proves that. To follow your reasoning - not that I'm conceding that it's logical at all - I assume you don't let your child spend any time alone with Catholic priests, either?
It's my understanding that gay people are just as able to control their sexual urges around children as straight people, after all. Sheesh.
Now, if you, as a parent, don't want your kid "exposed" to gay people, that's your perogative. I'll disagree with it, but that's your perogative. Gay people are still people, you know, and at some point your kid is going to have to learn to co-exist with people who are different from him or her.
As I said, this is among the strangest threads I've ever seen on here - there's been more people saying the ugliest things than in all our other threads combined.
So is living in a 'PC' not hurt everyone feelings world making this a better world? Almost all of the crime statistics are up, education statistics down, and people are offended to say the Pledge. Our country was better off when we had values, yes, America was founded on traditional Christian values.
<i>Let me see here. Some of you think the Boy scouts should not be HOMO phobic. </i>
Yes, as an Eagle Scout and someone still VERY heavily involved in the Scouting program for over 20 years now, I strongly believe that the BSA should *not* be homophobic. I agree with their right to be so as an orgainzation, I just do not agree with the policy itself. I strongly agree with most of the character-building mission of the BSA, but I feel there are parts that need to catch up with the times. They allow women to hold any adult leader position (including Scoutmasters)instead of just Den Mothers, and the Venturing program (co-ed, 14-20) is one of the greatest aspects of Scouting as far as actually instilling strong values in young adults and preparing them to be functional and contributing members of society.
<i>Foxes do not watch over the coop for a reason. How many of you parents with young men want your children going on over night camp outs with gay men? </i>
I would have no problem sending my hypothetical son or daughter on a Scout outing with a homosexual leader present. The BSA does not allow for one-on-one situations between any adult and youth, so it's not like it would be "Big Gay Al" from South Park leading this troop of boys on a romp through the woods alone.
<i>Why are there no girls?</i>
Since the Exploring program of the BSA went co-ed in the 1960's, there have been girls in the BSA, and *gasp* even on overnight activites! You are kindly invited to join the 21st century....
Just remember - "dancing leads to fornication" :-)
(and so do campouts)
So is living in a 'PC' not hurt everyone feelings world making this a better world? Almost all of the crime statistics are up, education statistics down, and people are offended to say the Pledge. Our country was better off when we had values, yes, America was founded on traditional Christian values.
We do have values, some arguably more Christian than those of our founders. Which is more Christian: slavery or equality for all? As you admitted, our current culture has a "'PC' not hurt everyone feelings" value. Doesn't this sound more Christian than a "I don't care who I'm hurting with my actions, it's my life"?
By the way, you might want to support your argument with something besides education statistics. They, uhh, actually haven't declined.
Gay scout masters are an abomination. Period. [...] Foxes do not watch over the coop for a reason. How many of you parents with young men want your children going on over night camp outs with gay men?
Wow.
Gay people are still people, you know, and at some point your kid is going to have to learn to co-exist with people who are different from him or her.
Kudos. We need more conservatives and bloggers like you.
Keeps getting stranger and stranger...
Personally I don't think homosexuals are any more likely to be a pedophile than heterosexuals. Although criminal background checks on anyone working around children ain't a bad idea. Plenty of weirdos out there regardless. Not sure if I've met any gay folks I'd call an abomination. Though I've met a few lesbians that made me think, "Well, that's a shame." ;)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
For what its worth! Gay is gay. It is not necessarilly a bad thing or a choice, some times it is. I have had many friends over the years who are gay. I do not see what is to be gained to have a gay scout master as a role model. Not in my world. Gay men have a place in life, in work, in recreation, in volunteerism, but not in working with young impressionable men. Not that there are'nt exceptions to the rule. As far as Catholic Priests go-If I thought or had any inclination that one was a pedophile I would bring it to the authorities of that church and hope for truth, I suggest you who are Catholic be very careful with your children as they do have quite the track record.
For the record Glock, gay is not an abomination, putting gay men in charge of boy scouts is for lack of a better word INSANE.
The difference between homosexuality and Pedophilia is relevant ,yet ,there is a pool of young boys and young men in scouting. Gay guys are just that and should not be involved with scouting. As far as the " never alone together rules"- destined to be broken when the time is right. That is an unenforceable rule. Looks good on paper but won't cut the mustard in the real world.
As far as learning to co-exist with gay people as young boys, If you can't allow your children to say the pledge because it indoctrinates, how can you be for gay men as an example for young men who are at that impressionable age range. As time passes learning to accept homosexuality will occur, watch any sitcoms lately?
God Bless America. For those who are'nt offended. By the way "I pledge to do my duty to.........
FWIW, I grew up Catholic and knew two priests who'd been arrested for abusing young boys. Neither of them appeared to be gay. I've also been friends with gay men, none of whom seemed to be interested in children. So I think that the idea of gay men as predators is a dangerous red herring. Bear in mind that the Catholic Church condemns homosexual behavior, but they've had numerous scandals. There's currently an interesting documentary on Google video about Oliver O'Grady, one of the most notorious pedophiles to ever serve as a priest. What's interesting is that he wasn't interested in other men (or women for that matter) - only children.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5510427709546193503
"For the record Glock, gay is not an abomination, putting gay men in charge of boy scouts is for lack of a better word INSANE."
No, it's not. Being unable to distinguish between homosexuality and pedophilia is insane.
"As far as learning to co-exist with gay people as young boys, If you can't allow your children to say the pledge because it indoctrinates, how can you be for gay men as an example for young men who are at that impressionable age range."
I think you have me mistaken for someone else. I have no problem with the Pledge.
I didn't get involved in this discussion until some people on here lost their friggin' minds and decided that gay people aren't capable of controlling their sexual behavior around children.
Of course, I'm still not sure how this topic digressed into "gay = pedophile" but I'm not going to let such statements go uncountered.
Strangest, ugliest thread ever.
As far as learning to co-exist with gay people as young boys, If you can't allow your children to say the pledge because it indoctrinates, how can you be for gay men as an example for young men who are at that impressionable age range.
You have got to be kidding me. So because I am against government-mandated blind recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, I must also be against gay men being Scoutmasters? I'm usually good at seeing the illogical leaps of faith that people put forth, but I must admit this one has me stumped. Are you actually insinuating that gay Scoutmasters have no place because "the gay" might rub off on the young impressionable youth?
thank you, IP, for striving to keep your blog on a decent level
"thank you, IP, for striving to keep your blog on a decent level"
Thanks, but it's not just me. The idiocy in this particular thread has been rightly stomped down by multiple users. That's one of my favorite things about this little community: Deleting comments is rarely necessary, because the worst of the worst is rightly labeled and promptly eviscerated by commenters.
I started this thread and I am amazed at how far off the original topic it has gotten! Weird ain't the word for it.
Saying the pldege is the start of a dictatorship here.
It is just as foul and distasteful as displaying the American Flag on Memorial Day or the Fourth of July.
These types of mindless act must cease for the good of those that know best.
Is that lunacy or poorly deployed sarcasm? It's a mystery...
I don't think it got that far off, it was about free speech. Some people and government just think they should decide for others what should be free to say.
Right, and demanding that kids say the pledge is against freedom of speech. Obviously, there are people who want greater governmental control on both sides of the issue.
Um, who's demanding that kids say the Pledge of Allegiance? I thought the kids wanted to say it, but they weren't being allowed to...
There are schools where it is demanded that students say the pledge.
I was responding to this post which employs points that no one has brought up and then mocks them.
Saying the pldege is the start of a dictatorship here.
It is just as foul and distasteful as displaying the American Flag on Memorial Day or the Fourth of July.
These types of mindless act must cease for the good of those that know best.
Xian-It is a requirement in illinois that all schools start the day with the pledge. It is not a requirement that the child say the pledge or the teacher force the child to say the pledge,there is a diference.
Last words on this subject, been out of town. The train that got us here is available through gregg and xian prior to my first post. Mr. Pundit, idiocy is a rather strong word and I suggest you go back to the thread and do some research.
To be concise, I feel that if the Pledge is a form of indoctrination than having gay men as mentor/scoutmasters is nothing less than indoctrination as well. Which has the greatest potential for harm?
Certainly there is adifference between gay and pedophile. We are talking about young men, many fifteen and sixteen years old. Where is the line? So quick to condemn a person for an opinion that was twisted out of context. The record speaks for itself.
Sorry if I struck a cord. I wont use strong words like abomination any more. Gay scoutmasters are here to stay, why should I even care? oh yea, I may have a grandson some day. The pledge, why should I care? oh yea, Its my country too.
"Last words on this subject, been out of town. The train that got us here is available through gregg and xian prior to my first post. Mr. Pundit, idiocy is a rather strong word and I suggest you go back to the thread and do some research."
No stronger than insane or abomination. No worse than equating homosexuality and pedophilia.
Equating homosexuality and pedophilia, or insisting that homosexuals cannot control their sexual urges around children is idiocy. Plain and simple.
"To be concise, I feel that if the Pledge is a form of indoctrination than having gay men as mentor/scoutmasters is nothing less than indoctrination as well. Which has the greatest potential for harm?"
Neither?
"Certainly the