To Sit or Not To Sit: The Pledge of Allegiance

I think they should stand. It is about respect. Even when I'm in Canada, I stand for their anthem.

Of course they should stand. You don't tell a bunch of children that they have a choice to disrespect the United States flag. They should be punished, punished for desecrating the honor of those who died for our freedom.
Today they get told of their "rights " rights won by what acts ? Act of heroism, acts shedding of blood in the name of freedom and that freedom and the cost is represented by the flag they choose to disrespect . How ironic, they have rights, maybe they should be sent to a detention hall with the assignment of learning how those inalienable rights were won, who sacrificed their lives.
I can go on forever, it is sheer ignorance to blather about one's right to not stand before the very symbol of what won us the rights to do anything. Amazing, simply amazing.

The whole thing is asinine. We should respect people, nothing less.

Everybody is so sue happy anymore that it is amazing anything happens anymore. Students should stand during the pledge. If they chose to be silent for whatever reason, so be it. But to sit, is disrespectful to our heritage, and to those other students participating as well.
I can remember in school a couple of students over the years whose parents forbade them to say the pledge in class, but they still had to stand with all the rest of us as should be. I think we used to call it just good manners....

I don't think that they should be required to place their hand over their heart but they should be required to stand as a sign of respect, just as would be required of any other flag.

Unless, of course, they're not citizens of this country, in which case they shouldn't be enrolled in a public school. :p

Please check out my other content.
(I'm trying for the cash option this month):

My Articles
My Images
My Videos

Since when is sitting down disrespectful? Who said so? Where is it written? Burning the flag is disrespectful. Bad mouthing the President is disrespectful. But sitting down? Come on!

Thomas: I don't know about Canada, but in this country it is considered extremely disrespectful to sit during the National Anthem and while making the pledge of Allegiance. I don't remember the President of the United States ever sitting while taking his oath for office unless it was Pres. FDR because he was in a wheel chair.

Now let's be logical. This is a new era; this is not the middle ages. Why is it o.k. to speak all manner of disparagement against the President and yet it's not o.k. to sit down while music is playing. I suppose you'll say free speech is guaranteed by the constitution, but sitting is not. Where is the common sense? It's o.k. to disobey the 10 commandments but heaven forbid we should sit when we're supposed to stand. I think the world has gone absolutely mad.

I agree, Thomas.

With Thomas all the way ... there has been far too much idol worship in the place of just respecting the people themselves ...

Right you are, Jerry.

Genuflections of various kinds are rooted in history and custom. Catholics make the sign of the cross when they pass in front of a Catholic church. Some Christians kneel to pray, others sit. Moslems prostrate themselves. If you're driving in a car in Haiti when they play the national anthem over the loudspeakers you stop your car, get out and stand at attention until the anthem is over. Customs vary, and they are ONLY CUSTOMS.

That's the argument the ACLU is making: That the students are simply exercising their Freedom of Speech. However, as Peter reminded us, this is a Public school we're talking about, one that is funded by the US Government. Showing respect for the flag, the symbol of the same government that is providing the education, is courtesy. Showing respect for the symbol of those that fought and died for the very "Right" these students are claiming is a courtesy.

Thomas, you say we should respect PEOPLE (my emphasis). Standing for the US Flag IS showing respect for people. Standing in honor of the flag is showing respect for the service men and women who are now, and have in the past, serving or served to win and defend all of the freedoms we enjoy now. If this were the Middle Ages, rather than debating this issue, the students would simply have been severely disciplined for not following the rules instead of being allowed to do whatever they want.

The primary concern in this particular issue, however, is that students in a classroom chose to disregard the school policy and were suspended for it. The policy states that students are required to stand during the Pledge. These children chose to do what they wanted rather than follow the rules. Doing so and allowing it to happen causes even more strife in the classroom. Teachers have enough trouble maintaining control due to children being allowed to run rampant outside the classroom. Taking more control away from the teachers will only make things worse.

In this case, the students that chose to break the rules are showing disrespect not only to the service men and women, but also to the teachers, their school and school district. There is a time and a place to exercise their Freedom of Speech. During class is not one of them. If they don't agree with the policy, there are procedures for bringing about change. Simply breaking the rules isn't the way to do it.

The public school may be funded by government, but only in a round about way. The peoples taxes money funds that public education, and pays the salaries of everyone involed.

It's fine to encourage participation, but unnecesary to punish when they choose to not participate in such matters.

There should never even be a pledge of allegiance in the very first place, that is not patriotism, it is nationalism, the stuff that wars are made from. It is high time that the people in this world began to honour each other rather than symbols of division and supposed superiority. Time to grow up folks!

I think they've been pledging allegiance to their country longer than they have it's flag.

I agree with Jerry.

Oh, I agree, Jerry. We should all learn to get along. The world would be a much better place. However, a Single World Order wouldn't work because someone would have to be in charge. If there were no system of control, what would stop people from taking what they want, killing who they want, doing whatever they want regardless of how it affects others?

Symbolism is everywhere. It's been around for centuries, since the first basic form of writing. Religion is full of symbolism. The secular world is full of symbolism. No, the symbol itself shouldn't be honored. What the symbol stands for, though, should be.

The Pledge of Allegiance states "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." Ignoring for a moment the whole controversy over whether or not "under God" should be there, this pledge is simply stating that I will stand up and defend my country as part of a united front consisting of the population of this country so that we can all have liberty and justice.

Getting back to the original message of this post, however, I remind you that it boils down to some children who felt justified in breaking the rules as set down by those in position to teach and guide them. If we as parents, as adults, are not allowed to guide the younger generations but rather tell them to do as they please and just hope for the best, we're screwed.

Given the current lack of personal responsibility, by propagating this notion of To Each His Own rather than Help Your Fellow Man will drive this country and this world further towards the brink of destruction. We may not go out with a bang, but when you look at the number of violent deaths increasing over more and more trivial things (people killing each other over who controls the remote for the telly) I can't believe that letting teenagers run things would improve the situation.

By asking these children, by requiring these children to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance they should be getting it through their thick skulls that maybe there's a reason for it. Rather than just whine about having to stand for a minute or two, maybe they should use that time to listen to the words and think about them.

No, you don't HAVE to love this country just because you live here. Then again, if you don't, why would you WANT to live here?

Not sure of the details of the story behind the children not standing for the flag, but is it possable these children are obeying their parent's views that their parents taught them? Some religions do not participate in such activities, as they are taught it's a form of idoltry, in which case the children are freely practicing their religous beliefs, and are honoring their God, as well as their parents.

Chris, your views are respectable from the perspective where you hold them, and I would agree with you from that position fully, it makes a lot of sense.

But I have had another experience late in life which gives me a different perspective, one that I would like to think is, or could be, a real improvement.

Of course it is too involved to effectively tell about in comments here, thus my icon represents the book ( free downloads ) that I wrote about it all ... but I can assure you that there really is a better way waiting for us all ... yes, a hierarchy of leadership for the world would be required, but it needs to be one that has compassion for all in the world, including the world itself and the rest of God's creation ... where we are headed in the near future via a WTO type of corporate dominated world government will never give us what we need, current leadership trends are all about "Divide and Conquer" methods of controlling us ... they need us contending with each other for two reasons, one is so we only see the enemy in the other, our counterparts, and thus we are too busy competing and fighting each other to ever look up and see that it is "them", the ultra wealthy, that are actually doing all of the controlling ... the other reason is that the energy we expend in fearing and hating each other creates great wealth for the owners of the Military Industrial Religious Complexes ...

A One World Government ideally patterned after the Divine Realm of God, that was truly based upon unconditional love and human unity, where there was appreciation and cooperation of natural world diversities, working together to create synergy overall ... would be a relative Utopia ... a Heaven on Earth ... seemingly out of reach today ... but God helps those who help themselves and in being made in God's image, we are self creating our own realities based upon the way we think according to the degree we truly believe in it. We must begin to think past the status quo of the last few thousands of years ... change is possible, we must believe and strive for it ... IMnsHO.

When we all realize our spiritual interconnection, we will automatically love and respect each other, and will know without a doubt that what we do to another we do to ourselves and that God will assure that we personally find that out by karmic experience ... there are no accidents in the greater picture of God's eternity ... we will all just know within, that the right thing will be done, and it will, there will be no more need for mere reminders via symbols and rituals ... faith and trust will come automatically and the entire world would be unified in peace ... there will be no divisive lines between countries, all will be free to move across and live where they want in the whole world, all will be wealthy and healthy, cooperating for life and competing only in fun.

And when that comes to pass, God will also see to it that our future visits into outer space will result in peace with other cosmic societies there also ... the alternative to that, based upon the way we live now, will assure us of conflicts in space with others, many of who will most likely be far more advanced and powerful, who may just teach us a lesson or two ... the future is up to us and is based upon what we do to create it ... the choices are ours, do we want that of being compelled by force, or do we want one where everyone actually wants to do the "right" thing ??? I know the preference I hold.

Chris Decker and Jerry Kays: Bravo to both of you! I don't think there is much of a divide between your positions. I see the situation much as both of you do. The problem that faces us (all of us, humanity as a whole) is not so much what we must do but how we can achieve it voluntarily (without force, which never has a lasting impression). Chris is absolutely right from a perspective of our present position and how we should act and conduct ourselves in our current, faulted mode. It is the same thing that makes the "peace-nic" protests such an asinine, absurd, and infantile attempt to achieve peace. No one "doesn't want peace" in some form or another (well there are some exceptions). But to have a meaningful and satisfying peace, both parties of any issue must be willing to make sacrifices of personal interest in favor of the whole. In general, "peace-nics" are shallow thinkers who can only think of one thing at a time... PEACE. Of a crowd mentality, they cannot think beyond the immediate problem and would also protest any practical solution that would deprive them of some of their assumed "natural rights." Anyone would be fatally stupid to lay down his/her pistol when faced with a "high noon" situation and an opponent that is not only well armed but not of a conciliatory frame of mind. "It takes two to tango." In the meantime, as Chris says, we need to preserve what civilizing traditions we have and not allow ourselves to be bamboozled into an anarchical breakdown of what little peace and tranquility we have.

Jerry: It is amazing to me that you see so clearly what is needed but can't take the last inevitable step to realistic achievement. On the other hand, I can well understand what is holding you back from taking that "small step for you but giant step for mankind." As you know, I am of the Baha'i Faith. I wasn't "born into it." I accepted it as I would not and did not accept any other "religious" movement (church, "religion" or whatever). I saw good in all of them but found them lacking in their "in-fighting" and intolerance for one another. So, here is it in a nut-shell: As Plato observed, the only way short of force of arms (and constant dictatorial force at that) to get large numbers of people to do that which they would not ordinarily want to do (unite and stop this competitive scramble for more and more) is through religion, which appeals to and invokes a "higher authority" beyond question and not subject to change by any "current administration" or "financial or other interest." But this is not something that can be contrived and manufactured by the people (protesters or whoever). It can only come from and be instituted by God. The only thing preventing one from accepting this "higher authority" is one's own personal ego or a mind that is not advanced enough to recognize the "sun" when it rises. Jerry, you are not one of the latter for sure. Are you one of the former? Think about it. I only say this because I respect you, your opinions and your advanced state of mind.

Donald, I respect your views very much, as you well know. But I must insist here that you are selling me short in your take or impression of me. Were you to have known me longer here on Gather, or read my book, you would know better I believe.

As far as I know, I have given your faith only praise, I have criticised others often for their selfishness's and short sighted views, not so much as to change them, but to alert people seeking better, who might be fooled into thinking they will find it in say, conservative Evangelicalism ... heaven forbid.

Donald, as for "my" ego, my book is ALL about that, and it is completely subservient to my higher Self which IS my relationship directly to God and works WITH God in everything I do with every breath of this remainder of my life going onto 15 years now since I made the "connection and commitment" ... I have no doubt that from a normal ego perspective I seem extremely egotistic ... but that is because a normal ego has no concept what-so-ever of what a relationship to God such as mine could amount to. I can fully accept that/those misunderstandings, they are like water off a ducks back to me, I understand ... and to further prove the point, I will, in recognising the Golden Rule, and the law of cause and effect, incite egotistical reactions in those that are so consumed by such thinking, if for no other reason than to get them riled up to a point of self recognition about their own feelings about that ... the ego takes such very personally and I can remain relatively detached in that I know what is going on and that my goal is to help the person eventually come to realize the higher truth of it all also ...

I support any institution that is about what you claim your faith is, but I know that what is more needed at this moment in time is NOT another institution competing with others in the mind of others (because what is going on in the minds is far more important) ... when the minds change to peace and compassionate cooperation because of the recognition of our common Spirit of the UNconditionally Loving God that IS very much INvolved in everything, then there will be NO NEED to compel anyone to anything, they just will because they want to ...

It is today's INtuitive young people that have grown up of late seeing the examples set by their leaders and authorities, so many of which are completely hypocritical related to doing as they say, versus as they actually do, and expecting others to never notice ... people with an honest intuitive vision will NOT voluntarily associate themselves with lying criminals just because such folks claim the traditions of PAST greatness as the reasons to EXPECT patriotism now ... (these "examples" have been around longer than only the last 7 years).

There is a huge difference between actual protesting and actual anarchy ... and just refusing to go along with the status quo of blindly following the leaders and authorities is a good and useful first step that many more SHOULD take. IMnsHO.

True Spirituality does NOT NEED religions ... religions NEED TRUE SPIRITUALITY !

I agree. Forced/coerced displays of repect, ie standing vs. sitting, participating, hand over heart, pledges, etc...is anything but respect.

You got the picture Dorothy !

Jerry Kays: Perhaps I used the wrong word in "ego". I am completely in tune with you vis-a-vis individual slavishness to clerical interpretation and control, as you well know. And I see and accept your wonderful appreciation for the true spiritual journey in seeking after truth as a personally responsible crusade of sorts. And I don't know what it is apparently that holds you back from accepting that in addition to one's personal obligation to investigate the truth, there is a genuine divinely designed and ordained phenomenon of "divine revelation" (i.e. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Baha''u'llah among others) that simultaneously works to guide one's personal search in a more efficient, less distractible manner. And this process requires (by design) a high degree of humility to that Source (God) in order to be effective en masse. I also think that you seem to me to have too high an expectation of the ability of people (except for a very few) to be capable of following your good example on an individual and personal level. There is too much opportunity for their egos to prevent them from giving credence to the Source for their discovered insight. I believe that ideally they should be able to listen to you and do much the same, but I believe -- in taking a "realistic" position -- that not enough people are mature enough spiritually today to follow your advice on a consistent and efficacious manner. That is, the time for making real changes in our political system of working together and the need to get large, very large numbers of people to voluntarily accept it vehemently enough to override those insidious forces working to enslave us, is too short for anything but the proven and designed method for doing this uplifting (through a "religious" approach that does not involve any current church controlled institutions). Well, there I go again, making perhaps a muddle of it in it's complexity (really too simple for some to appreciate). As you see in the very current political climate going on right now, we are being exposed to some of the dumbest and most inane conversations designed to "win" over voted control on behalf of various special interests. I would like to think that people are too smart to eat this stuff with relish, but I can't see any evidence of this. We need a real, organized (but not "special interest controlled") movement to make any effective headway toward freeing ourselves from this slavish obeisance to the rich and powerful.

Donald, I can agree with you completely based upon where you are coming from in all of this/that.

It is NOT so much that I want anyone to do as I say or do, as much as I want them to believe that they also can "make the connection" to God, to where they too can utilise their uniquely individualistic approach to making this a better world via a more Spiritually cooperative endeavor ... these things need to be done from many levels, not just one such as a particular "institutional" view, especially in this present day and age when so few institutions have any credibility allowing any trust in them ...

Even the Baha'i faith is not above corruption once a majority of members decide to change it from within because they initially came on board to transcend their egos, but in failing to have done so, as so often happens in all religions, they no longer see the benefits of continued trying, preferring to change the dogma and creed to fit their own majority egotistical opinions. That has been the trend of most religions IMnsHO.

Better I think to instill personal individual Spirituality FIRST, a more of a "grass roots" effort ... then those folks that really come to know the truth of it can get together how ever they see fit and not need to suffer the mentioned "take over" from within the ranks going the way of past examples mentioned.

Time is of the essence as you say, but that is only a world perception, and those who find the truth have nothing to worry about other than doing their best to inform others, and that is what I see that we are each, you and I, doing in our own preferred ways, to each their own, all contribute and all are needed and appreciated by God.

Those that are unwilling or incapable of learning the higher truths of the matter at this time will have the greater eternity to do so, you can (sometimes) lead a horse to water, but you cannot MAKE him drink.

Jerry Kays: Yes, of course. I agree. It is not possible to have a human activity without some degree of corruption creeping in. Even the Baha'i Faith recognizes this. In fact, the administrative structure of the Faith (as designed by the Creator through His Spokesman for this age, Baha'u'llah) recognizes this and makes protective allowances and provisions to mitigate any adverse effects (not entirely eliminate them, which is impossible within any human unit. While Baha'is may not (and inevitably will not in some cases) like or agree with the decision of the Administrative bodies as adopted, it is their religious responsibility to accept and abide faithfully and uncomplainingly with those decisions. But more important, while those decisions are considered to be the Will of God for them, that same body (or one later composed of differently elected members) has the right and obligation to alter that decision in the future if it so feels. The principle behind this is that even if a "wrong" decision is made, the "right" corrective decision can only be made later if the body politic as a whole remains united and cooperative. Baha'i system of JUSTICE has no precedential restrictions or emphasis. This is quite contrary to English Common Law and our law in the United States. Every case is an individual case from scratch. In addition, Baha'is are free to believe in the Faith according to whatever nuances they feel is correct as individuals. But they can be restricted in how they physically demonstrate or speak of this belief outside in public since that can effect their fellow believers adversely. Even when a Baha'i violates some important injunction, it is a matter between that individual and God alone... except as it may effect others or the community as a whole, in which case that behavior or demonstration can be enjoined by the administration to the extent of prohibiting any public damage... and without judging it's moral "sin" in the Eyes of God.

It sounds good as far as institutions go ...

I have to admit that this was a bit over the top, but I went to a strict Catholic grammar school, and we had two bells. At the sound of the first ring, it didn't matter whether you were flying in the air to catch a ball or in the middle of a jump at jump rope, because except for allowing you the millisecond it took to land, you had better like the position in which you landed, siince until the sound of the second bell, you remained frozen in whatever position that was without any movement of any limb. There was usually a 5- 10 second delay between the first and second bells. At the sound of the second bell you walked silently and quickly to the line of your class, in your assigned position, and with your toes directly in line with the heels of the person's in front of you.

The idea of standing when saluting the flag shouldn't even be the issue. There are things we do standing and things we do sitting, and any argument about it is indicative of sheer lack of discipline and unwillingness to comply with rules by any authority higher than oneself, the message of the I, ME, and MYSELF future criminal inmates of America.

Very true, Sue, very true. Even dismissing the issue of whether to stand or not during the pledge, there is the underlying issue of not following the rules. More and more, the youth of today are being told essentially that it doesn't matter what they're told to do, they can do what they want and it's okay, because we wouldn't want to hurt their fragile, still undeveloped sense of self being.

There is less consideration of others, less sense of responsibility, less discipline than there used to be. If nothing else, these kids should be required to stand simply because it's the rules. If they want to change the rules, there are ways to go about it instead of just claiming that their rights are being violated.

I would think, by your discription of a way to going about changing the rules, it seems THAT has already occurred. You just don't care for it, so do as you believe, which is your right. Stand for the pledge, and salute your chosen flag. no one is stopping you.

For sure!

You cannot force anyone to stand for the pledge. A person has the right to CHOOSE if they wish to pledge their allegiance to the country and the flag. Should a child be punished if they are disruptive and misbehaving during the pledge? Absolutely!! But a child that respectfully sits quietly during the pledge is not a trouble maker but is expressing their individuality and freedom to choose what they stand for. That's what the flag stands for!

Peter C Frank says that children that aren't citizens shouldn't be in our schools. That's pretty ignorant. What about foreign exchange students? What about legal immigrants? What about refugees? Get real. There are lots of children in out schools that are not citizens that are completely legal and legitimate. It's just plain ignorance to assume that any foreign citizen in our schools are illegal!