School nurse bullies and berates student who refused to stand for pledge

[Jimmy Higgins]

She made a mistake and people make mistakes. Let's understand that.

Refusing to do her actual job because a student didn't say the pledge isn't particularly a "mistake".

 

[barbos]

At least she did not chase her with a tazer and a gun.

- - - Updated - - -


I just thought the same thing and I grew up in totalitarian (so they say) country, yet none of that shit was required in the school.

You just did it 'voluntarily', as a spontaneous expression of national pride.

Damn!

 

[Axulus]

Pledges of allegiance by minors are characteristic of totalitarian dictatorships.

Claims in such pledges that the nation in question stands for Liberty and or Justice are almost as convincing as naming your country 'The People's Democratic Republic of ...'

Not only should no child ever be required to take or recite the pledge; they should be prohibited from so doing, in the same way (and for the same reasons) that they are prohibited from making binding legal contracts.

If the pledge is meaningful, then having children say it is despicable.

If the pledge is NOT meaningful, then having ANYONE say it is despicable.

I prefer to live in a nation that at least pretends not to be brainwashing its youth.

Since there is no federal/national law or policy requiring or encouraging schools to have their students cite the pledge, your criticism about it being characteristic of totalitarian dictatorships seems a bit off base.

Not all schools engage in it. Prohibiting it at the federal level would be an unnecessary infringement on states rights in my opinion, even though I do think it best to not incorporate it in schools.

 

[crazyfingers]

Pledges of allegiance by minors are characteristic of totalitarian dictatorships.

Claims in such pledges that the nation in question stands for Liberty and or Justice are almost as convincing as naming your country 'The People's Democratic Republic of ...'

Not only should no child ever be required to take or recite the pledge; they should be prohibited from so doing, in the same way (and for the same reasons) that they are prohibited from making binding legal contracts.

If the pledge is meaningful, then having children say it is despicable.

If the pledge is NOT meaningful, then having ANYONE say it is despicable.

I prefer to live in a nation that at least pretends not to be brainwashing its youth.

Since there is no federal/national law or policy requiring or encouraging schools to have their students cite the pledge, your criticism about it being characteristic of totalitarian dictatorships seems a bit off base.

Not all schools engage in it. Prohibiting it at the federal level would be an unnecessary infringement on states rights in my opinion, even though I do think it best to not incorporate it in schools.

The law in Massachusetts that requires all students to say the pledge violates US Supreme Court rulings. The wording of the law does not make it optional. Fortunately the Attorney Generals Office of Massachusetts came right out when the law was passed saying as much. But it's still required every morning in public schools and I'll bet few kids know that it can't be required.

 

[crazyfingers]

Pledges of allegiance by minors are characteristic of totalitarian dictatorships.

Claims in such pledges that the nation in question stands for Liberty and or Justice are almost as convincing as naming your country 'The People's Democratic Republic of ...'

Not only should no child ever be required to take or recite the pledge; they should be prohibited from so doing, in the same way (and for the same reasons) that they are prohibited from making binding legal contracts.

If the pledge is meaningful, then having children say it is despicable.

If the pledge is NOT meaningful, then having ANYONE say it is despicable.

I prefer to live in a nation that at least pretends not to be brainwashing its youth.

Truth. The pledge is a lie. Liberty and Justice are not universal in the US. And requiring the pledge to be said is the ultimate sick irony. Fortunately the US Supreme Court made it clear way back in 1943 that no one can be required to say the pledge. They also made clear later that no one can be required even to stand when it's said.

But it's still required in many states and few know that those laws can not be enforced.

Other discussion on it http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=33651

 

[crazyfingers]

2) when it is custom to stand up during a pledge, or singing an national anthem, you stand up wether you agree to it or not. Not of kindness etc but to simply not disturb wat is going on.

Nonsense. 1: It is no disturbance not to stand. As a matter of fact the US Supreme Court actually ruled that it is no disturbance not to stand.

And 2, why on earth would I stand up for a religious pledge that disrespects me?

 

[Juma]

2) when it is custom to stand up during a pledge, or singing an national anthem, you stand up wether you agree to it or not. Not of kindness etc but to simply not disturb wat is going on.

Nonsense. 1: It is no disturbance not to stand. As a matter of fact the US Supreme Court actually ruled that it is no disturbance not to stand.

And 2, why on earth would I stand up for a religious pledge that disrespects me?

When a group perform a cermony it is a distirbance if members of the group doesnt. The pledge is not a group ceremony since it is about each member, not the group.

I have already stated that the pledge is wrong so dont bring that up.

 

[Metaphor]

Nonsense. 1: It is no disturbance not to stand. As a matter of fact the US Supreme Court actually ruled that it is no disturbance not to stand.

And 2, why on earth would I stand up for a religious pledge that disrespects me?

When a group perform a cermony it is a distirbance if members of the group doesnt. The pledge is not a group ceremony since it is about each member, not the group.

I have already stated that the pledge is wrong so dont bring that up.

It's one thing for people voluntarily attending, say, Catholic Mass, to kneel along with everyone else during the consecration. You've made yourself part of the group.

It's quite another to be a student in a public school and be accused of 'disturbing' the group with a ceremony you did not consent to and has nothing whatsoever to do with education.

 

[Juma]

When a group perform a cermony it is a distirbance if members of the group doesnt. The pledge is not a group ceremony since it is about each member, not the group.

I have already stated that the pledge is wrong so dont bring that up.

It's one thing for people voluntarily attending, say, Catholic Mass, to kneel along with everyone else during the consecration. You've made yourself part of the group.

It's quite another to be a student in a public school and be accused of 'disturbing' the group with a ceremony you did not consent to and has nothing whatsoever to do with education.

Entering public school means entering a contract. That places an enormous responsibility on the school. The pledge is a perverse misuse of that responsibility.

 

[Metaphor]

It's one thing for people voluntarily attending, say, Catholic Mass, to kneel along with everyone else during the consecration. You've made yourself part of the group.

It's quite another to be a student in a public school and be accused of 'disturbing' the group with a ceremony you did not consent to and has nothing whatsoever to do with education.

Entering public school means entering a contract. That places an enormous responsibility on the school. The pledge is a perverse misuse of that responsibility.

That's true. And it is morally virtuous to disturb the others by resisting the pledge.

 

[RavenSky]

Nonsense. 1: It is no disturbance not to stand. As a matter of fact the US Supreme Court actually ruled that it is no disturbance not to stand.

And 2, why on earth would I stand up for a religious pledge that disrespects me?

When a group perform a cermony it is a distirbance if members of the group doesnt. The pledge is not a group ceremony since it is about each member, not the group...

If you think the pledge is not a group activity, why would it be a disturbance for a student/person to remain seated for it?

Also, if remaining seated is a disturbance, wouldn't leaving the room to stand in the hallway even more of a disturbance?

 

[crazyfingers]

Nonsense. 1: It is no disturbance not to stand. As a matter of fact the US Supreme Court actually ruled that it is no disturbance not to stand.

And 2, why on earth would I stand up for a religious pledge that disrespects me?

When a group perform a cermony it is a distirbance if members of the group doesnt. The pledge is not a group ceremony since it is about each member, not the group.

I have already stated that the pledge is wrong so dont bring that up.

It's not a disturbance to stay seated by US Supreme Court ruling. But requiring someone to stand for it is a violation of free speech rights. I will never stand for the pledge as it's an insult to me and it's simply a lie.

 

[crazyfingers]

The only disturbance for not participating in the pledge by from those who would try to force one to do it.

 

[Archimedes]

She made a mistake and people make mistakes. Let's understand that.

How is the idea that what she did "a mistake" any sort of excuse for her behaviour? Lots of indefensible acts could be called "mistakes" but that in no way excuses them.

It's her job to supply medical treatment to the students and she refused to fulfil her duties and denied medical treatment to a child because of her politics. How is that in any way defensible because it was "a mistake"?

I find the whole concept of making children say a pledge of allegiance entirely bizarre. It seems no different to me than when I attended a Catholic school having the whole class stand up and recite a decade of the Rosary every morning. It's creepy and cult like and serves no positive purpose. For the record, I feel the same way about militaristic national anthems (including my own nation's) and find the concept of stadiums full of people at sports events standing up to sing about war and revolution and bombs and guns just fucking weird and unsettling.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When a group perform a cermony it is a distirbance if members of the group doesnt. The pledge is not a group ceremony since it is about each member, not the group.

I have already stated that the pledge is wrong so dont bring that up.

It's not a disturbance to stay seated by US Supreme Court ruling. But requiring someone to stand for it is a violation of free speech rights. I will never stand for the pledge as it's an insult to me and it's simply a lie.

It is a disturbance because other students will look over and wonder why the other student isn't saying the pledge and that may make them stop and think for themselves instead of repeating the mantra again... hence disturbance.

 

[bilby]

She made a mistake and people make mistakes. Let's understand that.

How is the idea that what she did "a mistake" any sort of excuse for her behaviour? Lots of indefensible acts could be called "mistakes" but that in no way excuses them.

It's her job to supply medical treatment to the students and she refused to fulfil her duties and denied medical treatment to a child because of her politics. How is that in any way defensible because it was "a mistake"?

I find the whole concept of making children say a pledge of allegiance entirely bizarre. It seems no different to me than when I attended a Catholic school having the whole class stand up and recite a decade of the Rosary every morning. It's creepy and cult like and serves no positive purpose. For the record, I feel the same way about militaristic national anthems (including my own nation's) and find the concept of stadiums full of people at sports events standing up to sing about war and revolution and bombs and guns just fucking weird and unsettling.

Yeah, and who the fuck uses the word 'girt' anyway?

 

[Metaphor]

How is the idea that what she did "a mistake" any sort of excuse for her behaviour? Lots of indefensible acts could be called "mistakes" but that in no way excuses them.

It's her job to supply medical treatment to the students and she refused to fulfil her duties and denied medical treatment to a child because of her politics. How is that in any way defensible because it was "a mistake"?

I find the whole concept of making children say a pledge of allegiance entirely bizarre. It seems no different to me than when I attended a Catholic school having the whole class stand up and recite a decade of the Rosary every morning. It's creepy and cult like and serves no positive purpose. For the record, I feel the same way about militaristic national anthems (including my own nation's) and find the concept of stadiums full of people at sports events standing up to sing about war and revolution and bombs and guns just fucking weird and unsettling.

Yeah, and who the fuck uses the word 'girt' anyway?

Anyone whose land is girt by sea, I imagine.

 

[arkirk]

Yeah, and who the fuck uses the word 'girt' anyway?

Anyone whose land is girt by sea, I imagine.

I used to do a lot of political organizing and we would have meetings of people in right wing America who expected a political meeting to recite the pledge. So I would but I never would say the "under god " part of the pledge. In out country you can avoid these things but if you do, your political franchise and indeed your political credibility is at stake. If all your neighbors are champing at the bit to say the pledge, let them. The way I saw it, it was none of their fucking business I was an atheist and we were there for secular business. Nobody ever noticed I never said "under god" and sometimes I led the pledge. I do believe it is wrong to have to say the pledge, but our world is not a perfect place where we can always satisfy our absolute values. I had already learned the pledge before Eisenhower added the "Under God."

If you look at that man's history he is made out to be some sort of hero. It was the piles of dead bodies on the beaches or Normandy that was his claim to fame. I never liked him and sure didn't like his "Under God." He was President when our CIA planted the seeds of today's troubles with Iran....an assassination of of a democratically elected and very popular president. I suppose you can't blame him too much because he didn't start the continuing oil intrigues. That was the businesses that got him elected. I still just thought of him as just another brass hat. Later presidents of the Brylcream persuasion were far more invasive and far more military industrial. I always thought it odd that Eisenhower, after spending a whole two terms building up the military empire would end his career in public office with that trite little speech about the Military Industrial Complex. He was also responsible for the interstate highway plan that increased oil usage dramatically.

 

[bilby]

Anyone whose land is girt by sea, I imagine.

I used to do a lot of political organizing and we would have meetings of people in right wing America who expected a political meeting to recite the pledge. So I would but I never would say the "under god " part of the pledge. In out country you can avoid these things but if you do, your political franchise and indeed your political credibility is at stake. If all your neighbors are champing at the bit to say the pledge, let them. The way I saw it, it was none of their fucking business I was an atheist and we were there for secular business. Nobody ever noticed I never said "under god" and sometimes I led the pledge. I do believe it is wrong to have to say the pledge, but our world is not a perfect place where we can always satisfy our absolute values. I had already learned the pledge before Eisenhower added the "Under God."

If you look at that man's history he is made out to be some sort of hero. It was the piles of dead bodies on the beaches or Normandy that was his claim to fame. I never liked him and sure didn't like his "Under God." He was President when our CIA planted the seeds of today's troubles with Iran....an assassination of of a democratically elected and very popular president. I suppose you can't blame him too much because he didn't start the continuing oil intrigues. That was the businesses that got him elected. I still just thought of him as just another brass hat. Later presidents of the Brylcream persuasion were far more invasive and far more military industrial. I always thought it odd that Eisenhower, after spending a whole two terms building up the military empire would end his career in public office with that trite little speech about the Military Industrial Complex. He was also responsible for the interstate highway plan that increased oil usage dramatically.

But on the plus side, I can find no record of his ever having used the word 'girt'. So he wasn't all bad.

 

[crazyfingers]

I don't anticipate ever being in a situation that for political reasons, or reasons of credibility, that I would ever stand for the pledge. No one around here does the pledge except for that 1978 law requiring it in public schools.

If I actually ever went to a sports game and they did it I would most certainly continue to sit and eat my hot dog.

The pledge, besides being fascistic, is an insult to anyone who does not believe in a god or who is on the short end of equal protection of the law.