Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Alonzo Fyfe · 09-30-2002, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alphatronics:
Good luck, I suck at public speaking. :/

Actually, I suck at public speaking too. But I love the power of the written word. I probably would not say a thing. Rather, I would simply make copies of something I had written and offer that to anybody who seeks an explanation.

If they have any questions, they can come back after they had done their reading.

rcressl · 10-05-2002, 05:36 PM

Nevermind my other post... I just figured out the answer to my question.

Right now I just want to know if you guys think this will do okay if I hand it to my Algebra teacher on Monday (she's really nice, but she told us that we HAD to stand even if we don't recite the Pledge) .... right now I'm kinda scared

Quote:

Mrs. E-------,
I am writing this letter to tell you that I would like to remain seated during the Pledge of Allegiance. I do not agree with the words "under God" being in the Pledge and I think that church and state should stay separate.

Over the weekend I did a little research on the internet and from what I could find, I am not required to stand.

Some things that I found at <a href="http://www.principals.org/services/legal_pldg_allegiance.html" target="_blank">http://www.principals.org/services/legal_pldg_allegiance.html</a> are:

Neither students or teachers can be forced to recite the Pledge. The right not to participate is protected by the First Ammendment freedom of expression." - West VA. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette
"If a teacher or student chooses not to participate, they cannot be punished for such a choice. With respect to a studedt, this means that teachers or adminsitrators should not confront students who choose not to participate."
"In addition, students or teachers are not required to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance, nor are they required to leave the room." - Goetz v. Ansell

The words "under God" were added during the McCarthy Era. When President Eisenhower signed into law the new pledge, congress wrote:
"...The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism..."

I am an Atheist, but I am not a communist. The addition of "under God" in our Pledge was anti-atheist. Since I am an Atheist, and the Pledge contains words meant to be anti-atheist (Senator Jospeh McCarthy even mentioned this in one of his speeches) I don't think that I should be required to participate; if the words had been anti-Muslim (for example) they would not have been added, more than likely, and if they were added, Muslims shouldn't have to stand or recite the Pledge. This should be the same for any group.

One more thing that I'd like to add as a quote:
"I have nothing but respect for the principles that this country stands for, but when Congress added 'under God' to the Pledge, they violated these principles. I will not stand and show respect for an act of discrimination. To insist that I stand would be no different than changing the words of the Pledge to say, 'one nation, under white rule," and insisting that blacks stand and show respect for this version. It is because I love the principles on which this country was founded that I will not stand for their destruction."
- Alonzo Fyfe, excerpt from a message board post

I'm not doing this to be disrespectful or 'difficlut.' I am doing this because it's what I believe in. Please allow me to sit out of the Pledge.
Thanks a whole lot,
Rachel C----

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: trustno1 ]

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: trustno1 ]

beejay · 10-05-2002, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by trustno1:

Please allow me to sit out of the Pledge.

It's a very good letter. I'd even make a few extra copies so when the kid behind you says "what are you doing?" you can give a copy to him.

Two minor points. I'd run it through a spell checker first. And "allow me" makes it sound like she gets to decide. How about "I hope you understand why I'll be sitting during the pledge"?

gravitybow · 10-06-2002, 12:41 AM

trustno1:
The thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000722" target="_blank">on the flag salute</a> has some stuff I wrote which covers the issue of standing/sitting. You'll see that you not only have the backing of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (which you've found), but also the ACLU and the Supreme Court. Your stance is stronger than you suspect.

And, addressing some of the observations Alonzo Fyfe brought up:

Quote:

AF:
Many schools require that students stand for the pledge even if they do not recite it.

Schools may say that standing for the Pledge is required, but it cannot be enforced, having already been struck down by the Court.

Quote:

They argue that doing so is a necessary exercise in teaching respect for the flag and the country.

The Supreme Court in <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=624" target="_blank">WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE</a> disagrees:

Quote:

As the present Chief Justice said in dissent in the Gobitis case, the State may require teaching by instruction and study of all in our history and in the structure and organization of our government, including the guaranties of civil liberty which tend to inspire patriotism and love of country. Here, however, we are dealing with a compulsion of students to declare a belief. They are not merely made acquainted with the flag salute so that they may be informed as to what it is or even what it means. The issue here is whether this slow and easily neglected route to aroused loyalties constitutionally may be short-cut by substituting a compulsory salute and slogan.

Here the Court is caricaturizing the way school boards use the Pledge as a forced fast track to citizenship, rather than using education to inspire it.

Finally, the questions raised by ReasonableDoubt:

Quote:

RD:
And are there any responsibilities associated with the indescriminant promotion of such a tactic?

At first, I didn't know what to make of this particular question. How could standing up for your rights be interpreted as "indiscriminate promotion"? Then I saw that this question read Alonzo's paragraph from an uninformed position (not familiar with right to sit) compounded by the observation that the paragraph is written from the uninformed position.

There is no "testing of the waters" here. The battle for opting out of the Pledge and remaining seated has already been fought, won, and is a matter of settle law. And it is from this informed view that I have trouble with trustno1's asking permission from a government employee for a constitutional right that no one can take. I realize he is writing it in a particular manner as a kindness to his teacher. But if she says "no", and he stands on his rights, he may cause more anger or hurt feelings than if he wrote more assertively to begin with.

Quote:

So, for example, to what extent can you, and will you, be there to handle the possible consequences of taking such a self-isolating, albeit noble, stand?

If anyone should be punished for standing on thier constitutional rights, resources for pursuing remedies are available. If self-isolation is the hazard, then I would suggest that there are diplomatic ways to educate some who may initially be hostile to your "noble" position. Then again, there's not much protection from the Terminally Uneducated or from the Powerhungry. People act stupidly regardless of your rights.

trustno1:
In the first sentence, I would change "I would like to remain" to "I intend to remain". The remainder of the letter lays out the support for your intention.

I like beejays ending: "I hope you understand why I'll be sitting during the pledge" I would also change "Thanks a whole lot" to "Thank you for respecting my position."

And don't forget to check out the thread I linked at the top of this post.

rcressl · 10-06-2002, 07:17 AM

Thanks a lot, gravitybow and beejay. I'm going to fix the letter now

Sabine Grant · 10-06-2002, 07:35 AM

Jehova's witnesses are not mandated to even attend the Pledge of Allegiance. So I am not sure how the school can justify forcing any student to stand.
Any student if able to show that any activity is offensive to their belief can ask to not attend that particular activity.
If you do not feel like standing, just talk to your school principal and you can obtain the permission to not be in the class at the time of the Pledge which usualy takes place as mandated school time starts.
My kids never were forced in any way to partake or participate in a celebration in their classroom which is defined as offensive to their spiritual belief. But mom instructed them on their constitutional rights.
Anyone has a constitutional right to choose to not honor a Pledge they feel is offensive to them.

I try to avoid Pledge of Allegiance situations as I am simply a legal alien and I would feel quite dishonest recitating words I do not mean. It is not offensive to me though. But it requires a level of sincerety I cannot reach for the time being. There is always a bathroom trip to rescue me from such situations!

Even though I am a christian I do agree that the term " under God" should not be there because this country is indeed a pluralistic democracy. The God notion should be contained in the heart of an individual without being forced fed on anyone. Same with prayer.

Alonzo Fyfe · 10-06-2002, 10:06 AM

I am honored that you have decided to quote me in your letter.

I like your "anti-atheist" paragraph in particular. It is short and to the point. Well said.

A few quick comments:

(1) The paragraph that begins Some things that I found out at....

Add a few words to identify the site and to impress the teacher with why it is a legitimate authority that she should respect.

It is always best to assume that the reader is going to be a bit lazy, and looking for any excuse to read into your letter what she wants to see. Opportunities to dismiss your writing out of laziness and of projecting into it things you do not mean should be avoided.

(2) I agree with those who say that you should not ask for permission to do that which you have every right to do.

(3) Take care.

Alonzo Fyfe · 10-08-2002, 03:09 AM

Trustno1: How did it go?

CaptainDave · 10-08-2002, 05:33 PM

In the original post to start this thread Alonzo wrote:

Quote:

Many schools require that students stand for the pledge even if they do not recite it.
They argue that doing so is a necessary exercise in teaching respect for the flag and the country.

I would like to encourage those who are in such a situation to remain seated.

And when asked about showing respect for their country, answer politely,

"I have nothing but respect for the principles that this country stands for. But, when Congress added under God to the pledge they violated those principles. And I will not stand and show respect for an act of discrimination. To insist that I stand would be no different than changing the words of the pledge to say, 'one nation, under white rule' and insisting that blacks stand and show respect for this version. It is because I love the principles on which this country was founded that I will not stand for their denigration and destruction."

Well said, Alonzo! But I'm afraid you may have missed your target audience. You have often pointed out the need to speak the language of those whom you are speaking to. Your proposed speech would probably work wonders if it were delivered to a class of logical Vulcans. But to a group of conformity-driven, hormone-ridden teenagers? There's got to be a better way to reach them.

Any suggestions from current high-school students? Maybe somebody who posesses the gift of rational thought AND is popular with most of his/her peers? There must be somebody like that reading this forum.

Alonzo Fyfe · 10-09-2002, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaptainDave:
Your proposed speech would probably work wonders if it were delivered to a class of logical Vulcans.

As opposed to logical non-Vulcans?

How about this:

"You stand there and say that those of us who do not support 'one nation, under God' are just like than those who do not support 'liberty and justice for all'

And you want me to stand and show respect for this insult?

Show me respect, and I will show you respect in return.

Dis me, and I will do the same in return.

Screw you, sister, I will not stand."

[Note: Upon reflection, it seems possible that a person may interpret the above as something fitting for the intelligence of a high-school student. Which would be an insult.

This was intended to demonstrate how I write when I disable text Vulcanification -- a macro I have that translates all my writing into Vulcan.]

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-06-2002, 07:17 AM	#15
rcressl Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Massillon, OH Posts: 281	Thanks a lot, gravitybow and beejay. I'm going to fix the letter now

10-06-2002, 07:35 AM	#16
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	Jehova's witnesses are not mandated to even attend the Pledge of Allegiance. So I am not sure how the school can justify forcing any student to stand. Any student if able to show that any activity is offensive to their belief can ask to not attend that particular activity. If you do not feel like standing, just talk to your school principal and you can obtain the permission to not be in the class at the time of the Pledge which usualy takes place as mandated school time starts. My kids never were forced in any way to partake or participate in a celebration in their classroom which is defined as offensive to their spiritual belief. But mom instructed them on their constitutional rights. Anyone has a constitutional right to choose to not honor a Pledge they feel is offensive to them. I try to avoid Pledge of Allegiance situations as I am simply a legal alien and I would feel quite dishonest recitating words I do not mean. It is not offensive to me though. But it requires a level of sincerety I cannot reach for the time being. There is always a bathroom trip to rescue me from such situations! Even though I am a christian I do agree that the term " under God" should not be there because this country is indeed a pluralistic democracy. The God notion should be contained in the heart of an individual without being forced fed on anyone. Same with prayer.

10-06-2002, 10:06 AM	#17
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	I am honored that you have decided to quote me in your letter. I like your "anti-atheist" paragraph in particular. It is short and to the point. Well said. A few quick comments: (1) The paragraph that begins Some things that I found out at.... Add a few words to identify the site and to impress the teacher with why it is a legitimate authority that she should respect. It is always best to assume that the reader is going to be a bit lazy, and looking for any excuse to read into your letter what she wants to see. Opportunities to dismiss your writing out of laziness and of projecting into it things you do not mean should be avoided. (2) I agree with those who say that you should not ask for permission to do that which you have every right to do. (3) Take care.

10-08-2002, 03:09 AM	#18
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	Trustno1: How did it go?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.