Um....have you forgotten about the Roberts Court? The Constitution is no longer the supreme foundation of our Rule of Law, it's really more of a bunch of suggested ideas from people who had no idea just how bloody fucking 𝑾𝑶𝑲𝑬 'Merica would get.
The Bible is the only religion you're allowed to freely worship.¹
You 𝑾𝑰𝑳𝑳 recite the Liberty Incantation² with gusto and pride³ otherwise the Magic Skycloth won't spew Freedom⁴.
You 𝑾𝑰𝑳𝑳 recite the prayer. Period.⁵
Also, hamberders and covfefe are the official school lunch now.⁶
(¹ Assuming you've chosen the correct flavor of Christianity....think "Two Corinthians...")
(² Written by a Socialist Baptist minister as an advertising jungle to sell flags to schoolchildren.)
(³ Not 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 kind of pride, those are Yahweh's rainbows.)
(⁴ And that's how the godless commie bastards win.)
(⁵ Both Yahweh and Orange God require your undivided attention. Don't make that 14-year-old varsity nose guard who casually tosses bales up into the hay loft have a 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 with you out behind the barn. The poor dear doesn't know too many words.)
Aye, that's rrrrrright, lass! Arrrrrg.....grog.....popping on deck.....{crap, what are some other pirate words, something about really cold logs or frozen lumber or some such....shit, it'll come to me}....rum! Yeah, flagon o' rrrrum! Eat your citrus!
With a bought and keep on retainer SCOTUS majority who knows what the Constitution will mean in the near future. There is absolutely NO basis for the immunity ruling and it fact under historical precedent the founders chose NOT to include it for the executive. Most came to American to get away from kings and theocracy. (Based on 40+ years law practice)
I can see the parental permission bit being allowed by SCOTUS. They are minors; requiring parental/guarding permission for a lot of things is just standard practice.
However I agree the 'you must stand, hand on heart' thing seems to be a flagrant violation of freedom of expression and of precedent. Courts ruling 'you don't have to do this' directly implies that they mean 'you don't have to do *any* similar, replacement, or proxy expression of the same sentiment.'
Those rights are limited in public school settings because the government is coercing each child to be in social contact with people they might not otherwise choose to associate with.
This is the "your right to swing your arms ends at my nose" principle: because kids are *forced* to be in school together, their right to express themselves or their religion ends when it imposes on the right of the kids *who are forced to be in the room with them*, to be free of that religious expression. Which means you can't necessarily express yourself or your religious views in school the way that would be protected on a street corner.
But be that as it may, since 1943 AFAIK the courts have generally agreed that a kid doesn't need a permission slip to not say the pledge. However with THIS court being as conservative as it is, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they upheld that part. I do not think they will uphold required standing or required hand on heart, because even for this court I think that's a bit of a bridge too far.
Forced performative nonsense patriotism is the kind the current MAGA crowd seems to like best, really. It's got everything: they look like authority figures, it makes people they don't like anyway unhappy, it kowtows to a nationalist cult mindset, and everyone knows on some level it's meaningless drivel. Honestly, I'd be more surprised if they didn't love it.
The Moms for Liberty/We Hate Trans folks are always going on about "parental rights". Seems parents ought to have the right to decide their kids don't need to stand with hand on chest.
Yeah, but they can make any law doing whatever they like and wait till someone challenges it. In the meantime, some of those kids go through school being forces to do it.
Personally, I'd much rather recite the Preamble to the Constitution instead of the Pledge of Allegiance. It's short, simple, and sums up what our nation is supposed to be about.
Yes, I remember having to memorize that in 5th grade, the first of three times I was required to take US history (the others were 8th and 11th. Civics and Government was required in 12th grade. We had to spend 6 months writing a constitution for a hypothetical country, that year. The only limit the teacher put on our work was "in that country, you don't get to know who you will be." The discussions among the students were amazing! This was in 1969-70.)
We do have a few interesting things in this article.
First, my own point of view. I have not said the Pledge of Allegiance in over 40 years, and I will not say it, except perhaps at the point of a gun. And that very real possibility, that someone would feel entitled to cause that to happen, and be justified in the law, is precisely why I will not say it. Now, when other people want to say it, I will stand with them, but only because I’m a nice guy, and don’t want to be disrespectful to other people‘s beliefs, as long as they are respectable beliefs.
Why will I not say the pledge? Above all, because as a gay man, I have watched the people who want to use the pledge as a club— Just like their spiritual brothers who wished to use the Bible as a club— Debate my right to exist in society and participate fully and its benefits for no other reason because they cannot stop thinking about whatever it is they believe to be my sex life. My existence and my participation in society are neither of them open to debate, especially when the debate is all about lies, bigotry, and despite.
When there is no longer a debate in this country about my worth as a human being, we can talk about the pledge. As long as I am what I am— a citizen, a law abiding, tax paying, contributing member of society— whose worth as to all of those things is open for debate because someone doesn’t like my sex life, I’ll not be willing to say the pledge.
That’s the main issue. But there is another one. The flag is a piece of cloth, decorated in a particular way. It is not democracy, freedom, morality, or anything Like them. It is a symbol, and as a symbol, it is whatever people believe it to be. Authoritarians just love symbols, and they are as addicted to symbols as the most far out junkie is addicted to heroin. Sorry not sorry, but I’m not a junkie. And as I already said, unless you have a gun pointed in my direction, your symbols are your own.
And this Brings us to the other Issue, tying my previous paragraphs together. During the wedding cake wars, conservatives claimed that “forcing“ a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding was in fact coerced speech. No one should be coerced into making speech that he disagrees with. And yet, here they are, defying what they claim are their principles, defying what they claim the flag actually stands for— freedom— in favor of coercing speech.
Coercing speech simply is the opposite of what they claim the flag stands for. And it reveals their weakness.
Check me on this, but wasn't there a court case that went all the way to SCOTUS about forcing recitation of the Pledge? I also seem to recall that Hemant's series on the Pledge of Allegiance included mention of that case. Yet North Dakota wants to (once again) waste time and money (and some good will, to boot) attempting to coerce students into saying the Pledge each day.
As I’ve said before (and others before me): it’s (also) about exhausting the resources of people who actually care for America and fight this stupidity.
It doesn’t matter. The whole concept of ‘decided law’ Stare Decicis is gone. These Supremes are willing to usher in a new world order to control ‘Those People’ - meaning anyone not wanting to be bound by white christianist privilege.
You beat me to it. I remember this exact same thing happening in the late 1960s when I was in junior high and high school. I served a couple of detentions for not standing for the pledge (along with a bunch of other kids--this was in 8th grade) til the school district got it into their thick skulls that They Couldn't Do That. Some people never learn. And everything old is new again.
1943, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
The SCOTUS ruling includes the famous line "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion"
However it was 6-3, so even back then this wasn't a slam dunk. The court we have now is more conservative.
Also from my very limited understanding, the whole topic of permission slips just didn't come up and wasn't addressed by SCOTUS. The 'no permission required to exercise my freedom of expression' came later, from lower courts. So SCOTUS could take THAT question up and rule conservatively even if they wanted to keep Barnette intact.
Presumably, they're trying to get a new one to SCOTUS, understanding the difference between SCOTUS then and SCOTUS now.
Put a case like that in front of the current Court, and there's a measurable chance we'll have a mandatory daily oath to the sitting President. To him personally, not the country or the office.
Of course, the law is automatically unconstitutional under West Virginia SBOE v. Barnette, which in a previous pledge case in the middle of WWII, held that "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodix in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
If only these Republican legislators were to pass a basic Civics class before they were allowed to take office, we might be saved from the enactment of such unconstitutional statutes.
The goal is to overturn that case with the new Christian Nationalist Supreme Court. It bans forced religion and compelled speech and conservatives can't have that.
It's as though they think kids are unable to make up their own minds. It's as though they think that the parents own the kids. Requiring kids whose parents have opted them out to still go through all the motions short of actually mouthing the words shows that they aren't really interested in anything other than forcing strict obedience.
This was declared unconstitutional in 1943. Do you think the ND NSGOP is looking for a case to overturn WV v Barnette? Or are they just stupidly focusing on their desire to force everyone to obey them?
Do you really think there’s a single Republican politician that knows US history enough to be able to address the actual court case? Or even know that their bill is wildly unconstitutional?
They might not all be convinced of Jewish space lasers, but most of them are too ignorant to do their jobs, and those that aren’t, are too greedy and corrupt to work for the people.
So, a vote for just stupidly focusing on theier desire to force obedience. I am inclined to agree, but there has to be at least one who IS aware enough of our history and really hates that people have more rights.
There are no precedents now. They have done a hard reset on constitutional law and you can bet they will pull more English Common Law and other nonsense out of Alito’s ass to justify anything required to bring about the overthrow of our Republic. edit for typo.
“It's as though they think kids are unable to make up their own minds.” More to the point, they’re terrified that the “kids” are both able and willing to think for themselves. That’s what they want to suppress.
Further Thought: Once the government uses coercion to compel an action, particularly one which has NOTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATION, that government will likely feel free to coerce all sorts of other actions.
This can include but not be limited to prayer and loyalty oaths, and regarding the latter, particularly to a certain Orange Orangutan.
Or worse, the pledge includes the phrase: “For I swear that my life is yours to command in all my actions and thoughts or until death takes me in your service”. Or some similar claptrap. Oh boy, better not give them ideas!
How about making it compulsory to enforce strict gun laws so children don’t have to be murdered, maimed and terrified to go to school!? The compulsory Pledge of Allegiance means nothing
It is clear that the North Dakota Republicans who proposed this abomination believe that they not only can prescribe orthodoxy of opinion, but that they MUST. Their poor attempt at submitting fundamental rights to the vote, by allowing parents the ability to opt their children out of mouthing the words while doing everything else according to their mandate, shows that they want parents to identify their "disloyalty" and that children have absolutely zero rights.
And just as Trumpublicans want to deny women freedom of choice, they want to do the same for kids and the Pledge. This resembles democracy about as well as a hole in the head.
“And frankly, our country isn’t always one that deserves admiration. Why would we want to “pledge allegiance” to a nation that is so often a global embarrassment?“
The reason they’re forcing this is because they know damned well that the country will become an ever bigger embarrassment in the coming years. And once they get this shoved down our throats, they’ll make more pledges (or change this one) that force us to be loyal to Tangerine Tojo. And soon we will be marching in the streets is Jack boots and snitching on our neighbors for speaking bad about the government.
Not a slippery slope, it’s what has happened before.
Forgive my question, please, but is this the most important issue for North Dakota? Have they sorted all the other problems such as healthcare, homelessness, poor nutrition and environmental issues?
"But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all; either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need is to simply say is 'Yes' or 'No.' Anything beyond this comes from the evil one"
-- Matthew 5:34-37
Oops. You folks in North Dakota don't read your bibles, do ya?
This is a clear First Amendment violation, and no state law can override the Constitution. See: Supremacy Clause.
Um....have you forgotten about the Roberts Court? The Constitution is no longer the supreme foundation of our Rule of Law, it's really more of a bunch of suggested ideas from people who had no idea just how bloody fucking 𝑾𝑶𝑲𝑬 'Merica would get.
The Bible is the only religion you're allowed to freely worship.¹
You 𝑾𝑰𝑳𝑳 recite the Liberty Incantation² with gusto and pride³ otherwise the Magic Skycloth won't spew Freedom⁴.
You 𝑾𝑰𝑳𝑳 recite the prayer. Period.⁵
Also, hamberders and covfefe are the official school lunch now.⁶
(¹ Assuming you've chosen the correct flavor of Christianity....think "Two Corinthians...")
(² Written by a Socialist Baptist minister as an advertising jungle to sell flags to schoolchildren.)
(³ Not 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 kind of pride, those are Yahweh's rainbows.)
(⁴ And that's how the godless commie bastards win.)
(⁵ Both Yahweh and Orange God require your undivided attention. Don't make that 14-year-old varsity nose guard who casually tosses bales up into the hay loft have a 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 with you out behind the barn. The poor dear doesn't know too many words.)
(⁶ Deal with it, vegans.)
So, you're saying it's more like The Pirate Code?
Aye, that's rrrrrright, lass! Arrrrrg.....grog.....popping on deck.....{crap, what are some other pirate words, something about really cold logs or frozen lumber or some such....shit, it'll come to me}....rum! Yeah, flagon o' rrrrum! Eat your citrus!
"And ye must be an actual pirate for the code to apply, and it's more like guidelines than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Red Court. Make sail!"
With a bought and keep on retainer SCOTUS majority who knows what the Constitution will mean in the near future. There is absolutely NO basis for the immunity ruling and it fact under historical precedent the founders chose NOT to include it for the executive. Most came to American to get away from kings and theocracy. (Based on 40+ years law practice)
Not in the Theofascist States of America. The Constitution is only a suggestion.
I can see the parental permission bit being allowed by SCOTUS. They are minors; requiring parental/guarding permission for a lot of things is just standard practice.
However I agree the 'you must stand, hand on heart' thing seems to be a flagrant violation of freedom of expression and of precedent. Courts ruling 'you don't have to do this' directly implies that they mean 'you don't have to do *any* similar, replacement, or proxy expression of the same sentiment.'
Children have free speech and religion rights. Those do not require parental permission.
That said, the Calvinball Court views children as property, no different than a car.
Those rights are limited in public school settings because the government is coercing each child to be in social contact with people they might not otherwise choose to associate with.
This is the "your right to swing your arms ends at my nose" principle: because kids are *forced* to be in school together, their right to express themselves or their religion ends when it imposes on the right of the kids *who are forced to be in the room with them*, to be free of that religious expression. Which means you can't necessarily express yourself or your religious views in school the way that would be protected on a street corner.
But be that as it may, since 1943 AFAIK the courts have generally agreed that a kid doesn't need a permission slip to not say the pledge. However with THIS court being as conservative as it is, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they upheld that part. I do not think they will uphold required standing or required hand on heart, because even for this court I think that's a bit of a bridge too far.
Stealing “Calvinball Court” - will happily provide attribution.
Forced patriotism, especially as applied to underaged kids, is performative nonsense.
Forced performative nonsense patriotism is the kind the current MAGA crowd seems to like best, really. It's got everything: they look like authority figures, it makes people they don't like anyway unhappy, it kowtows to a nationalist cult mindset, and everyone knows on some level it's meaningless drivel. Honestly, I'd be more surprised if they didn't love it.
The MAGA version is what I call fake-triotism.
The Moms for Liberty/We Hate Trans folks are always going on about "parental rights". Seems parents ought to have the right to decide their kids don't need to stand with hand on chest.
Those aren’t the rights they mean.
Yep, their right to make decisions for everyone's children.
Yeah, but they can make any law doing whatever they like and wait till someone challenges it. In the meantime, some of those kids go through school being forces to do it.
Forced speech is not free speech.
Forced speech is not free speech.
Forced speech is not free speech.
Forced speech is not free speech.
Get that into your thick skulls you fucking fascists.
Nothing says how free we are by being forced to say a loyalty oath to the State every day, children.
Personally, I'd much rather recite the Preamble to the Constitution instead of the Pledge of Allegiance. It's short, simple, and sums up what our nation is supposed to be about.
𝑾𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔, 𝒊𝒏 𝑶𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒐 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎 𝒂 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉 𝑱𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒆, 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒅𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝑻𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚, 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒐𝒏 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆, 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒎𝒐𝒕𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑾𝒆𝒍𝒇𝒂𝒓𝒆, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑩𝒍𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑳𝒊𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝑷𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚, 𝒅𝒐 𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂.
https://youtu.be/RtGc69HQY4k?feature=shared
Conservatives don't want kids to know that the government exists to promote the general welfare. That's socialist atheist commie talk!
Yes, I remember having to memorize that in 5th grade, the first of three times I was required to take US history (the others were 8th and 11th. Civics and Government was required in 12th grade. We had to spend 6 months writing a constitution for a hypothetical country, that year. The only limit the teacher put on our work was "in that country, you don't get to know who you will be." The discussions among the students were amazing! This was in 1969-70.)
That's a good alternative, although for me, I don't think I could say it without singing the Schoolhouse Rock version. 😀
That's not just unconstitutional, it's antithetical to our American values.
Compulsory patriotism isn't patriotism.
That’s why they like it
We do have a few interesting things in this article.
First, my own point of view. I have not said the Pledge of Allegiance in over 40 years, and I will not say it, except perhaps at the point of a gun. And that very real possibility, that someone would feel entitled to cause that to happen, and be justified in the law, is precisely why I will not say it. Now, when other people want to say it, I will stand with them, but only because I’m a nice guy, and don’t want to be disrespectful to other people‘s beliefs, as long as they are respectable beliefs.
Why will I not say the pledge? Above all, because as a gay man, I have watched the people who want to use the pledge as a club— Just like their spiritual brothers who wished to use the Bible as a club— Debate my right to exist in society and participate fully and its benefits for no other reason because they cannot stop thinking about whatever it is they believe to be my sex life. My existence and my participation in society are neither of them open to debate, especially when the debate is all about lies, bigotry, and despite.
When there is no longer a debate in this country about my worth as a human being, we can talk about the pledge. As long as I am what I am— a citizen, a law abiding, tax paying, contributing member of society— whose worth as to all of those things is open for debate because someone doesn’t like my sex life, I’ll not be willing to say the pledge.
That’s the main issue. But there is another one. The flag is a piece of cloth, decorated in a particular way. It is not democracy, freedom, morality, or anything Like them. It is a symbol, and as a symbol, it is whatever people believe it to be. Authoritarians just love symbols, and they are as addicted to symbols as the most far out junkie is addicted to heroin. Sorry not sorry, but I’m not a junkie. And as I already said, unless you have a gun pointed in my direction, your symbols are your own.
And this Brings us to the other Issue, tying my previous paragraphs together. During the wedding cake wars, conservatives claimed that “forcing“ a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding was in fact coerced speech. No one should be coerced into making speech that he disagrees with. And yet, here they are, defying what they claim are their principles, defying what they claim the flag actually stands for— freedom— in favor of coercing speech.
Coercing speech simply is the opposite of what they claim the flag stands for. And it reveals their weakness.
They are symbol junkies.
BRAVISSIMO!!! I stand with you as a Gay man.
Thanks.
Ah yes, let's single out people who don't want to pledge for religious or personal reasons so they can be harassed. Great way to show freedom.
Plus, a convenient list of subversive parents.
Check me on this, but wasn't there a court case that went all the way to SCOTUS about forcing recitation of the Pledge? I also seem to recall that Hemant's series on the Pledge of Allegiance included mention of that case. Yet North Dakota wants to (once again) waste time and money (and some good will, to boot) attempting to coerce students into saying the Pledge each day.
The stupid ... it gets tiresome ... FAST.
As I’ve said before (and others before me): it’s (also) about exhausting the resources of people who actually care for America and fight this stupidity.
Edit for typo.
It doesn’t matter. The whole concept of ‘decided law’ Stare Decicis is gone. These Supremes are willing to usher in a new world order to control ‘Those People’ - meaning anyone not wanting to be bound by white christianist privilege.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. 1943. In the middle of WWII when real patriotism was at its highest.
You beat me to it. I remember this exact same thing happening in the late 1960s when I was in junior high and high school. I served a couple of detentions for not standing for the pledge (along with a bunch of other kids--this was in 8th grade) til the school district got it into their thick skulls that They Couldn't Do That. Some people never learn. And everything old is new again.
New Orange god, new rules.
1943, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
The SCOTUS ruling includes the famous line "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion"
However it was 6-3, so even back then this wasn't a slam dunk. The court we have now is more conservative.
Also from my very limited understanding, the whole topic of permission slips just didn't come up and wasn't addressed by SCOTUS. The 'no permission required to exercise my freedom of expression' came later, from lower courts. So SCOTUS could take THAT question up and rule conservatively even if they wanted to keep Barnette intact.
Presumably, they're trying to get a new one to SCOTUS, understanding the difference between SCOTUS then and SCOTUS now.
Put a case like that in front of the current Court, and there's a measurable chance we'll have a mandatory daily oath to the sitting President. To him personally, not the country or the office.
Of course, the law is automatically unconstitutional under West Virginia SBOE v. Barnette, which in a previous pledge case in the middle of WWII, held that "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodix in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
If only these Republican legislators were to pass a basic Civics class before they were allowed to take office, we might be saved from the enactment of such unconstitutional statutes.
The goal is to overturn that case with the new Christian Nationalist Supreme Court. It bans forced religion and compelled speech and conservatives can't have that.
My guess is that they've never been required to actually take (not to mention, pass) a basic high-school-level civics class.
𝐼𝑛 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡, 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦𝑜𝑛𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑡𝑜—𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑏𝑒 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒—𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑘𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑏𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒.𝐼𝑛 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡, 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦𝑜𝑛𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑡𝑜—𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑏𝑒 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒—𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑘𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑏𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒.
It's as though they think kids are unable to make up their own minds. It's as though they think that the parents own the kids. Requiring kids whose parents have opted them out to still go through all the motions short of actually mouthing the words shows that they aren't really interested in anything other than forcing strict obedience.
This was declared unconstitutional in 1943. Do you think the ND NSGOP is looking for a case to overturn WV v Barnette? Or are they just stupidly focusing on their desire to force everyone to obey them?
Do you really think there’s a single Republican politician that knows US history enough to be able to address the actual court case? Or even know that their bill is wildly unconstitutional?
They might not all be convinced of Jewish space lasers, but most of them are too ignorant to do their jobs, and those that aren’t, are too greedy and corrupt to work for the people.
So, a vote for just stupidly focusing on theier desire to force obedience. I am inclined to agree, but there has to be at least one who IS aware enough of our history and really hates that people have more rights.
There are no precedents now. They have done a hard reset on constitutional law and you can bet they will pull more English Common Law and other nonsense out of Alito’s ass to justify anything required to bring about the overthrow of our Republic. edit for typo.
“It's as though they think kids are unable to make up their own minds.” More to the point, they’re terrified that the “kids” are both able and willing to think for themselves. That’s what they want to suppress.
Further Thought: Once the government uses coercion to compel an action, particularly one which has NOTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATION, that government will likely feel free to coerce all sorts of other actions.
This can include but not be limited to prayer and loyalty oaths, and regarding the latter, particularly to a certain Orange Orangutan.
It's a safe bet that at least one of them is champing at the bit to insert "and President for Life Trump" somewhere in the pledge.
Or worse, the pledge includes the phrase: “For I swear that my life is yours to command in all my actions and thoughts or until death takes me in your service”. Or some similar claptrap. Oh boy, better not give them ideas!
How about making it compulsory to enforce strict gun laws so children don’t have to be murdered, maimed and terrified to go to school!? The compulsory Pledge of Allegiance means nothing
𝑺𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝑵𝒐𝒕 𝑩𝒆 𝑰𝒏𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒅
Fuck them kids. ~ Trumpublicans
A lot of them literally do that anyway. See: child marriage.
No tassels on guns.
Hello Kitty Bang Bang
https://www.reddit.com/r/Glocks/comments/17lq7mu/hello_kitty/#lightbox
Oh, I was expecting other Hello Kitty accessories.
"I filled that kitty cat so full of lead, we'll have to use her for a pencil instead."
Mixed message, there.
To quote the old joke:
Republicans reply to “fuck those kids” is “Do you think we have time”?
"One way to find out....." ;-)
From Justice Jackson's majority opinion in WV v Barnette:
𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗳𝗶𝘅𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗼 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹, 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝘁𝘆, 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗱𝗼𝘅 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀, 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺, 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗻.
Elsewhere in the same opinion:
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄 𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘆, 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗯𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗮𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁𝘀. 𝗢𝗻𝗲'𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲, 𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘆, 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗰𝗵, 𝗮 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗹𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲; 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗻𝗼 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
It is clear that the North Dakota Republicans who proposed this abomination believe that they not only can prescribe orthodoxy of opinion, but that they MUST. Their poor attempt at submitting fundamental rights to the vote, by allowing parents the ability to opt their children out of mouthing the words while doing everything else according to their mandate, shows that they want parents to identify their "disloyalty" and that children have absolutely zero rights.
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒.
-- David Hume
And just as Trumpublicans want to deny women freedom of choice, they want to do the same for kids and the Pledge. This resembles democracy about as well as a hole in the head.
"Unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free."
-- Major Frank Burns
Sorry (not sorry), Ferret Face. Not happening here. Probably not happening on this site, either.
I'd tell Frank to go boohoo to Hot Lips, but I doubt she's having any more of his crap.
“And frankly, our country isn’t always one that deserves admiration. Why would we want to “pledge allegiance” to a nation that is so often a global embarrassment?“
The reason they’re forcing this is because they know damned well that the country will become an ever bigger embarrassment in the coming years. And once they get this shoved down our throats, they’ll make more pledges (or change this one) that force us to be loyal to Tangerine Tojo. And soon we will be marching in the streets is Jack boots and snitching on our neighbors for speaking bad about the government.
Not a slippery slope, it’s what has happened before.
Forgive my question, please, but is this the most important issue for North Dakota? Have they sorted all the other problems such as healthcare, homelessness, poor nutrition and environmental issues?
That’s a stupid question, Claudia! Of course not!
(Goes off to research North Dakota……)
Is this the most important issue for North Dakota? No.
Is reelection rhetoric the most important issue for North Dakotan legislators? In most cases, yes.
Hmmm. What would Jesus say?
"But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all; either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need is to simply say is 'Yes' or 'No.' Anything beyond this comes from the evil one"
-- Matthew 5:34-37
Oops. You folks in North Dakota don't read your bibles, do ya?
And yet, there are other places in the Bible which require swearing oaths.
You don’t know whether your left hand or your right hand should go over your heart.
But I will say this much. I will not swear on any book. And this is one of the places I agree with Jesus. Either my word is good enough or it is not.