Florida boy, 11, arrested after refusing to recite ‘racist’ Pledge of Allegiance: report

[mike2810]

my understanding is the kid in question is Quaker, so he isn't supposed to take an oath of allegiance to anything but God anyway.

Do you have a source for that?

Once again, I have provided sources in other posts that the student was arrested for other reasons, not for standing or saying the pledge.

 

[Walking away]

Re: Florida boy, 11, arrested after refusing to recite ‘racist’ Pledge of Allegiance: report

the national anthem's third verse IS offensive to black people. see if you can figure out why these words, written by a rich slaveholder whose brother in law authored the dred scott decision, are thus found offensive:

No refuge could save the hireling & slave/

From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:/

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave/

O’er the land of the free & the home of the brave.

here is a hint, if you have any problems understanding why it is found objectionable by many:
‘The Star-Spangled Banner’s’ racist lyrics reflect its slave owner author, Francis Scott Key — The Undefeated

I would rather believe the hirelings were the German mercinaries the British hired and the slaves were the American sailors that were kidnapped and forced into slavery. You can accept it as racist if you are looking for anything or reason to point at and say racism.

 

[Walking away]

actually, he didn't

he only taught you to do exactly as you have been told to do by someone in authority

your post tells us that. our freedom of speech symbolized by that flag also gives us the freedom to burn it - despite what the majority might be inclined to do



and why am i not surprised you would decline to tread on the flag of north korea in your team's locker room when north korea was your opponent

Stepping on another countries flag is a waste of energy. Stepping on your country's flag is a blatant insult to the country you call home. Love it or leave it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

if you are forced to stand for a pledge, how free are you?

If you have to take the same "pledge of allegiance" on a daily basis, how much "allegiance" does that "pledge" actually denote?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

my understanding is the kid in question is Quaker, so he isn't supposed to take an oath of allegiance to anything but God anyway.

Do you have any further info on that because this is the first that I have heard about it. Not saying that it isn't true, only that I've never heard it previously.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

because they love God more?

And the "respect" for those who were SACRIFICED in order that "White Christians" could "have this country" is in "The Pledge of Allegiance" - where?

OOPS - Sorry about that, clipped from the wrong post.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If a person truly loves this country why should they object? The word is respect for the history of this country and the sacrifices made to have this country.

And the "respect" for those who were SACRIFICED in order that "White Christians" could "have this country" is in "The Pledge of Allegiance" - where?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It is called teaching. Teaching a young person the value of pledging allegiance to the flag of the country they live in is teaching them respect. There is nothing wrong with teaching a first grader the meaning of "pledge", "allegiance", "republic", "nation", "indivisible", "liberty" or "justice". Children are never too young to learn.

I agree that children are never too young to learn.

But what value is there in having a child "rote recite" something which contains words that they do not understand?

There is absolutely NOTHING of value in taking a pledge that you do not understand. Equally there is no "added value" to repeating a pledge that you are already bound by. Equally, no one binds anyone to a pledge but the person GIVING the pledge (which doesn't mean that the pledge cannot be enforced by strength of law/arms).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

"Render to Ceasar the things which are Ceasar's and to God the things that are God's."Matthew 22:21

It is possible to love God and Country at the same time without offending either.

If one "loves one's country" when one's country is in the wrong, is it still possible to "love God and Country at the same time without offending either"?

Which shows greater "love of country":

1. supporting one's country REGARDLESS of whether one's country is in the wrong; or
2. supporting one's country when one's country is in the right and opposing one's country when one's country is in the wrong?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

How do you feel about Americans and people from other nations burning our Flag?

I would find it distasteful and would attempt to prevent it. Just as I would find the burning of the Iranian flag distasteful and would attempt to prevent that too.

It is tantamount to saying I hate the country.

It could be that, or it could be a protest against what "the country" is DOING. There is a difference you know.

My Father taught me to respect the Flag and what it stands for and for that I will always be grateful.

I am very supportive of what the flag of the United States of America IS SUPPOSED TO stand for. Unfortunately the various government of the United States of America haven't always "shown the flag" in support of those things.

I would object to an American walking on the flag of another country on a locker room to get ready for a game.

Well, it happened. When pressed on the matter the response was (essentially) "It was a joke and girls will be girls, you know.".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

our freedom of speech symbolized by that flag also gives us the freedom to burn it - despite what the majority might be inclined to do

Just as you have the right to ATTEMPT to "burn the flag" in order to express your opinion, I have the right to ATTEMPT to stop you in order to express mine.

and why am i not surprised you would decline to tread on the flag of north korea in your team's locker room when north korea was your opponent

Well, obviously, because you are aware that "Cardinal" is an intelligent, civilized, civil, polite, and respectful person who realized that the "North Korean" team and the government of the DPRK are NOT synonymous.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I see your logic. I just don't see this progress, as being progress.

Nor do many knee-jerk "conservatives".

What do Progressives want?

Good question.

IMO...the dream of absolute equality...a massive social net...open borders...free trade and globalization...and the absolute right to confront, by any means deemed "necessary at the moment" and to attempt to utterly destroy a person for straying from the doctrine, or, heaven forbid, disagree with the doctrine.

Rather than asking yourself what someone else wants and then basing your answers on what you have been told the answers should be, have you ever considered asking them what it is they actually want?

I won't go through all of them, I'll just stick with the first for now.

The dream of absolute equality

everyone shall have an equal opportunity to acquire all the skills that will enable them to compete - WITHOUT handicap - against other persons AND an equal opportunity to fail if their skills are less than those of the other person.
​

Does that mean that everyone, regardless of skill, should have an equal opportunity to gain ANY position? Don't be silly, that would be like picking a brain surgeon by sticking a pin into the phone book (an obscure document no longer available to most people).

THAT...to me...is what Progressives want.

OK, that is what YOU think "progressives" want. Now back to your earlier question "What do Progressives want?".

Its not only silly...but its the Soviet Union revisited.

I hate to tell you this, but the Soviet Union was NOT big on either "open borders" or "free trade and globalization". "Massive social safety net", yes, but so are such countries as Canada, the UK, Japan, the ROK, Australia, and many others which were NOT a part of the Soviet Union.

"(T)he absolute right to confront, by any means deemed "necessary at the moment" and to attempt to utterly destroy a person for straying from the doctrine, or, heaven forbid, disagree with the doctrine", indeed, and that is EXACTLY what the "Conservatives" want to have in the United States of America. (Admittedly the "Liberals" want it too, but to a slightly lesser degree.)

And the comical part is, should this utterly asinine idea of The Green New Deal actually come to pass...EVERYONE WORKS!
There is no more "welfare" programs.

Yes, the idea that it is possible to have a job for everyone so that there is no NEED for "welfare" programs IS pretty stupid - isn't it?

And the Dollar?

As sound as it is in comparison to economic reality - which, of course, isn't the least bit of a change from the days when American currency was called "Continentals".

Really...it's suicide...

Yep, and the automobile wasn't all that good for the livery stable business either.​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Stepping on another countries flag is a waste of energy. Stepping on your country's flag is a blatant insult to the country you call home. Love it or leave it.

I rather prefer "Love it the way it is, or change it if what it is isn't what it claims to be, or, if you can't do that, keep trying.".

Now, I'm going to put out a hypothetical situation that I think has NO CHANCE of happening and then ask you to pick between three optional courses of action based on that hypothetical situation.

SITUATION

Through appropriate votes in the Senate and House of Representatives and after approval by the legally mandated number of states, the Constitution of the United States of America is amended by the addition of the 28th Amendment which reads

Notwithstanding any of the foregoing Articles and Amendments, and notwithstanding any other law or ordinance that now exists, or shall later exist, that collection of teachings and doctrine known as "Roman Catholicism" is NOT a religion within the scope and meaning of the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and is hereby prohibited.

All property purportedly belonging to, or claimed by, the Roman Catholic Church, any agency there of, is hereby declared irrevocably to be the property of the United States of America.

Any person purporting to practice "Roman Catholicism" after the expiry of 14 days from the date of the ratification of this Amendment is hereby deprived of American citizenship and, if holding citizenship in any other country shall be removed to that other country at their own expense immediately upon apprehension. However, if such persons do not hold citizenship in any other country, they may remain in the United States of America but may not engage in either trade or any professional occupation, nor shall they be entitled to vote in any election, nor shall they be entitled to any form of state assistance.
​

becomes a part of the law of the United States of America.​

QUESTION

Do you:

• "Love your country and support it unreservedly.";
• "Do your best to change your country."; or
• "Leave your country."?

 

[Walking away]

I agree that children are never too young to learn.

But what value is there in having a child "rote recite" something which contains words that they do not understand?

There is absolutely NOTHING of value in taking a pledge that you do not understand. Equally there is no "added value" to repeating a pledge that you are already bound by. Equally, no one binds anyone to a pledge but the person GIVING the pledge (which doesn't mean that the pledge cannot be enforced by strength of law/arms).

A first grader believe it or not is capable of learning, spelling and giving the meanings of words. Saying the pledge maybe rote but sometimes doing something that seems rote may just wake up a child to want to learn more about what he is memorizing.
It might interest you to know the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist minister Francis Bellamy.

 

[Walking away]

I rather prefer "Love it the way it is, or change it if what it is isn't what it claims to be, or, if you can't do that, keep trying.".

Now, I'm going to put out a hypothetical situation that I think has NO CHANCE of happening and then ask you to pick between three optional courses of action based on that hypothetical situation.

SITUATION

Through appropriate votes in the Senate and House of Representatives and after approval by the legally mandated number of states, the Constitution of the United States of America is amended by the addition of the 28th Amendment which reads

Notwithstanding any of the foregoing Articles and Amendments, and notwithstanding any other law or ordinance that now exists, or shall later exist, that collection of teachings and doctrine known as "Roman Catholicism" is NOT a religion within the scope and meaning of the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and is hereby prohibited.

All property purportedly belonging to, or claimed by, the Roman Catholic Church, any agency there of, is hereby declared irrevocably to be the property of the United States of America.

Any person purporting to practice "Roman Catholicism" after the expiry of 14 days from the date of the ratification of this Amendment is hereby deprived of American citizenship and, if holding citizenship in any other country shall be removed to that other country at their own expense immediately upon apprehension. However, if such persons do not hold citizenship in any other country, they may remain in the United States of America but may not engage in either trade or any professional occupation, nor shall they be entitled to vote in any election, nor shall they be entitled to any form of state assistance.
​

becomes a part of the law of the United States of America.​

QUESTION

Do you:

• "Love your country and support it unreservedly.";
• "Do your best to change your country."; or
• "Leave your country."?

None of the above but possibly hope the country would never destroy the Constitution or change it so much it is unrecognizable. We have a Constitution that has lasted for 200 years and if followed correctly might last another 200 years.
The first ammendment will prevent your hypothetical situation from happening.

Too bad some of our lawmakers today are not as astute as the original writers of the Constitutions.

 

[justabubba]

Just as you have the right to ATTEMPT to "burn the flag" in order to express your opinion, I have the right to ATTEMPT to stop you in order to express mine.

actually, you don't
my property. i can burn it as i please - assuming i am not violating any provisions for fire hazards

Well, obviously, because you are aware that "Cardinal" is an intelligent, civilized, civil, polite, and respectful person who realized that the "North Korean" team and the government of the DPRK are NOT synonymous.

as a coach, assuming the opponent to be the NK team, i would not hesitate to trample upon the NK flag if i believed it would result in a better outcome for my team

 

[LibDave]

From FOX News

Florida boy, 11, arrested after refusing to recite ‘racist’ Pledge of Allegiance: report
​

A Florida middle school student was arrested earlier this month after allegedly getting into a confrontation with school officials and a law enforcement officer following reports that he refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

The 11-year-old attends the sixth grade at Lawton Chiles Middle Academy in Lakeland. He has been charged with disrupting a school function and resisting arrest without being violent, both misdemeanors. The Feb. 4 incident began when the boy allegedly told his substitute teacher he did not want to stand for the pledge because he viewed the American flag as racist against African-Americans.


In a handwritten statement to Polk County Public Schools, the teacher reported telling the boy, "Why if it was so bad here he did not go to another place to live." She said he then said, "they brought me here," according to Bay News 9.

The student was arrested by a school resource officer after he refused to follow commands and called school officials racists, reports said. He has not been identified by the school or police. A Lakeland police spokesperson declined to comment on the matter, The Ledger newspaper reported.

COMMENT:-

Strangely enough, if the "adults" hadn't made a big fuss over this incident, there would have been no "disrupting a school function" and thus no need for police involvement and thus no "resisting arrest" - would there?

On the other hand, it IS the duty of "The State" to ensure that all of the children think and behave exactly alike - isn't it?

Well?

Isn't it?

I mean, we can't have conflicting opinions in a free, open, and democratic society - can we?
​

How many of you were gullible enough to believe this isn't another example of fake news? It doesn't add up and I'm convinced we would find some important information has been left out and/or due diligence was never conducted in this case.

The major conflict for the hearts-and-minds of the world has taken place over the last 100 years. Namely, Capitalism vs Socialism vs Nationalism. And we have come full circle.

The conflict between Nationalism and Marxist-Leninism played out with particular ferocity in the streets of Europe and Russia in the 10's, 20's and 30's. Socialism won out in Russia. Nationalism took hold in Europe. However, Nationalism suffered an almost irrevocable blow with the defeat of Nazi Germany and the Axis forces due to the barbaric revelations which followed.

A 50 year confrontation between the merits of Capitalism and Socialism (Marxist-Leninism) began. Those with an understanding of the two remaining competing systems were wrong to write the obituary of Marxist-Leninism so soon. While Socialism proved itself to be an untenable system incapable of providing for the general welfare of a society, it has enjoyed free-reign among the uneducated and emotionally driven sectors of the political spectrum in the predominant Capitalist systems. It has continued to fester as a cancer, feeding on it's capitalist hosts, and has now metastasized to an extent were it may now be capable of terminating its host.

Socialists enjoy a history of propaganda and misinformation which the capitalists have little responsive capability. Capitalists are currently experiencing the same street conflicts which threatened the Nationalists in 20's and 30's Europe and are wholly unprepared to address the ideological contest. Capitalists believe the historical argument is settled case based on the merits. Socialists understand they don't need facts or even a tenable system to prevail. When the evidence proves them wrong they merely report other facts and misinformation and continue on unapologetic. And mark my words, this is EXACTLY what the Socialist-leaning media is hell bent on doing. Don't make the mistake of thinking the "fake news" is merely an accident or the result of a lack of diligence. Those on the left are wrong, but they are also emotionally based and ill-informed. Capitalists are mistaken in thinking being correct is sufficient. The Marxist-Leninist's know all too well being emotional and ill-informed is often enough.

 

[MauiMan]

From FOX News

Florida boy, 11, arrested after refusing to recite ‘racist’ Pledge of Allegiance: report
​

A Florida middle school student was arrested earlier this month after allegedly getting into a confrontation with school officials and a law enforcement officer following reports that he refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

The 11-year-old attends the sixth grade at Lawton Chiles Middle Academy in Lakeland. He has been charged with disrupting a school function and resisting arrest without being violent, both misdemeanors. The Feb. 4 incident began when the boy allegedly told his substitute teacher he did not want to stand for the pledge because he viewed the American flag as racist against African-Americans.


In a handwritten statement to Polk County Public Schools, the teacher reported telling the boy, "Why if it was so bad here he did not go to another place to live." She said he then said, "they brought me here," according to Bay News 9.

The student was arrested by a school resource officer after he refused to follow commands and called school officials racists, reports said. He has not been identified by the school or police. A Lakeland police spokesperson declined to comment on the matter, The Ledger newspaper reported.

COMMENT:-

Strangely enough, if the "adults" hadn't made a big fuss over this incident, there would have been no "disrupting a school function" and thus no need for police involvement and thus no "resisting arrest" - would there?

On the other hand, it IS the duty of "The State" to ensure that all of the children think and behave exactly alike - isn't it?

Well?

Isn't it?

I mean, we can't have conflicting opinions in a free, open, and democratic society - can we?
​

Another important Fox News article hoping to outrage their audience. You have to read to the end to notice that students are not required to recite the pledge. The kid had every right to do what he did.

 

[cpwill]

The pledge is not racist, but the First Amendment guarantees your right not to recite it. Any decent judge would see that.

Here, we see both Florida Man and Florida Boy in action.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[cpwill]

actually, you don't
my property. i can burn it as i please - assuming i am not violating any provisions for fire hazards




as a coach, assuming the opponent to be the NK team, i would not hesitate to trample upon the NK flag if i believed it would result in a better outcome for my team

:shrug: as a player, if I see the other team burning or trampling my flag before the game, some of them will likely have unfortunate accidents before the game is out .

 

[roguenuke]

It would bother me.
Respect is an important attribute to have...and too many lack is severely.

Respect is subjective, in how it is given, shown, and why it should be given, who/what it should be shown to. You are not the arbiter of what respect is nor how people should show it. You can show an opinion on it, but that is a bit different than asserting straight out that too many lack <respect> severely, considering that there are so many opinions on what respect is and how it should be shown.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

A first grader believe it or not is capable of learning, spelling and giving the meanings of words.

Something that I have never questioned. On the other hand, there is a question of WHICH words.

Saying the pledge maybe rote but sometimes doing something that seems rote may just wake up a child to want to learn more about what he is memorizing.

And sometimes it will have the opposite effect - won't it?

It might interest you to know the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist minister Francis Bellamy.

It might interest you even more to know that "The Pledge of Allegiance":

1. of today, is NOT the same as it was originally written;
2. was written as part of an advertising campaign to sell magazines and flags (for the profit of [amongst others] Mr. Bellamy [but more particularly James B. Upham]);
3. did NOT have any reference to "God" in it when written; and
4. the reference to "God" in "The Pledge of Allegiance" was added just slightly prior to the addition of the words "In God We Trust" to American currency (and I will resist the impulse to add "and that addition was made because people simply didn't REALLY trust the US dollar").

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

None of the above ...

Sorry, but "None of the above" is an actual answer to the actual question that was actually asked.

What "None of the above" IS, is an evasion.

Please try again.

... but possibly hope the country would never destroy the Constitution or change it so much it is unrecognizable.

That's a nice sentiment, but "hope" simply won't hack it. You actually have to get out and WORK to protect what you want to keep.

We have a Constitution that has lasted for 200 years and if followed correctly might last another 200 years.

Quite right.

Of course, you do realize that there are people who have a different definition of "correctly" than you do, don't you?

And you do realize that if the people who have a different definition of "correctly" than you do get off their butts and work to ensure that it is THEIR definition of "correctly" that is the operative one while those who have the same definition of "correctly" that you do sit around an "hope" that everything will turn out the way that they would like to see it turn out, the outcome is very easy to predict (and NOT the one that you would "hope" to see), don't you?

The first ammendment will prevent your hypothetical situation from happening.

Will it?

The 1st Amendment protects "religion" but does NOT protect anything that is NOT a "religion" (even if that thing SAYS it is a "religion").

Too bad some of our lawmakers today are not as astute as the original writers of the Constitutions.

I will definitely agree that there wasn't a single signer of either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States of America (or even a single legislator who voted in favour of either) who hadn't actually read the whole thing through and discussed exactly what the meaning was before voting on either of them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

actually, you don't

Produce proof of ownership and I will allow you to continue. I might spray the dangerously burning material with a fire hose in order to prevent damage to other property, but I won't prohibit you from igniting it.

my property. i can burn it as i please - assuming i am not violating any provisions for fire hazards

And, if in my opinion you are creating a safety hazard, then I have the right, and duty, to ameliorate that safety hazard. I might be wrong, but I do have a civic duty to act.

as a coach, assuming the opponent to be the NK team, i would not hesitate to trample upon the NK flag if i believed it would result in a better outcome for my team

And, of course, that would apply to the flags of any other country - wouldn't it? I mean your sole consideration is "improving team performance" and there is absolutely no "political statement" being made. Right?

Not only that, but you would agree that the DPRK team has an equal right to spread out the American flag and trample on it because that was a way of "improving team performance" - wouldn't you?

 

[justabubba]

Produce proof of ownership and I will allow you to continue.

i would adequately defend both my property and my right to torch it

I might spray the dangerously burning material with a fire hose in order to prevent damage to other property, but I won't prohibit you from igniting it.

i doubt you would allowed to get that close to it

And, if in my opinion you are creating a safety hazard, then I have the right, and duty, to ameliorate that safety hazard. I might be wrong, but I do have a civic duty to act.

see the comment immediately above. probably better to dial 911 and seek the assistance of the fire department. glad they are often well trained medics ... wouldn't want any bystander to get burned

And, of course, that would apply to the flags of any other country - wouldn't it? I mean your sole consideration is "improving team performance" and there is absolutely no "political statement" being made. Right?

were it that canadian hockey team and my squad needed inspiration, that maple leaf is subject to being heavily trampled

Not only that, but you would agree that the DPRK team has an equal right to spread out the American flag and trample on it because that was a way of "improving team performance" - wouldn't you?

absolutely. the north koreans are entitled to use whatever symbol they choose to motivate their team. however, knowing they suffer from an inadequate diet, my plan would be to roll in a huge buffet for them just as it was time for that team to depart the locker room