Dispatches from the Culture Wars

This student-led protest is exactly what needs to occur nationwide, preferably before the next US Supreme Court case on the pledge. I hope this gets a lot of publicity. The use of an alternate pledge, one which stresses ideas and removes the religious aspect, is extremely helpful.

While I hate the extremes to which "framing" can go, if ever there were an acceptable use of framing, proposing an alternate pledge would be an example of it. Of course, I dislike the idea of there being a pledge at all, but if there is going to be one, this new one isn't too bad.

Posted by: Karst | October 1, 2007 9:59 AM

I think I'm going to show this to our kids. One just entered middle school and the other 1st grade. Of course I'm "only" a step-dad to them, so I'll see how it goes with the other dad.

Posted by: daenku32 | October 1, 2007 10:14 AM

It takes away from school time; it's ignored or disrespected by mocking teens; and the phrase, "one nation, under God," violates the separation of church and state.

The first objection is irrelevant: It's during Home Room and the kids aren't working anyway. The second objection is also irrelevant: Because others are disrespectful is not a good reason for anyone else to be disrespectful. The third objection is factually incorrect: Both the 9th Circuit and the Supremes have rules otherwise. Overall, though, it rates as pretty good analysis for the High School level.

Plus, don't they know removing God from schools leads directly to Columbine-type situations? Don't they have to take a history class?

See, it's easy to write for STACLU! Do they pay for copy?

Posted by: kehrsam | October 1, 2007 10:37 AM

Chuck - it personally offends me that someone would categorically object to all forms of a pledge of allegiance to their nation, but I understand that your objection is to the "force" part of the question. After all, a forced recitation of such a pledge is worth less than the paper it is printed on.

Posted by: BobApril | October 1, 2007 11:04 AM

Welcome to the information age where all the disinformation, straw men, and histronics of the religious right fall before the fact and meme dispersion of the internet.

End result?
American teenagers are becoming smarter than their fundie parents, and at an earlier and earlier age.

Posted by: Jason Failes | October 1, 2007 11:09 AM

Not a problem with the name, Monimonika. I'm an identical twin and have gone through life called "Karl." If it's not that, people somehow remember "Kurt" as "Chris." Then there's the last name with its wandering H.

Oh, and good catch on the quote mining. I was wondering if I could get away with that.... Posters here are on the ball, I really ought to move to STACLU!

Posted by: kehrsam | October 1, 2007 11:27 AM

There is nothing at all crepy about a whole room of chilren standing to attention while engaged in saying a pledge. Nothing creepy at all.

Now, THAT'S sarcasm!

Posted by: Donalbain | October 1, 2007 12:01 PM

As far as I'm concerned, the event of group recitation of a rote pledge, regardless of the pledge's content, regardless of whether participation is forced or not, is antithetical to the concept of democracy. What's the point of it? Obviously, to instil loyalty. In a democracy, this is backwards. Government should be loyal to us, not vice versa.

One of my rights as a citizen of this country is the right to go someplace else and leave this one behind. It's an important right, not every country lets you do it!

Expecting children to mindlessly recite an oath they're too young to understand devalues the entire concept of pledging.

Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | October 1, 2007 1:47 PM

"have them recite ... the Bill of Rights"

Interesting idea which suggests a question that should be asked of anyone supporting the posting of the 10Cs in public facilities, especially courthouses:

Why are you more concerned about posting the 10Cs, most of which would be unconstitutional or unenforcable if actually enacted as laws, than about posting the 10Bs?

Aside to kersham: sorry, but I believe you've been outvoted on the positioning of the "h", and this is, after all, a democracy, under God.

- Charles

Posted by: ctw | October 1, 2007 2:30 PM

I'm surprised that no one suggested that the students could do what everyone else did from 1892 to 1954, namely recite the original pledge, which did not have the phrase "under God". Given America's success in winning WWII and recovering from the Depression, God must not have been too offended during the interim.

Posted by: dev | October 1, 2007 4:33 PM

One of society's primary jobs is raising and socializing its children. Kids will always be taught rhymes, sayings, songs and repeat-after-me. Unfortunately I still remember "and if I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take". What a macabre way to end the day. I also remember the Lord's Prayer - I just checked - but I couldn't do it without the phrasing of the lovely melody Streisand uses.

It's futile to suggest not using rote in raising our children. We are responsible for the content and consciousness-raising around that. I remember a 6th-grader in my Alternative Religion class (Norway, State Church) telling me that the Christmas assemblies seemed to get more Christianized each year. (She often chose to attend, though exempt.) Objectively wrong, but I felt I'd done my part helping her to increased maturity and awareness.

This comment is too long already, so I'd best not get started on the recent victory, after 10 years of court cases, at Strasbourg of a group of parents fighting Christianity in the schools here. The fight's not over yet.

Posted by: nbm | October 1, 2007 6:11 PM

Rote learning is useful and acceptable in precisely ONE situation. When learning a factual list of things that need to be remembered. So, you learn your times tables by heart, you learn the levels of biological taxonomy by heart (Silly Gerald forgot ostriches chase perverted kings), you learn the various nerves of the body by heart.
The idea of rote learning emotions and loyalty goes beyond creepy into a whole new realm of wrong.

Posted by: Donalbain | October 1, 2007 7:19 PM

The idea of rote learning emotions and loyalty goes beyond creepy into a whole new realm of wrong.

What's so "creepy" or "wrong" about -- to take just the example that comes to mind right now -- having kids memorize certain teachings of Jesus? That's how I and others of my generation learned our most basic morality at an early age. That's what enabled us to start practicing those basic rules even before we fully understood them.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 1, 2007 10:35 PM

Raging Bee wrote:

That's what enabled us to start practicing those basic rules even before we fully understood them.

This is an especially convincing argument if you consider what tremendously profound moral beings children are.

I mean, I know there's that whole Lord of the Flies thing, but once you put that out of your mind and utterly divorce yourself from your own childhood experiences, what you're saying actually does make a lot of sense.

Posted by: Leni | October 2, 2007 12:12 AM

I agree with Chuck, Donalbain, Michael and soteos. Reciting the pledge is totalitarian crap. I grew up in a communist country and we had similar stupid rituals, except that people had a healthier attitude toward them.

Constitutionally, however, the state is allowed to throw a bit of crap at you as long as you are allowed to refuse to catch it. The only unconstitutional part is "under God". (And kehrsam is factually wrong about the court decisions.)

Posted by: bullfighter | October 2, 2007 3:46 AM

I am not a lesser American because I refuse to offer a loyalty pledge any more than I am a lesser American because I don't jump around on one foot with my eyes crossed and my fingers in my ears.

No, indeed. You're a lesser American because you (presumably) refuse to offer a loyalty pledge while jumping around on one foot with your eyes crossed and your fingers in your ears. You horrible, horrible person.

Posted by: MartinM | October 2, 2007 6:21 AM

I'm extremely uncomfortable in general with the idea that the goal of public schools in any way is to teach children how to be good citizens. Having the government telling kids how they should feel toward their government is a conflict of interest from the start, and even parents who choose for their kids not to attend public schooling are nevertheless paying through taxation for the government to tell this to other children. For this reason I object to any sort of loyalty pledge in schools. Making-- or even asking-- kids swear an oath to anything as part of a school exercise is going past education and into indoctrination.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2007 8:27 AM

Bull wrote

(And kehrsam is factually wrong about the court decisions.)

I think everyone else figured out that the comment in question was a parody. Sorry about that. Among other things, I referred to the 9th Circuit Newdow case (incorrectly, as you note) but Colorado is not in the 9th Circuit. For the record, the 4th and 7th Circuits have ruled in favor of "under God" and the Supremes did so indirectly in their dismissal of Newdow for standing (see Rehnquist's concurrance, for instance).

Since the 9th Circuit chose not to consider Newdow en banc, the "under God" is in a sort of legal limbo there.

Posted by: kehrsam | October 2, 2007 8:58 AM

BobApril, the question is not really what "we" should be doing, but what we allow the schools to do. Perhaps indoctrinating kids about some things is a good thing under certain circumstances-- that doesn't mean that schools should be doing it (and I don't count making the kids be quiet and orderly as indoctrination).

Likewise, your comment about judging people who refuse to take part in public demonstrations of patriotism is beside the point. You as a private citizen at a voluntary event can judge people all you want, but when schools ask groups of students to stand up and say an oath, they're being normative. On a daily basis, they are creating an opportunity for students to judge each other as patriotic or unpatriotic. I don't see how that's any better than having all of the kids say the Lord's Prayer and the kids who refuse being judged as irreligious.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2007 9:38 AM

Raging Bee:

You're uncomfortable with teaching children how to behave in accordance with your society's core values? You're uncomfortable with teaching children how to deal with each other, and with adults, in a civilized and mutually beneficial manner? Failure to teach these things to kids constitutes, in my mind at least, criminal neglect and endangerment.

No. In the statement of mine that you quoted and to which you were replying, I specifically referred to "the goal of public schools." Being opposed to the schools doing something does not equate to being opposed to doing it in general.

As for your specific questions....yes, I'm somewhat uncomfortable with teaching children to behave in accordance with "society's core values." Depending on how you define "core," societies often have core values which are misguided at best or morally abhorrent at worst. No, I'm not uncomfortable with teaching kids how to get along with each other and adults. However, that's not how I define "being a good citizen." I define being a good citizen as behaving oneself appropriately and morally in relation to one's government...and as I said, I think the government is decidedly not the entity which should be delivering instruction on such-- much less to a captive audience.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2007 10:37 AM

Being opposed to the schools doing something does not equate to being opposed to doing it in general.

It does equate when we're talking about something that schools, public and private, are explicitly created to do.

I define being a good citizen as behaving oneself appropriately and morally in relation to one's government...and as I said, I think the government is decidedly not the entity which should be delivering instruction on such-- much less to a captive audience.

Then who SHOULD be doing it? Exxon-Mobil? Halliburton? The Pope? The Mafia? Isn't this one of the things an ELECTED government should be doing, or at least overseeing?

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2007 10:52 AM

Raging Bee said:

It does equate when we're talking about something that schools, public and private, are explicitly created to do.

Really? I thought that public and private schools were explicitly created to educate children. You're making a tautology, effectively saying "They're supposed to teach citizenship because they're supposed to teach citizenship!"

Then who SHOULD be doing it? Exxon-Mobil? Halliburton? The Pope? The Mafia? Isn't this one of the things an ELECTED government should be doing, or at least overseeing?

Umm, how about the kids' parents? I'm baffled that this apparently didn't occur to you. If an ELECTED government has the job of instructing kids about government, then it can do so perfectly well without telling them how they should think about said government. You can teach kids about the constitution and how it was created, and the amendments to it, and the structure of government and how it functions without telling them what they should think about all of it-- much less that they should pledge their allegiance to it....just as you can teach them comparative religion without telling them what to think about God. It's the difference between providing the tools and telling students what to build with them.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2007 11:09 AM

Donalbain: you could just as easily ask the same questions about each and every thing parents and teachers do to educate their kids. If you consider each and every action in isolation, none of them will look particularly effective. Having kids recite the pledge is only a minor part of a greater ongoing educational effort, just like every individual day in a school year, and I have no pretensions that it's any more than that.

Really? I thought that public and private schools were explicitly created to educate children.

Yes, and among the things children need to learn are the laws they will be expected to obey, how to function in the extremely complex society they will inherit from us, how to get along with each other as equals in that society, and the values and rights they are expected to uphold, for their own benefit as well as the government's. There's nothing at all "tautologous" about this; it's simple common sense.

Umm, how about the kids' parents? I'm baffled that this apparently didn't occur to you.

It did. But it is still the government's duty to monitor kids' education, and see that they are indeed getting educated according to certain minimal standards, which the adult community has not only the right, but the duty, to articulate and enforce. (I don't hear you complaining when governments set policies that explicitly rule out teaching creationism as "science.") If parents do the job all by themselves, fine; but if they don't, or can't, then someone else has to see to the kids' needs. And a lot of parents simply don't have the time or expertise to teach their kids EVERYTHING they need to know; that's why schools exist in the first place.

Hence I think you where raised by good people and thats what you picked up unless of course you are the exception to the rule.

Yes, and I'm explaining what worked for me, and what seems to work for other kids in other circumstances.

Aren't you the one who has railed against Richard Dawkins for stating that teaching kids about a fictional hell is child abuse and now your saying the above?

Those are two completely separate issues, and you know it.

It seems to me a child who doesn't recite the pledge for reasons they can readily explain is an informed citizen.

I agree. And when a child gets to that stage, his/her teachers can, and should, take it as an opportunity to further his education by answering his questions, explaining what the pledge means, and encouraging discussion of the issues.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2007 11:44 AM

Raging Bee said:

Yes, and among the things children need to learn are the laws they will be expected to obey, how to function in the extremely complex society they will inherit from us, how to get along with each other as equals in that society, and the values and rights they are expected to uphold, for their own benefit as well as the government's. There's nothing at all "tautologous" about this; it's simple common sense.

I tried to make clear in my comment that I don't consider being taught about what the law entails, the structure of government, etc. to be instruction on being a good citizen. You don't have to tell students what the law is and then add that they should obey the law-- you explain how the criminal justice system works. I don't know what "values" you're talking about instilling here, but you don't seem to be considering that the values promoted by the government at any one time may well be contradictory or even out and out wrong. Students should not be told that how they should feel about the laws for this very reason. They are entitled to think that medical marijuana should be legal, for example. They are entitled to disagree about the function of the electoral college. They are entitled to have differing views about abortion or the significance of the second amendment, and quite possibly they will be engaged in considering such issues in debate class.

The claim of "common sense," by the way, is not a defense against my pointing out that your argument is tautological. If you say that teaching students to be good citizens is a job for the public schools and I disagree, then "Yes it is" doesn't constitute a counter-argument. Neither, for that matter, does "It's common sense."

But it is still the government's duty to monitor kids' education, and see that they are indeed getting educated according to certain minimal standards, which the adult community has not only the right, but the duty, to articulate and enforce.

I didn't say otherwise. I think actually said very explicitly what I consider to fall under the category of citizenship, and this is not it.

(I don't hear you complaining when governments set policies that explicitly rule out teaching creationism as "science.")

See above. Nowhere have I said or implied that public schools should not have educational standards.

Aren't you the one who has railed against Richard Dawkins for stating that teaching kids about a fictional hell is child abuse and now your saying the above?

Those are two completely separate issues, and you know it.

I don't think they are, actually. If teaching hellfire isn't child abuse but refraining from indoctrinating about citizenship is, then you're going to need to explain why.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2007 12:08 PM

I see a few people saying that school isn't being disrupted because it's home room. I don't know about these kids' school in particular, but my schools didn't have home room. All of are classes were regular classes. In fact, my middle school did announcements over a closed tv circuit so that teachers could decide if they wanted their class interrupted or not.

These kids could very well be having their class time interrupted by the pledge. If it's anything like my high school was, class is in session for 10 or 15 minutes before announcements even come on.

Posted by: Ashley | October 2, 2007 2:12 PM

BTW, all communist states were (and are, in the cases of the surviving fossiles) republics. A "republic" (like "democracy") is just another Humpty-Dumpty word that means whatever the user wants it to mean. It contains no information.

bullfighter, was Pravda one of your previous employers? That's the dumbest thing I've heard from you yet.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2007 2:21 PM

More bullshit. One people? Ein Volk? What the hell does that mean? We are 300 million people. If we are "one people", why not apply that globally? What makes this 300 million "one", but the other 6 billion "another"? Yes, we have the same laws (more or less - a lot of laws are state and local), but same values? Obviously, we don't have that, and we never had it. And there is rarely an important issue that can be resolved for the "common good of all" - the phrase is usually a sign of demagoguery or at least lack of thinking.

Very good paragraph.

Children will grow up to become citizens; therefore they NEED to learn about what that means, and what their obligations will be. If they grow up without learning these things, they will be at a severe disadvantage, and will be harmed through no fault of their own. Therefore, refusing to teach them these things constitutes neglect, if not endangerment and/or depraved indifference.

What on earth then does reciting the pledge have to do with any of this?

Likewise just as an analogy if a child is forced/indotrinated by adults(who should know better) into believing hell is real are you not then also offering depraved indifference? Are you not possibly endangering the welfare of the childs mind.

Students can learn about a societies laws and rituals without the pledge. In fact most do. I am in schools everyday, I can tell you first hand most are not learning anything from this activity.

Posted by: GH | October 2, 2007 4:00 PM

What on earth then does reciting the pledge have to do with any of this?

Rote-learning and recitation has some effectiveness in teaching simple concepts -- or the simple basics of complicated concepts -- to young children. Of course, there are other ways to teach kids the same concepts, but that does not make a certain method invalid. As with any educational tool, some kids will benefit more than others.

AS for whether it's really worth the class time, I will tend to defer to the voters and educators on that. As long as the kids are somehow taught that they are part of a society, they benefit from that society, and they have obligations to that society commensurate with the benefits, I won't complain if they don't have to say the pledge of allegiance.

And getting back to this particular pledge issue, I'd say these particular kids at least benefitted from the opportunity to question and discuss the pledge and its meaning. If the pledge got them thinking about these things, then it's not all bad. (Too bad certain adults seem unable to derive a similar benefit from the discussion.)

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 2, 2007 4:34 PM

Why don't we just ditch the "under God" bit? It was only tacked on during the 1950s, when atheism (and other things) were viewed as Communist. Times have changed...

Posted by: John | October 2, 2007 5:32 PM

John wrote:

Why don't we just ditch the "under God" bit? It was only tacked on during the 1950s, when atheism (and other things) were viewed as Communist. Times have changed...

No doubt. It was a stupid thing to add in the first place- we should just get rid of it.

But then children would become incompetent, bad, amoral citizens. Maybe we should leave it the way it is just to be on the safe side.

Posted by: Leni | October 2, 2007 6:34 PM

"I'd much rather pledge allegiance to ideas than a piece of cloth."

Old Glory represents no ideas, Ed? "...and to the Republic for which it stands." All that crazy stuff your teenage mutant ninja heroes have absolutely no appreciation for.

You seriously "like" their utterly prosaic "alternative?" I would think that words and phrases like "diversity," "one planet," "choice" (no doubt fetus-slaying speak) and the redundancy, the redundancy, the redundancy would strike someone of your intellectual heft as a little trite, a little shallow.

These kids are nothing more than mindless (Student Worker club -- I'm sure most of these rich little neo-pinkos have never held a job), spoiled brats Ed, not free speech martyrs. No student is required to say the pledge. This is a stunt, nothing more. They will get support from fellow students -- mostly because teens look for any reason to ditch any time they can.

On a larger issue, can one actually argue that our founders did not presuppose a God who had an active hand in the affairs of man? Our DOI, we all know, speaks of a "God who is there." A yawning watch-winder would not endow people, or A people, with anything, let alone UNalienable rights. Even our Constitution alludes to God -- from whom would the "BLESSING of liberty" come? Point is, the very founding of our country was based on the proposition that there exists a higher, decidedly supernatuaral, force that accounts for our liberty, a liberty no man or government can take away because of the nature by which all men, CREATED equal, are blessed.

If these kids don't believe in God, fine, let them be silent during the pledge, or even let them walk out with their petty grievances. But let's recognize that the "ideals" these kids hold are not those of the founders, ALL of whom presupposed an active God (you don't get "Providence" from a federal employee-type deity and you can't be an "Author" of anything, let alone the "Author of the Universe" without a little extra TLC) who they most definitely believed was The Reason man is man and man is free.

Posted by: Chet Lemon | October 3, 2007 12:23 AM

Gretchen -

If the government is so great, tell them the "is" rather than the "should be," and let them make their own decisions.

Amen.

I'm an idealist, fairly extreme at times. When I was young, my schools managed to make me an uber-patriot, because America's such a great place. Certainly better than any alternative. Any alternative, was unthinkable. This is because the ideal, was taught as though it was reality and no one else could begin to measure up to us Americans.

Then reality struck. In turns I turned to libertarian thought, Marxism and finally, democratic socialism. I was so blown away by the reality of what actually went on, that I quickly tried my best to move to the outer fringes of society, jaded as I was by the reality I had discovered. I decided that everything I had been taught about my country, was just a ray of sunshine, rammed up my ass. I couldn't (at the time) wrap my head around the notion that there is much good cut with a lot of bad.

I love my country again. I am damn glad to be an American. I hate where we are right now, but hold steadfast to the belief that we can actually move inexorably closer to the ideal I was taught. But I am all of this, in spite of rote, bullshit, fealty oaths, not because of it. Indeed, because of rote patriotism, I very nearly decided to hell with it.

Rote is mindless. It is not learning, any more than loading a program into a computer, teaches the computer anything. Rote is nothing more than automata.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 3, 2007 5:13 AM

Rebbeca,
Prior to the 1950s, when God was added to the pledge, do you think that the pledge wasn't doing its 'job?'

Posted by: Josh | October 3, 2007 8:36 AM

It is wonderful to see the kids in this country taking a stand in support of what they feel to be a show of improved patriotism. The claim of separation of church and state is a joke in this country and in my opinion it is a claim that needs to be lived up to.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with the wording that these kids chose. While a agree -wholeheartedly- with the freedoms and constitutional rights that are granted to citizens of this country, this wording here sounded more like a pledge to individual rights than to the country as a whole. Also, weaker government is one thing. This pledge, at least to me, seemed to weaken the stature of the country which I am not at all in favor of. Finally, kill the peace sign on the flag.

How about: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, with liberty and diversity of thought, with equal justice for all.

Posted by: Jeff Hagen | October 3, 2007 10:04 AM

I do, however, think that if you're going to vociferously deny that teaching hellfire is child abuse but not teaching citizenship is, you have to explain yourself.

I'll do that when you explain how those two issues are connected, and why my opinion on one has to be in any way linked with my opinion on the other.

And again, I've tried to make very clear the difference between teaching kids to be good citizens and teaching them to get along with each other and their teachers. They're not the same.

The ability to get along with others is an absolutely necessary component of good citizenship. It is, at the very least, the part of "good citizienship" that the youngest kids CAN learn, therefore it's where citizenship-education should start.

Great, then teach them that at home.

If it's okay to teach them that at home, why is it wrong for schools to reinforce the same message outside the home? AS long as kids are in school, the school will have to enforce some rules of conduct anyway, so I really don't see how they can avoid taking a stand on this. One of the duties of civil society is passing on and reinforcing civil virtues.

The idea that any institutions are keeping us free, and to what degree, is up for debate, and students should never be given an impression to the contrary.

Like evolution is "up for debate?" Institutions like elected legislatures, political parties, well-trained security forces, and an independent judiciary, do indeed keep us free; and if kids grow up not understanding how they do this, they will be unable to make proper use of said institutions for their own lawful benefit. The only people "debating" this are fools and nitpickers who have no better alternatives to offer in the real world.

Besides, for young children, NOTHING is "up for debate" until they're old enough, knowledgeable enough, and mature enough to think for themselves and engage in sensible debate. Babies aren't born with the capacity for adult reasoning; it's something that has to be taught and encouraged over a LONG period of time, and in the meantime, the kids need to be given clear rules and taught respect for the adults and institutions whose job it is to help them.

This is why simply telling kids to respect the government-- much less swear allegiance to it-- is something government schools have no business doing.

So government schools can't teach respect for the government that enforces their rights, while religious schools can teach their kids to hate the government? I fail to see how keeping "government schools" out of that debate does anyone any good. Carried to an extreme, the poorest kids, stuck in public schools, will not learn the values that kids in religious schools are conditioned to attack; and will thus be less able to defend those values. It is in the state's interest to ensure that kids know and respect the law, and it is in the public's interest that kids be taught what their rights and duties are, and how to protect themselves in the society they will inherit.

If the government is so great, tell them the "is" rather than the "should be," and let them make their own decisions.

Let grade-school kids make their own decisions? Sounds like "teach the controversy" to me. And what if they make the wrong decisions? Who will be responsible for cleaning up the mess?

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 3, 2007 12:33 PM

Test, please ignore.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 3, 2007 2:24 PM

Rebecca:

Give me a break, just one more attempt at removing God from the pledge. Just shows the fall of America from God's grace once again. Any student who apparently dosent KNOW that this Country was founded on FAITH and GOD hasnt had a very good History Teacher....

Posted by: bullfighter | October 3, 2007 3:19 PM

Okay, Raging Bee, now I am convinced that you are being deliberately obtuse. My evidence follows:

Yes, and teaching hellfire and teaching civil values are still two completely separate issues, regardless of my opinion on either.

The claim of child abuse is the unifying factor, not the specific teaching (or lack thereof). You should know this.

Religion is a private matter; when to start having s3x is indeed a proper topic for a s3x-ed class, and can be determined by objective criteria such as the consequences of s3xual activity and whether or not someone can handle them;

Political philosophy is every bit as private (and every bit as public), and the word is "sex." And when a person is ready to start having it depends on who they are and what their values are, which are obviously subjective and should not be taught in school. You should know this.

The specifics of the current political system, the basic underlying philosophy, the content of laws, and the legal rights and duties of citizens, ARE factual matters, whether or not you or I agree with any of it.

For the 9,000th time, teaching "specifics of the current political system, the basic underlying philosophy, the content of laws, and the legal rights and duties of citizens" is not what I am contesting. You should know this.

This sort of rote-learning is the beginning of awareness and understanding, just as memorization of tables is the beginning of math education.

One can rote-learn saying please and thank you. One can rote-learn sharing with others. One cannot (should not) rote-learn how to feel about one's government. You should know this.

In other words, don't even try to educate them at all?

For fuck's sake....no. Have I said anything to that effect? Don't tell them what to think about their government, one way or another (or another, or another-- there are more than two sides to most issues). You should know this.

The public pays for them because the public VOLUNTARILY VOTED to create and fund them. This makes them fundamentally the BEST place (in conjunction with parental leadership, or in place of it if it is lacking) for students to learn the civil virtues we know they have to learn for their own freedom and safety.

Only if one believes that might fundamentally makes right, and the majority is always the authority on what the government should be and how children who don't know otherwise should grow up thinking about it. Otherwise, your statement holds no water whatsoever. Dissent is the wellspring of rebellion against tyranny, but can't take place among those who are brainwashed by the majority. You should know this.

In short, I'm tired of re-explaining all of this as if you have no recall whatsoever of what I've said before. No more of this conversation for me, thanks.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 3, 2007 3:29 PM

How does the education of children prevent dissent?

Indoctrination prevents dissent (and the critical thinking which leads to it), by making it seem immoral and socially unacceptable. And don't ask me the difference between education and indoctrination, as I have explained it thoroughly, as well as which I am arguing against. You persist in conflating the two, which is why I'm sick of the subject.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 3, 2007 4:35 PM

I have repeatedly said that I was talking about rote-learning, recitation and rituals as tools for educating young grade-school children; and I have admitted that such tools can and should be set aside when the kids start asking questions on their own steam. YOU seem to be the one conflating that with "preventing dissent."

Posted by: RAging Bee | October 3, 2007 5:52 PM

I know I'm a couple of days late to this party, but since this thread is still active, I'll throw in my two cents...

With regards to the issue of indoctrination in school, I think we all like the idea of schools indoctrinating children with concepts that we approve of. To use an example separate from those presented in this thread...

I'm sure that many of us like the idea of schools teaching children the concept that they should accept persons of color as equals instead of being racist bigots. Certainly this is indoctrination to teach diversity to kids that young, but does anyone here consider this kind of indoctrination unacceptable?

Now look at this example from the point of view of a klan family... they would certainly consider this 'evil indoctrination from them damnity librul teachers'.

But I say, who cares what they think. If they aren't going to indoctrinate children with concepts of diversity, then I want someone to do so... and a school seems to be an appropriate place to get it done.

Now I'm not saying that I personally consider the pledge acceptable indoctrination. I've consider myself a global citizen ever since I married a foreign national seven years ago. I often lovingly refer to my wife's homeland as my 'country-in-law'. So I often look at issues of patriotism through different glasses than a career soldier like BobApril. But even though I'm not too hot on a forced recital of the pledge, it's really not on my list of priorities to change... because I can see a lot of logic in BA's point of view even though I don't agree with it.

My overall point is that I think everyone finds at least some sort of indoctrination occurring in school that we all personally support. It's only when it doesn't reinforce what we indoctrinate at home that we get upset about it.

Posted by: doctorgoo | October 3, 2007 8:04 PM

Doc, I just called for the blinding of drugged kittens. ;-P I'd be a little leery of the hagiography. Thanks for the kind words.

Posted by: kehrsam | October 3, 2007 10:05 PM

Bee's point that we could discuss it later if the student questions it completely misses the point. The deed has already been done.

WHAT "deed?" My (admittedly liberal and free-thinking) private school had me saying the Pledge (minus the God bit) for years, and there was no single "deed" worth mentioning. When I first started saying it, it was a lot of words whose meanings I didn't know. THen, as I started to learn what the words meant, I started thinking about what the pledge was saying and what it meant. The pledge didn't teach me anything in itself, but the fact that the teacher required us to say it did drive home to me that it was, at the very least, something the grownups considered important, and therefore worth some thought on my part.

Kids can learn something from reciting the pledge, in much the same way as they can learn Spanish by listening to Mexican TV for a long time. Eventually the underlying ideas start to sink in and become understood.

What if the student doesn't question it because they've taken it for granted that the thing they've recited all their lives is how they should feel?

Whether or not kids tend to question the pledge -- or anything else -- depends on the overall educational environment, of which the pledge is one of the least significant parts. This post proves that some students, at least, were still able to think for themselves despite having been required to recite the pledge. (Did other students at that school not take part in this exercise because they were indoctrinated sheep? Or because they just didn't care what they were reciting and had other things to do?)

Besides, some kids, for whatever reason, just grow up asking fewer questions and making less mental effort than others, even in the most liberal of schools. My schools were the best imaginable, but some of their students still came out of it to become undistinguished couch-potatoes.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 4, 2007 9:49 AM

shorter bullfighter:

As long as I agree with it and think that everyone else should agree with it also, then it's not 'bad' indoctrination.

Your unsupported assertion that it would only resonate with a moral relativist aside... how is what you said any different from what I said?

Sure, there are plainly obvious cases of racism... but what about the fine line between promoting diversity and just being politically correct? Or a more specific example... promoting diversity WRT disabled employees in a small company that, for various reasons, cannot afford to provide reasonable accomodations? Isn't this 'legitimately controversial'?

Or using the original example... for many Americans, probably including our friend BobApril, the need for patriotism is not considered 'legitimately controversal' but is plainly obvious.

Sometimes ya gotta agree to disagree... so yes, I stand by my point:

My overall point is that I think everyone finds at least some sort of indoctrination occurring in school that we all personally support. It's only when it doesn't reinforce what we indoctrinate at home that we get upset about it.

Cheers!

Posted by: doctorgoo | October 4, 2007 11:32 AM

Wonder for a moment, what would happen if one of the candidates for President stood up and declared that primary role of the United States Government was to preserve the rights given to man by God?

He or she would most likely be ridiculed by the late night talk show hosts. The left-wing bloggers would demand that some sort of new hate crimes tribunal be formed to persecute the candidate.

However, that is precisely what the Declaration of Independence proclaims:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...

Notice the word "Creator". It is spelled with a capital "C". The signers of the declaration were not proclaiming that our rights came from some unknown entity, that they mystically developed because of a giant explosion eons ago. Neither are the founding fathers stating that these rights are handed down to us by very educated justices confirmed to office by Ted Kennedy and his cohorts on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The founding fathers were declaring that our rights come from THE Creator, and government is merely a mechanism for man to preserve those rights.

Posted by: Bp. Council Nedd II | October 4, 2007 12:15 PM

So no, it's not educational even though we might have ideas about it.

If kids get ideas about it, and are induced to think about and discuss them, then it has indeed served a (small) educational purpose, at least for those kids. In my school, a LOT of political discussion was sparked by the pledge, both in and out of class -- and, yes, by Mad magazine's satirical riffs on it. (Of course, there was a war on at the time, and conscription, so the scarier reality of "allegience" was another spur to dialogue.)

Except the pledge isn't an idea, it's a profession of a sentiment.

It's a profession of a sentiment attached to an idea -- the idea that we owe "allegiance" to our country.

That doesn't mean that I should be complelled from a very young age by authority figures in the governement to profess insincere platitudes about them, only to discover later what my real feelings are.

What about being compelled at a very young age to profess such "incincere platitudes" as "please" and "thank you" and "I'm sorry," only to discover later what your real feelings were? I tell ya, those fascists were crushing my little spirit every time they reminded me to say all that stuff. And writing "thank-you" letters for ALL those prezzies EVERY Christmas -- what beastly tyranny!

And the deed, by the way, is the topic of this conversation: the potential indoctrination of children regarding their sentiments toward their government.

And this is bad...why? Children who are still too young to think for themselves, or calculate the consequences of their actions, NEED to be "indoctrinated" in basic values, at least as temporary "default settings" until they can discuss and understand the issues in greater depth. And, as I said before, you can't teach good behavior without implicitly passing on the sentiments that are supposed to motivate it. (Besides, what's wrong with indoctrinating kids with sentiments that lead to good actions?)

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 4, 2007 2:14 PM

Oh my gods, this is turning into a fucking riot.

Bullfighter -

There's a fifth elephant. . .

Also, moral relativism is reality. There is nothing but moral relativism.

Kerhsam -

Agreed. (the whole, back away slowly, breathe...) I have made only a brief foray, thankfully ignored. Were I Gretchen, I would be in a corner, fetal position, gently rocking and randomly smacking my head into the wall.

Doctorgoo -

And besides that, it's not like you're promoting blinding unborn kitten fetuses... now that would be worthy of sainthood in my humble opinion! lol

Why do you hate kittens and love to wank?

Leni -

Oh. you must mean like the way my sentiment to kill Pagans is attached to the idea that Pagans are heretics?

After the rest, this was too much fun. Talk about being ripe for quote mining. . .

I'm just going to say this: Fuck you Bee,

Fuck you.

You know, I don't even dislike Bee, but I have certainly felt like that. Indeed, if I had been paying attention to this, rather than a gay marriage "debate" for the last few days, I'd be there too by now.

Bee -

Rote learning is not learning. Really, it's not. It provides very little of value, in and of itself. Far more important, is teaching kids how to learn and how to think. Not what to think, but to give them the tools to actually do something with the facts.

The pledge, is nothing more than a loyalty oath, that turns patriotism into another religion. Fuck the talk of God in it, the rest of it is just as bad. My patriotism is not and should not be a religion of itself. I am all for the ideal, but that too, should not become a religious faith, much like libertarian extremists.

Religious rote recitations, taught me nothing about morality. "As I lay me down to sleep, I pray the lord my soul to keep," was not comforting, it was terrifying, especially if I had a bad day. The lord's prayer, didn't teach me forgiveness, fucking up and being forgiven did. Quoting scriptures, didn't teach me to love others, being loved did, though I am still very fond of first Corinthians 13, 14 not so much.

My morality was strongly influenced, later in life, by many of the religious notions I learned as a child, but it was reality that formed my moral frame, I was a very immoral child and I was a child for far too long. In part, because of the trauma of rote learning, that conflicted with reality.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 5, 2007 1:21 AM

DuWayne: Yes, I owe you a post. Let's just say its been a bad week for trying to sit down and think.

I can read something and respond here on Dispatches in ten spare minutes; writing you an essay, not so much. Assuming I get to have a weekend, I'll get you your essay. But I still won't be a saint.

Posted by: kehrsam | October 5, 2007 8:19 AM

DuWaye said:

Were I Gretchen, I would be in a corner, fetal position, gently rocking and randomly smacking my head into the wall.

I would've been, but took the fact that the words "for fuck's sake" came out of my fingers as a sign that I should back away from the keyboard. ;-)

I love the people who post here-- so smart, so funny. If Ed ever gets around to having a meet-up when I'm actually in the country, will do my best to come.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 5, 2007 9:44 AM

doctorgoo:

shorter bullfighter

what about the fine line between promoting diversity and just being politically correct?

Or a more specific example... promoting diversity WRT disabled employees in a small company that, for various reasons, cannot afford to provide reasonable accomodations? Isn't this 'legitimately controversial'?

Or using the original example... for many Americans, probably including our friend BobApril, the need for patriotism is not considered 'legitimately controversal' but is plainly obvious.

If those people could put forward a coherent definition of patriotic values, I could say whether I think some (or all) of them are fair game for public indoctrination. Until then, I'll keep calling bullshit.

Posted by: bullfighter | October 5, 2007 10:39 AM

DuWayne,
I think you have fallen victim of the wrong framing. It appears that you are saying there has to be either universal moral code or moral relativism. That's a false dichotomy. Not as bad as moral absolutism vs. moral relativism, but still false.

We have moral criteria of various degrees of universality. For example, some kind of the Golden Rule and protecting children are practically universal; most rules governing sexuality are far from it. We also have a shared commitment to - and dependence on - a certain type of civilization, and some moral criteria are essential for the working of that civilization. Respect for property or free speech, or prohibition against killing total strangers fall in this category.

The latter category of values does not arise naturally, at least not as much as is needed. Those are the values we want/need to be universal in order to have the world we tend to take for granted we're entitled to. Since those values have to be learned, it is with respect to them that indoctrination is desirable.

Posted by: bullfighter | October 5, 2007 1:03 PM

Crap, I keep doing that! I'm like Frasier with the tree when he learned to ride bike LOL.

That was me, Leni, on that last DuWayne post. Not DuWayne.

Posted by: Leni | October 5, 2007 1:45 PM

Your ignorance and shallowness impede your ability to accurately summarize other people's thoughts. Don't try.

You really don't know what the hell you're talking about, do you bullfighter? The most common response from you whenever you get challenged seems to be just to sling out random insults like this.

According to you, I'm ignorant and shallow... any support for this thesis? Or is just your way of calling me a poopy-head for disagreeing with you?

Grow up dude.

That also goes to all those out there throwing out random F-bombs at people just because they're disagreeing with you.

This is a freaking blog... and it's not even ours. Is it worth getting that upset about this shit? Have a sense of humor folks.....

Oh.. and DuWayne... "Why do you hate kittens and love to wank?" Umm... what? I promise you I've never wanked to blind kittens. I swear. lol

Posted by: doctorgoo | October 5, 2007 4:45 PM

doctorgoo -

Fuck you...Sorry, just had to be said. . .

Some people believe that every time you wank, god kills a kitten, but really they're just blinded. (a friend of mine, got the god kills a kitten in her email. She got a kitten around the same time. Being rather sexual in nature, she rarely played with herself. One night she did, the next day she noticed the kitten was running into things a lot. Found out that her kitty's blind. While the vet said she (the kitty) was born blind, Laura decided it must be because she masturbated)

Bullfighter -

I think you have fallen victim of the wrong framing. It appears that you are saying there has to be either universal moral code or moral relativism. That's a false dichotomy. Not as bad as moral absolutism vs. moral relativism, but still false.

Not really, though it is probably more accurate to say that there is either an external moral frame, or there is moral relativism. Internally developed moral frames, epitomize moral relativism.

We have moral criteria of various degrees of universality.

No we don't. We each decide for ourselves, what we consider moral and immoral and the degrees involved. For instance;

...protecting children are practically universal...

Depends where you live and how. I remember (have nightmares about) a story that Kristoff at TNY wrote a few years back, about Darfur. He saw a little girl, walking to a well to get water, in a zone where it could easily have meant rape and death at the hands of the Janjiweed militias. After helping her get the water and walking her back to the treeline, he discovered her father, hiding in the trees. Through a translator he discovered that this man had a few other kids to take care of. He sent the girl to get water, at risk of being raped to death, because she was more expendable than he was.

It should also be noted that she wasn't old enough to have a huge chance of survival anyways. Thus as the youngest, with a stronger uncertainty of her survival, she was the one chosen to get the water. It wasn't all that long ago that this was the same sort of thinking that went on right here, in the U.S.

Since those values have to be learned, it is with respect to them that indoctrination is desirable.

No, it really isn't. Brainwashing is not ok, whether it is "benevolent" or malicious. Rote learning is fine for facts, not so much for values, certainly not by the schools. Rules are a fine line issue. To a strong degree it is important that kids learn the rules. Repetition and reminders are important. But actual values are something else entirely.

My son has a pretty rudimentary understanding of my values, because we spend a lot of time together. Same for his mom. That is where values are learned. My son doesn't really get human sexuality (he's five), but he is supportive of his gay friends. He has only been exposed to anti-gay bigotry a few times, but he has a very strong reaction to it. He doesn't have that through rote learning, but through observing people and how they interact. He has friends who's parents are gay. We have many gay friends. These are people that he really likes and can't understand why anyone would say nasty things about them, based on their preference in companionship. We've discussed racism and religious bigotry as well, neither of which he's really observed. His attitude about it is, that it seems ridiculous and really mean. When people have said nasty things about gays, he has had very strong, rhetorical reactions. Saying that hatred is just bad, that gods don't probably hate. On one occasion, assuming that I must be gay, someone told him that I was going to end up in hell, to which he replied, quite properly, "fuck you."

The thing is, that we have never once told him that hate is bad. When asked, we explained to the best of our ability, what hate is. Same about bigotry. We never had to, he worked it our through observing people and how they feel about those things. Also asking a lot of questions. He is pretty thoroughly anti-hatred and bigotry. This is a definite value, that we never once ingrained on him, he worked it out himself.

He is also very compassionate. He really likes to help his friends when they get hurt. He loves sharing his food with homeless people. The first time I ever actually paid him for helping me work, when he was almost three, he gave his earnings to one of his homeless friends, because he knew they didn't probably have any money. He also had a semi-traumatic realization that year, when it started getting snowy and cold. We had been out all day, playing in the snow and he was getting cozy in his bed, when he started weeping. I asked him what was wrong and he explained that he had just realized that his homeless friends didn't have cozy warm, dry beds to sleep in. (I did manage to calm him by lying and saying they were all in shelters.) His values of empathy and compassion, have deep roots, for a five year old. They had nothing to do with anything anyone told him, everything to do with observation.

Put simply, he learns the rules by rote. He has developed his values, through observation, questions and seeing the cause and effect of actions and attitudes. As he grows and develops, it will continue, his values and morals developing and evolving with the rest of him. His values will and should be influenced by all his interactions, including school. But neither the schools, nor even his parents, should be brainwashing his values into him. Including patriotism.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 5, 2007 10:16 PM

It was directed squarely at Bee and came out only after he produced that offensive argument about how the state's indoctrination of children is ok because it's a sentiment attached to an idea.

So, Leni, you grossly oversimplify and misrepresent an argument I've been making over SEVERAL long posts, with plenty of clearly-stated qualifications, then lash out at me because of it? Get help.

DuWayne wrote:

...It should also be noted that she wasn't old enough to have a huge chance of survival anyways. Thus as the youngest, with a stronger uncertainty of her survival, she was the one chosen to get the water. It wasn't all that long ago that this was the same sort of thinking that went on right here, in the U.S.

Not to diminish the magnitude of this event, but how does it bear on the debate going on here?

Brainwashing is not ok, whether it is "benevolent" or malicious...

Define "brainwashing," and please explain the difference between it and the rote-learning of rules, which you explicitly say, later in the same post, is OK.

To a strong degree it is important that kids learn the rules. Repetition and reminders are important. But actual values are something else entirely.

"Something else," yes; "something else entirely," no. Rules are based on values, and express values, and kids learn values, in part, by learning what rules they are expected to obey. Do you really think the the rules you imposed on your kid had no effect at all on the values he learned?

They had nothing to do with anything anyone told him, everything to do with observation.

You give yourself way too little credit, in addition to making a totally silly distinction: what you told him is part of what he observed; they're all part of the same overall learning experience.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 5, 2007 10:47 PM

Raging Bee wrote:

So, Leni, you grossly oversimplify and misrepresent an argument I've been making over SEVERAL long posts, with plenty of clearly-stated qualifications, then lash out at me because of it? Get help.

Actually Bee, what I did was repeat your statement back to using a more serious example than the pledge to show you how profoundly disturbing your argument is.

You aren't arguing for teaching values, you're arguing for indoctrination and that is as wrong with the case of the pledge as it would be for religious bigotry. None of your qualifications have changed that.

And then I told you exactly what I would have told anyone making that argument. At that point you aren't making subtle distinctions any more, you're making ridiculous statements to support a position you should have dropped shortly after Gretchen's second or third post.

So yeah. I'll get help of you come with me. Hell, I'll even drive. I've got a pretty sweet Grandpa car. It's very comfy and there's plenty of room in the trunk. Ha ha. Just kidding. You can sit up front if you promise not to talk.

Posted by: Leni | October 6, 2007 7:18 AM

Leni -

Given the tenor of my other comments, one would think so. But oddly enough, as this is of course my life's goal, that of perpetuating teh Gay, into every facet of American life*. So not only do I have him pledging allegiance to the queer agenda, but there is the sacrificing of chickens (and gerbils) involved. . .

*Except of course my own. I actually really enjoy my partner's company and our family unit.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 6, 2007 1:24 PM

Do any of the regular readers of this blog actually believe that the Founding Fathers were pagans or wiccans?

They were Christian trying to establish a country where they could practice their own brand of Christianty free from persecution.

The Founding Fathers were not refering to Zeus when they spelled Creator with a capital "C"

Posted by: Alex,FCD | October 7, 2007 2:27 PM