>From the article >>> "We don't want to isolate children every day in their own classroom, or >>> make them feel they're different," said Principal Michaela Martin.
That is exactly what they are doing by requiring kids to go elsewhere to recite the pledge... The simplest solution is to have the kids say it in the classroom with those kids who don't... It would be a lesson in being tolerant of another's opinion in the Public Square... >>> Isn't it simply the adults scoring political points for one side or the >>> other by using the kids and this pledge? Ah yes, the "kids are too dumb to understanding" straw man... As this question applies to six graders also in this case, will you say the same about a 12 year old??? FYI there are kids as young as 5 or 6 to whom understanding of "God" or "Pledge" IS grasped... Do not these kids have the right to say the Pledge??? Or is it the agenda of adults with a particular POV who wish to impose the habit of EXCLUDING GOD from the Public Square??? As to the purpose of the Pledge -- to instill a sense of duty owed to one's country and community... And that IS a valid educational goal... As valid as the demand that families of same sex couples be used as role models... The real issue here is WHOSE agenda is incorporated into the curriculum, the nutscases of the Left does not GOD or patriotism in the agenda on the whole... And that IS A PROBLEM... On Nov 18, 11:26 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > jgg, > > Maybe the question should be why does it matter to any rational person > WHERE the pledge is said? > Has anyone questioned at what age a kid is old enough to understand > the significance of what the pledge means? Ask a 2rd grader to define > the word "pledge" at certain ages is not the "pledge" simply like a > "song" or "poem" they have memorized w/o understanding the meaning or > significance? What is the real point here? Isn't it simply the adults > scoring political points for one side or the other by using the kids > and this pledge? > > On Nov 18, 8:31 am, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That Hollywood is the question in this matter... Do not the students > > who wish to say the Pledge have the right to do it in their > > classroom? > > > On Nov 17, 6:36 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > jjg, > > > > Beats the fuck out of me. > > > > On Nov 17, 3:23 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > So why make the kids who want to say it go to the gym... > > > > > On Nov 17, 3:52 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > This is all really simple. Kid wants to say it fine, kid dosen't want > > > > > to say it, fine. Someone is afraid a kid might be criticized for > > > > > either saying it or not saying it, toogh shit. that's likfe. > > > > > You DO know that the phrase "under God" was not an original part of > > > > > the pledge and was adding during the 1950"s "Oh my God the commie's > > > > > are going to get us" phase, right? > > > > > > On Nov 17, 9:00 am, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Here is a current Separation where Secularist are seeking to enforce > > > > > > their ban Religion from the Public Square... The question is > > > > > > not > > > > > > IF but when, where, and who... A side note, isn't having the kids > > > > > > who do not wish to say "under God" stay in the classrooms while the > > > > > > rest of the students go to the gym "isolating them"??? > > > > > > >http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20081114/NEWS/81114027 > > > > > > > >>> Unlike other Pledge controversies, this one centers on how and > > > > > > >>> where schoolchildren say it, not whether they should be allowed > > > > > > >>> to. > > > > > > > In 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that schoolchildren can opt > > > > > > out > > > > > > of reciting the pledge for religious reasons. > > > > > > > Sixty-one years later, the court said a California father couldn't > > > > > > challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, reversing a lower-court decision > > > > > > saying teacher-led Pledge recitals in public schools were > > > > > > unconstitutional. That case involved an atheist who didn't want his > > > > > > third-grader to have to listen to the phrase "under God." > > > > > > > But it didn't rule on the constitutionality of compulsory > > > > > > recitation. > > > > > > > The brouhaha in the Vermont school began in September, when parent > > > > > > Ted > > > > > > Tedesco began circulating petitions calling for its return as a > > > > > > daily > > > > > > practice in the 19th-century schoolhouse, which has 55 children in > > > > > > grades kindergarten through six. > > > > > > > School officials agreed to resume the pledge as a daily exercise, > > > > > > but > > > > > > not in the classroom. > > > > > > > "We don't want to isolate children every day in their own classroom, > > > > > > or make them feel they're different," said Principal Michaela > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > Instead, starting last week, a sixth grade student was assigned to > > > > > > go > > > > > > around to the four classrooms before classes started, gathering up > > > > > > anyone who wanted to say it and then walking them up creaky wooden > > > > > > steps to a second-floor gymnasium, where he led them in the pledge. > > > > > > > About half the students chose to participate, according to Martin.- > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
