The Pledge of Allegiance is not about patriotism or God, it's about our Civil War. It's meant to prevent another Civil War, the Civil War being one of the bloodiest wars ever by some metrics. More people died in one Civil War battle than all of Vietnam for example, 50K dead at Antietam, counting both sides. It's the bloodiest war we've ever been in and probably will ever be in.
So right after the war, like 1870, a preacher sat down and wrote the Pledge out, hoping in his heart of hearts that it would stop another Civil War.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
It's mostly aimed at the South.
1. I pledge allegiance
I'm not a Southerner or a Northerner, I'm an American.
2. One Nation
Not two nations.
3. under God
Was added in the 1950's by a congressman trying to make points with voters.
4. indivisible
You can't divide the nation in two.
And so far we haven't had a Civil War since. Who's to say the Pledge is not responsible for preventing a second Civil War.
.
"This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."
-- Capt. Copeland
Feels unlikely to me a simple pledge would be enough to prevent another civil war, unless they actually taught why the war was fought and why the winning side was right. There are too many nazis/KKK/white nationalists making news and movements and protesting monument removals at the moment to demonstrate the pledge has entirely eliminated the underlying difference of opinion between the two groups.
Even though it doesn't affect me, I don't particularly want there to be another civil war. It's good to hear it's about unity rather than "wow, our country's great, support the USA", but from an outsider's casual perspective it's always come across like it's a patriotic thing, so I'm unsure how many Americans actually know the difference.
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
Take him and make him stand is not assault. Lul
The pledge is such an odd thing, props to the kid to be honest and fuck that teacher.
I am the lucid dream
Uulwi ifis halahs gag erh'ongg w'ssh
Because religion is for the uneducated and weak of mind, why do you think it has such a long history? Religions are he oldest dogma known to man. The fact that people still continue to latch onto them after so many generations of education and enlightenment, it kind of baffles me.
They really shove down Christianity down your throat in the US don't they?
Teacher should be fired and sued. The kid has every right to not stand for the pledge, the pledge is a ridiculous thing anyway. He shouldn't be assaulted by a teacher for not doing it.
assault is an attempt to initiate harmful or offensive contact with a person, or a threat to do so.
No harm done, and about offensive thing, some people are able say its offensive for them if you breath to loudly next to them. Make a child stand without hurting him is not assault. its education. Even handshake could be specified as offensive
Here's a solid definition, because it also includes apprehension, which you left out.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
I think it can easily be argued that the teacher was using such force to coerce and threaten the child.
Actually, it can easily be assault. The threat was accompanied by physical contact... that's assault.
It is the student's right to sit for the Pledge, and he is under no obligation to stand. Just because someone does something you don't like, does not give you the right to use force to make them stop.