So, people stand out of respect to other people and not out of any kind of response to the flag (or pledge)? I don't buy it. People stand out of respect to the flag. And to require someone to stand who isn't required to pledge is inconsistent.

Not necessarily. This is perhaps not the most common example, but when my son was in Cub Scouts, meetings always began with the Pledge. Son's den leader (except for the few years I was den leader) was English. At the beginning of the the first meeting, he explained that he is still a British subject. So, he told them, he doesn't say the Pledge of Allegiance and would always be asking one of them to lead it. But, he added, he would always stand at attention (without a Scout salute or putting his hand over his heart, which would have been a gesture specifically honoring the flag itself) when the Pledge was being said to show respect for them and for what the pledge means to others. The Canadian mom of one of the Scouts would do the same.

I'm with SWTXBelle -- simply standing, without hand over heart, doesn't seem any different to me than standing respectfully when the national anthem of another country is played (like "O Canada" at hockey games) or when the congregation stands in a religious service of a faith not my own. It's just seems like good manners.

Oh, and Dr. Phil . . . :p :(

This is the way that I've told the students...there are people fighting on the other side of the world for our country, for our freedom. You don't have to agree with everything our government does, but out of respect for our soldiers fighting for us, you will stand.

When I stood up to say the pledge and the national anthem, it was NEVER out of respect for the flag. It was always because the men/women fought for all the rights and freedoms we have. Maybe its because I grew up in a military family and that is why I think that way, but I've heard many teachers tell their students that as well.


In contrast, we have a lot of kids from Mexico. Over there they have NO options, they must say sing their anthem, have their hands over their heart (they don't do it like we do, they do the hand salute, but have it over where their heart is), and say whatever pledge or whatever they have. But once they get over here, they decide they wanna goof off.

And this would be one of those "something more" kind of instances. To me, this doesn't sound like you think people should stand out of respect to the others around them who are standing, it sounds like people should stand out of respect for soldiers.

I also agree with MysticCat (and, from what's implied, SWTXBelle) that standing is good manners. I think that's absolutely correct. And that's another reason why I think making people stand is contrary to the intent. If they had good manners and chose not to stand, perhaps simply standing, to them, is more than respect to others - perhaps it equals honoring the flag. And from a Jehova's Witness POV, that's a no-no. I can't imagine a JW would put manners ahead of religious conviction. I just don't think it's appropriate to expect everyone to stand without knowing the reasons why they might choose not to.

^^^ I see the distinction you're making, and I think it's a point well-taken. Perhaps a teacher, instead of simply telling those who chose not to recite the pledge that they still must stand, can find in it an opportunity to teach everyone -- those who don't recite can be encouraged to consider where they might find the line between good manners and violating their own consciouses, and those who do recite can be encouraged to respect the decisions of others.

You are correct, I don't think that students need to stand up out of respect for their fellow students. I wouldn't do it for that reason, so why should I expect my students to do it? It is out of respect for the soldiers, past and present.

I have to say, though, that until your posts on the subject, I've never heard anyone draw a connection between the Pledge and showing respect for soldiers/veterans. I'm not saying it's an improper connection to draw, necessarily, but I've never heard it before.

Really? I grew up in a military town, and that was a connection that was ALWAYS made.

The one JW kid in my class throughout middle school stayed sitting down, but he wasn't reading or doing any work. It's like 30 seconds long so probably not that big of a deal.

Really, and I've got 40+ years of saying the Pledge under my belt. In my experience, the respect shown in saying the Pledge has been completely related to the flag and to the country.

Mileages do vary, I guess.

Exactly. I wasn't questioning your experience. I figured that while my experience may have been unique, having grown up in a heavily military area (5 installments within an hour's drive), it was far from rare.

After Sept. 11, saying the Pledge and singing The Star Spangled Banner has often been considered in honor of the troops; and a show of solidarity against terrorism.

This has almost always been the case for the SSB, though.

In some groups, I'm sure this is the case. Not among all. My son has been saying the Pledge for the last 6 years in school and the last 5 years in Scouts. I can vouch for the fact that a specific connection between the Pledge and honoring the troops (or solidarity against terrorism) has never been drawn in Scouts, and based on conversations with my son, I don't think it has at schooln either.

And maybe I just live in a different world (no comments, please :D), but it's never been my experience with the SSB either. In my experience, both the Pledge and the SSB are about country. While veterans are certainly part of the country's history (and present), I've never considered that we honor them -- at least not directly -- through the Pledge or the national anthem. We honor the country they served.

;)

I agree. Think about the words to the Pledge. We're pledging our "allegiance to the flag...and to the republic for which it stands." It's an oath. If we want to be honest, it's propaganda...which is why "under God" was added into it during McCarthyism. It's a promise to not defy the United States, and nothing more.

I saw a video of the kid being interviewed and some colleagues and I agree that he's almost definitely on the autism spectrum. Not that it matters too much, just something interesting to note.

Really? I didn't pick that up from the interview I watched at all, but maybe I missed something.

I didn't see that either. He's just a nerdy kid who's a bit more mature than his age. Didn't you see his shirt?

I don't think anyone would seriously challenge the kid's action in courageously standing up for his honestly held convictions. However, as the point has been made several times in this thread one can do so without being rude and ill mannered. I suspect this kid figured out what he could get away with and pushed the point to the consternation of his teacher and probably some if not most of his classmates. Telling his teacher to go jump off a bridge undermines his stance on principle and reveals him as a rude attention seeking little nerd. I think it comes under the heading of knowing when to stand up for what one believes and when to shut up.
I am a combat veteran and I willingly put my neck on the line to defend the freedoms this kid exercised. No problem so far. But, when he was rude and disruptive he lowered himself to the level of a spoiled brat and that alters things a bit.
I am reminded of the dialog in, I believe, "A Man For All Seasons" when King Henry VIII begins to exercise powers he had previously refrained from employing to force his will.
Sir Thomas Moore is talking with his successor as Lord Chancellor, Sir Richard Cromwell. "Ah Master Cromwell, this is an evil day, you have taught him what he CAN do, not what he SHOULD do".

I have really enjoyed reading the different opinions on the topic. Although when I first read the article and saw the video, I wasn't sure myself what I thought.

But after considering the many viewpoints, I stopped to think about what I thought the PoA stood for. To me, it represents the freedoms and liberties afforded to those protected under it - ie. citizens, refugees, etc.

As for the connection to the military, especially post 9/11, when the flag was hung upside down (some say it's protocol to do when we are in trouble, others say it was a mistake), when everyone was wearing those flag pins, the flag itself became a symbol of unity against terrorism. A couple of hundred years ago, the flag began as a symbol against tyranny and a new world. So there is a direct connection, because thousands have died protecting those freedpoms.

I think that regardless of one's feelings about reciting the PoA, I think that if you are in a place where people stand and revere it, it's a matter of basic manners to at least stand up with others. Someone else said it's like when they play another countries' national anthem/flag raise at say, a hockey game, the olmpics, etc.

Regardless of where the kid got his idea, he was being disrespectful in the manner in which he defended his rights and the way he spoke to the teacher. To that, it increases my suspicion that the kid did not come up with this himself. His dad's enthusiasm was rewarding behavior that the child didn't fully understand, and did what he thought was going to be "right" or controversial.

It was a few little things. One was the fact that he was really concerned with the literal meaning of the pledge being discordant with gay rights. If he is on the spectrum, he's really mild. Maybe Aspergers or PDD-NOS. The kids I teach are much younger and much further on the spectrum, but there are just little things that people working in special education notice about kids. It's hard to describe. I could be totally off-base, of course. I've never met the kid. It's just a hunch. Anyway, I'm proud of him for standing up for something he believes in at that age.

ETA: Not proud of him for disrespecting his teacher, though. Obviously.