The price of freedom is eternal vigilance

[Agathon]

Originally posted by snoopy369

Don't fool yourself in believing that teaching kids the socratic method or whatnot is anything other than indoctrination; it's just indoctrination with the socratic method.

Then you don't understand the Socratic method. The whole point of the elenchos is that (1) it is non-coercive, and (2) it cannot be coercive in order to function. In other words, if it is coercive, it isn't the Socratic method.

2. Teaching kids to respect everyone is quite important, in my opinion. Again - if my kids end up in Saudi Arabia, I expect them to do whatever is considered respectful during their prayer services, or stay off the *******streets otherwise. Respect does not mean agreement, or belief; it simply means acting in a way that is polite and shows you value others' opinions, regardless of your own feelings. It is unfortunately something lost in many otherwise intelligent people.

Respect isn't a one way street, and there are some people to whom respect should not be granted on obvious grounds. Patently dishonest political conservatives for example.

[snoopy369]

[q="spiffor"]However, my contention is that there's a strong difference between teaching knowledge and indoctrinating a child into a set of values. I don't equate knowledge-transmission with indoctrination. IMO, the only thing they have in common, at school, is them being forced by a teacher who's in position of authority: not enough of a common point for me to equate the two...[/q]

First off: You do not transmit knowledge in a vacuum. The choice of which knowledge you teach, and how you teach it, includes a value set; I could make an entirely factual argument here that teaching the Bible - and only the Bible - is transmitting knowledge (much of the bible is historical record). The way in which you teach, the specifics of what you teach and don't teach - they all have an effect on values. Even teaching the desire to seek knowledge and to verify veracity is a value - one I heartily agree with, but a value nonetheless.

Secondly, kids need to be taught values somewhere. As a society, there is a benefit in teaching values to children that reflect the values of the society. Parents should, hopefully, teach values primarily; but that is not always the case, and regardless there is some value in the society itself teaching some values that benefit the society. As a free society this clearly must be limited - but things like respecting others is most certainly a core element of functioning society, and this should certainly be taught in school. I think that arguing for a valueless education is an incredible mistake - in addition to being hypocritical.

Respecting the opinion of others is only interesting if I have an option to disrespect them. In the case of the pledge of allegiance (or other strongly emotional phenomena, such as a national minute of silence for example), there is pretty much no option.

I disagree. Respecting the opinion of others is the correct thing to do, always.

"Respecting the opinion of others" does imply the others share that opinion. Somehow, I strongly doubt the majority of the kids would pledge allegiance to your country if it wasn't for that school-sanctioned ceremonial. It's not "the others' opinion" one respects while respecting the pledge, but a conformism whose continued existence is solely due to value voters.

Absolutely not. You respect someone's opinion without agreeing with it; you show respect by not interrupting them while they are saying it, and not mocking them for having an opinion, but instead suggesting your own opinion as an argument. You do not have to agree with it to behave respectfully.
The difference between 'respect' and 'conformism' is quite simple: you respect others by acknowledging their right to believe what they want, but argue your own side, if you respect them; but if you agree with them for the sake of conformity, that is conformism.

You compare respecting the pledge at school, and respecting a prayer in Saudi Arabia. Well, indeed, if I was to visit an American school, I wouldn't make a fuss during the pledge out of respect for my hosts. I have learned that, when people are nice enough to host you, you keep your criticism to yourself.
Thing is, a pupil is not a guest at his school. He's part of the system. And if you want him to learn democratic values, you want him to question things (especially a subjective set of values such as the one encompassed in the pledge), and you don't want to suppress his opinion out of conformism. At least, that how one should see the "land of the free, home of the brave"; the one that derides us for having surrendered so quickly...

I am not suggesting that the student blindly agree with the pledge here; I am suggesting that the student stand when requested by his teacher. That is respect for authority figure, which is a value I happen to agree with (and don't expect Poly to generally; the fact that I am considered a 'fascist' amuses me greatly here, given I am what you could call a 'moderate libertarian', but compared to many of the Apolytoners I suppose it is accurate to say i'm much more authoritarian than they). The culture of anti-authoritarianism is not something I consider good for society (not that I believe blindly following is good either; but respecting authority figures is good and necessary, and if you disagree with their actions, following the appropriate channels to disagree, ie the court system). However, apart from that, I believe that in school you have an obligation to respect the class itself, in the sense that you have an obligation to behave appropriately, an obligation to perform in functions when requested (ie, if your teacher puts on a play, you should play a part as assigned), etc. The pledge is part of that. I would argue that the school has the moral right to require you to say the words (as well as stand); the fact that they don't reflects our society's values (non-conformity).

After all, that is the fundamental difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, isn't it - and why there is a difference between a democratic society requiring something, and a truly fascist society requiring the same. In the US, our society chooses what is taught in school, and what students must do; in 1930s Germany, one man and his followers determined this. In California, if society believes it is better to teach students to use condoms, to disagree with their teachers, and that religion is a hindrance, they teach it; in Kansas, they believe that abstinence is better, that teachers should be obeyed strictly without disagreement, and that religion is a benefit, they teach that. You may disagree with one or the other, or both - but that's the great thing of democracy; that is what the people in that society want (generally). The US has such a variety of societies, that frankly if you don't like your current state, leave - you will find somewhere that society follows the values you espouse. Thus, the risk of becoming a fascist state is minimal - unless fascism is considered a good thing by the society, of course.

Agathon: I would suggest that your statement to 2. is an example of what I consider wrong with society presently. Respect is always appropriate (and certainly should be a two way street, but that goes with the first). Even people you disagree with should be treated with respect; respectfully disagreed with, or even prosecuted, but still, with respect. Disrespecting someone devalues your own argument, and yourself, regardless of the other person's sins.

[Arrian]

Secondly, kids need to be taught values somewhere

Yeah, at home. Grade School is for learning 2+2 = 4 and WWI started in 1914.

That said, yes, what you teach and don't teach, how it's presented... these things do establish some basic values.

That's not the same thing as standing up every morning and reciting the PoA. Use as many words as you like, snoopy, in your attempt to rationalize it, but it's not the same thing.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

I think I adequately covered that in my above post

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by snoopy369
First off: You do not transmit knowledge in a vacuum. The choice of which knowledge you teach, and how you teach it, includes a value set; I could make an entirely factual argument here that teaching the Bible - and only the Bible - is transmitting knowledge (much of the bible is historical record). The way in which you teach, the specifics of what you teach and don't teach - they all have an effect on values.

We agree on that: it was the point of my "preventive asterisk" above.

And again, even though knowledge-transmission is bundled with values, it is not the same as indoctrination, for the reasons I outlined above. I don't see you having adressed them.

Secondly, kids need to be taught values somewhere. As a society, there is a benefit in teaching values to children that reflect the values of the society. Parents should, hopefully, teach values primarily; but that is not always the case, and regardless there is some value in the society itself teaching some values that benefit the society. As a free society this clearly must be limited - but things like respecting others is most certainly a core element of functioning society, and this should certainly be taught in school. I think that arguing for a valueless education is an incredible mistake - in addition to being hypocritical.

Yes. I am favourable to transmitting values to children, as it is the only way a society can function - we see how much it goes wrong when the young generation is completely at odds with the society's values. What I am hostile to is the form and the content of that particular value-transmission.

The form, for reasons I outlined above (it is a direct propaganda endorsed by the figure of authority in the classroom, to whom you submit your subjectivity). The content because there's a world of difference between "thou shalt not murder" and "you belong to the particular gang called USA".

I disagree. Respecting the opinion of others is the correct thing to do, always.

Yep, like Ahmadinajad's, Bin Laden's, or pretty much anybody who supports killing throngs of people based on his prejudices

Absolutely not. You respect someone's opinion without agreeing with it; you show respect by not interrupting them while they are saying it, and not mocking them for having an opinion, but instead suggesting your own opinion as an argument. You do not have to agree with it to behave respectfully.

Again, thank you for teaching me what respect is It's not like I've just done exactly what you described, in that highly devout wedding I attended a week ago.

The difference between 'respect' and 'conformism' is quite simple: you respect others by acknowledging their right to believe what they want

That's precisely the problem with the pledge. Most pledging pupils don't say something "they want", but something they're told to say. To stand and shut up during the pledge is not respectful of other pupils' opinions, but to be conform to a ritual that would never occur if it wasn't enforced by the authority, proving how little support it gets.

I am not suggesting that the student blindly agree with the pledge here; I am suggesting that the student stand when requested by his teacher. That is respect for authority figure, which is a value I happen to agree with

I guess I better see your point now. You don't care for the pledge much, but for obedience toward the teacher on a general basis. If that thread hadn't about the pledge, but about a pupil who didn't obey when the teach said "jump", you'd be saying the same thing.
I've been talking about the pledge these past posts, while you've been talking about obeying to teachers. We've been talking about two different topics, hence the misunderstanding.

I don't think it's this thread's topic, but you might want to check on pedagogies other than the usual authority model. Those alternatives are often derided by supporters of the traditional authority model (and I'm no big fan of them either), but they do produce interesting results and above all put our traditional model into perspective. Two for which I have a tiny bit of knowledge:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_method
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9lestin_Freinet

[Arrian]

I am not suggesting that the student blindly agree with the pledge here; I am suggesting that the student stand when requested by his teacher.

...

I would argue that the school has the moral right to require you to say the words (as well as stand);

The only possible purpose for having a bunch of little kids recite the PoA every morning is so that they mindlessly agree with it. It can't be anything other than mindless when a 1st grader swears fealty to the crown pledges allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands.

My allegiance lies with the USofA, but the Pledge is a disgrace.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Snoopy,

This is stupid. Kids don't even understand the PoA. It's ****ing brainwashing. Stop acting like people are being disrespected.

[Hauptman]

Whats so bad about beeing a god fearing patriot (nationalist) anyways?

If I was made emporer today. One of the first things I'd do is make the boy/girl scouts cumpolsery. Teach every child that they ARE the best because they live IN the best place on earth.

Then, to keep dissent down, you'd have to pick out someone for them to all hate. But this has all been done before. And will continue to be done forever. (in todays Universities, it's ok to hate republicans!)

[Vesayen]

This libretarian does not see any trouble or infringment on a protected freedom, with forcing school CHILDREN to stand for the pledge of allegiance.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Vesayen
This libretarian does not see any trouble or infringment on a protected freedom, with forcing school CHILDREN to stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Thats 'libertarian" (with BIG quotes around it). IMO, snoopy369's posts have perfectly highlighted the topic and point of the thread.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Hauptman
Whats so bad about beeing a god fearing patriot (nationalist) anyways?

If I was made emporer today. One of the first things I'd do is make the boy/girl scouts cumpolsery. Teach every child that they ARE the best because they live IN the best place on earth.

Then, to keep dissent down, you'd have to pick out someone for them to all hate. But this has all been done before. And will continue to be done forever. (in todays Universities, it's ok to hate republicans!)

That's because Universities are where the smart people are.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Arrian


...



The only possible purpose for having a bunch of little kids recite the PoA every morning is so that they mindlessly agree with it. It can't be anything other than mindless when a 1st grader swears fealty to the crown pledges allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands.

My allegiance lies with the USofA, but the Pledge is a disgrace.

-Arrian

I would argue that the school has the moral right to require the pledge; but I am not doing so, for various reasons. I also would point out that having the moral right to do something is distinct from that something actually BEING morally right (two distinct meanings of the word 'right'). (For example, I would argue that the state has the moral right to jail people who speed by a significant amount, but I would not argue that jailing people who speed is 'right'.)

I generally believe that a school has the moral right to compel students to do things that an adult would not be able to be compelled to do. I think, particularly, that the state has a moral right - if not obligation - to impart certain values into a student.

I do not, personally, support the pledge of allegiance in its current form; but I don't think it's the evil thing you all do, either. I think it's useless, and should not contain the reference to god; but in the scheme of things it's not a horrible thing, either. I'd much rather teach people the values for which the flag represents

The pledge itself, though, is an interesting thing that can be intepreted in two very different ways.

1.

I pledge allegiance to the flag,
of the United States of America;
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation, under god,
with liberty and justice for all.

On its face, it is indeed the semi-fascist indoctrination, certainly.

However, reword it slightly:
2.

I pledge allegiance to the representation,
of the land in which I live;
and to the society for which I am a part of,
a democratic nation, with certain values [enumerated],
which I pledge to espouse.


Obviously it would need further rewording (and no reason to be identical), but the idea stands. If you see the United States as a democratic society (in general), which supports certain key values of freedom and justice, what is wrong with indoctrinating that into children? Other than the fact that they won't understand these words of course, it is certainly something you should support.

As a true democracy (not that we are, but we pretend at least), which even a (true, not stalinist) communist should support, in a sense we are the final form of government, right - the one where the people actually form the society itself they wish to live in? How can you be a truly fascist state, if you are (truly) a democracy, or a close approximation thereof? Admittedly, we're not far from finding out that answer of course... but if we're indoctrinating children to believe in the democratic way and freedom and liberty, that has to be better than the indoctrination they get now, right - and the best way to stand up to fascism?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Maniac
"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."

I would take offense to the words "under God" and "indivisible". That denies free speech to atheists and regions who want more autonomy.

As Eisenhower said when he signed the bill into law adding "under God" to the pledge, now children all over America would be acknowledging the existence of God. The law was specifically designed to erode atheists' right to freedom of religion.

I didn't notice that while growing up. What did bother me was that I was required to pledge my allegiance to a flag. As an American, my allegiance should be to the Constitution, to the Constitution and, above all, to the Constitution.

______________________
* "indivisible" is okay because it's a reference to the outcome of the Civil War, i.e. once you're in, you're in for good.

[Arrian]

I thought it was added as a special anti-commie measure.

Anyway, the pledge is crap, snoopy, and even you know it. Let it go, man. You've argued way too hard for something of such dubious worth.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I would argue that the school has the moral right to require the pledge; but I am not doing so, for various reasons. I also would point out that having the moral right to do something is distinct from that something actually BEING morally right (two distinct meanings of the word 'right'). (For example, I would argue that the state has the moral right to jail people who speed by a significant amount, but I would not argue that jailing people who speed is 'right'.)

I generally believe that a school has the moral right to compel students to do things that an adult would not be able to be compelled to do. I think, particularly, that the state has a moral right - if not obligation - to impart certain values into a student.

I do not, personally, support the pledge of allegiance in its current form; but I don't think it's the evil thing you all do, either. I think it's useless, and should not contain the reference to god; but in the scheme of things it's not a horrible thing, either. I'd much rather teach people the values for which the flag represents

The pledge itself, though, is an interesting thing that can be intepreted in two very different ways.

1.

I pledge allegiance to the flag,
of the United States of America;
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation, under god,
with liberty and justice for all.

On its face, it is indeed the semi-fascist indoctrination, certainly.

However, reword it slightly:
2.

I pledge allegiance to the representation,
of the land in which I live;
and to the society for which I am a part of,
a democratic nation, with certain values [enumerated],
which I pledge to espouse.


Obviously it would need further rewording (and no reason to be identical), but the idea stands. If you see the United States as a democratic society (in general), which supports certain key values of freedom and justice, what is wrong with indoctrinating that into children? Other than the fact that they won't understand these words of course, it is certainly something you should support.

As a true democracy (not that we are, but we pretend at least), which even a (true, not stalinist) communist should support, in a sense we are the final form of government, right - the one where the people actually form the society itself they wish to live in? How can you be a truly fascist state, if you are (truly) a democracy, or a close approximation thereof? Admittedly, we're not far from finding out that answer of course... but if we're indoctrinating children to believe in the democratic way and freedom and liberty, that has to be better than the indoctrination they get now, right - and the best way to stand up to fascism?

If you really live in a country where people are free to disagree with the very principles on which it is founded, then you can't make people recite oaths supporting it. That's also why flag burning is allowed.

I'd vomit if I had to recite that, because to me it is plainly horse****.

The bet your country has made is that the kind of society it has is one that most rational people will agree on in the long run, and so it is left open to all objections in the belief that it will resist all of them.

The fact that this is wrong and that your country is ****ed makes no difference to this claim.