OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

Such a thing would have to be watched like a hawk does prey.

Obama already is recruiting for a "youth corps." Sad....

Shades of 1939....

Is our constitution not enough for you?

The reason why I believe this nation needs the youth to have a voice is to encgourage my generation to step up and take action for what believe and to train tomorrow's leaders. It seems that the reason we are in the mess right now is because this generation didn't prepare for it and that they tried to voice their opinions but was told you are to young. Well I got some news for you America, times are changing. We need to stop looking down on my generation and start motivating us before we are in a cycle that when the time comes the next generations are going to think that they can't do it. Soon then, America will fall. A change is going to come!

The idea you propose has some merit, but it has to be understood that with rights, come certain civic responsibilities.

Global warming is a myth, BTW, based on a scientific miscalculation that occurred years ago and has since been remanded (yet ignored). However, being ecologically responsible is still a good thing for generations to come.

To fix many of these things, we will have to rebuild a sense of community throughout the country. I said the "Pledge of Alleigence" before school assembly when I was growing up. It HAS NEVER constituted violation of the precept of separation of church and state, for anyone who has taken the time to truly understand what that means. Atheists have the option of simply remaining silent during the phrase "Under God"--having a little respect for those in the audience who do believe in a Deity DOES NOT VIOLATE their civil rights, eitherl.

You are incorrect. My generation is appalled at what is taking place. Perhaps the schools are currently failing, but it is a temporary backlash that will self-correct before we permit an indoctrinate youth agency to exist.

bob,

No, no, no, and no.

The pledge of allegiance is an indoctrination tool, less offensive prior to the Knights of Columbus adding a religious flavor to it, none-the-less, improper as a compelled ritual.

It does indeed violate the 1st amendment as is. The court opinions fully explain why it violates the 1st, hence I need not.

If you didn't notice, one of the reasons we got this idiot in D.C. right now is because of the youth and their thinking they knew what was best for others.

I don't like the idea of a kid getting to vote right our of high school. A person should get a little more dirt on his or her boots before voting as to what they think is right or wrong for people that have already been there and done that.

I will and do listen to all...but this is totally different. If you don't believe me...watch what Obama does to our country...and is doing so because of a high rate percentage of youth votes.

They are willing to vote for a president because...he supports baby killing...might legalize pot...plays the sax on MTV...looks younger than the other guy...could make history because of voting for this guy...he is black. All of which is not a logical reason to think he or she could run our country.

Think about it.

Bob thank you for that comment. Don't you think that we need to train my generation in the category of responsibility. I mean look at our federal government. They don't do a better job. it looks as well as if kids are running this nation.

Big Rooster, if you think Obama is not doing a good job and that he got in office because of the youth maybe we need to train our youth in civc responsibility so that they would be able to come up with a better understanding of government, politics, and the world.

Rooster, I suspect that much of what you say is true about the motivations behind youthful voting.

I suspect hatred is behind much conservative voting.

I suspect poverty is behind much liberal voting.

Voting is the core of democracy. In fact, voting is the only democracy we have. While I am aware of the tyranny of the 51%, we need some democracy or we have a kingdom.

Sobi -

You position smacks of "conspiracy theorist". Separation of church and state was put into place by the framers of the Constitutionh, to ensure that no religious organization has undue influence over the government. How does saying the "Pledge of Alleigence" give a church undue influence of the government? And what church? The Church of England? Seventh-Day Adventists? Prebyterians? Lutherans?

If, as you say, the pledge is indoctrination tool, what does it indoctrinate you into? It doesn't compel you to go to any church.

I PLEDGE ALLEIGENCE

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

There--you've just been brainwashed into being a good American citizen. Ever hear of "E Pluribus Unum"?

Kids only have the rights that Mom and Dad give them, and they have to earn them. REmenber growning up, it was Yes Sir, and Yes Mom. Raise both my sons the way my folks raised me. Guess what, they turned out OK, now they have kids, and I see they are now starting to learn throw all the books about how to raise kids out in the Tash, and raise them as they were raised. Teach them right from wrong, teach them that a handshake is a mans word, teach then about God and Country.

James, I think our liberal teachers(by nature) have done more than enough already thank you. I Have two teen age kids that already know more about politics than most adults...but thats because I get involved and not the government.

Sobi, I would have to say that hate has very little to do with it at all. Consevatives just want to live and be left the hell alone...how nature wanted it to be...but the liberals think they have a new and better way to live and the democrats are willing to pull for them because it gives them more power.

William Haverty,that is your children. What about the rest of the children in America.

Thomas Jefferson said "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal..."

Throught the process of admendents and laws that saying includes all of man kind.

As far as labeling me and hoping I give a _______, give it up. You are insufficient to the task. I tire of people like you.

The separate of church and state is there. It is irrelevant what the founders intended. They are all dead. There is actually a lot of legal reasoning behind this concept, but it still simplifies down to the fact that they were not empowered to obligate future generations, nor was the future empowered to telepathy by their pronouncements. All you have is the words of the text. Not what you pretend was their meaning. That's an exercise in self-justification and it is a bunch of crap.

I pledge to no flag, and I expect children to be free of coercion to pay allegiance to a symbol over principle.

Second, there is no God. When I use the term, it is a rhetorical device.

If you think you have an imaginary sky buddy capable of striking me down, call upon him to do so. You probably won't be the first.

No one may properly compel children to silently or openly acknowledge an imaginary sky buddy.

While it is improper, the concept of silence is consent is common vernacular.

Remaining silent in the midst of 29 other children affirming an imaginary sky buddy is indoctrination.

William, That is so true and correct.

James, it is about being responsible. I raise mine...not you or anyone else.

James

Don't know who you mean when you say "we" need to train the youth in civic responsibility.... When I was in high school, we had such courses like, Government and Civics (I'm assuming they are no longer offered as courses???). Then we read newspapers and magazines. We didn't have blogs, let alone computers. If one was interested in Government, it started on the local level (Young Democrats, Young Republicans). Then on to college where more courses are available if you so choose.

I can tell you one thing, though. You WON'T learn a damn thing about politics on a blog such as this, you will only take away a bias if you have no knowledge of the workings of the Government.

So, for your own good, back to the books and civic groups, keep an open mind.... see you later.

p.s. don't become an OBOT...... ha!

My use of hate was an example. I'm fairly confident it is equal on both sides.

I don't want to run your life, and I want no one running mine. That makes me a conservative.

I do not agree that the poor are poor because the poor deserve it. That makes me liberal.

I do not care. What I am saying is that the number of 18 year olds voting is not a huge problem even though, at 18, shallow is dominant.

Showing up to vote is as deep as it goes. It is still a good start to my way of thinking.

Big Rooster, what makes you think that all kids are like your kids. Everyone is different. And everyone needs education. I know more about politics than most people expect me to know and I am only 15 years old and know body in my family knows more than i do besides my granddad and that is because he serve in the military. I know about politics because I taught my own self and want everybody to know that they have a voice.

James, at 15 you still have 15 year old thoughts because you have not had to be totally dependant on yourself for every last thing in your life like an adult does. I am glad you want to get involved too. But when you get older you will look back and think differently about what was right, wrong and important at that time.

Sobi, I feel bad for you and how your family or the government has let you down.

Sobi -

Your rationale borders on the absurd. If I am so ignorant, explain to me just how this "Pledge" indoctrinates children?

I assure that I am quite capable of thinking for myself, and debating a point without resorting to hostility. My belief in a Diety is does not inhibit my rational mind. I am not a superstitious primitive--I simply acknowledge that there are some things we can not quantify or explain.

The Constitution of the United States grants you the right, as an individual, to be free from religion, if that is your choice. It does, not however, allow you to deny the right to those around you to express their religion simply because you are present in the vicinity, and find it personally offensive. Religious individuals may find your militant atheism just as offensive as their personal expressions of faith.

The Pledge of Allegience is an expression of the principles of American citizenship. You are welcome to use the term "God" metaphorically, or not at all.

The "Pledge" is not a prayer. It does not make the arrelgious suddenly religious. Please articulate what harm it causes--what specific damage does its recitation cause?

For a secular empiricist, you seem to attribute an almost magical power to words and symbols? Are the minds of atheists truly that weak, that their disbelief is so easily shaken by a few words and rituals? That, to me, seems far more supersititious than belief in a omniscient supernatural being.

And every first-term sociology student knows the importance of symbolism in the embodiment of ideas. Symbols make ideas easier to communicate - just look at the iconography that surrounds us in traffic signs and on computers.

James, I'm impressed with your posts and your thoughts and I understand your concern. You express yourself quite well. I enjoy reading your posts.

If I were you, I would take Hairlip's advice that there are much better places than this forum to learn about government.

I started coming here a few days ago. I like reading what I'm reading, I like discussing thoughts with those around here and I like hearing different points of view and disputing them.

But I know from what people are saying we're much older than you and this is not a learning tool so much for us as it is a venting tool. (Although I do learn things).

If I were your age, I go to different places on the internet and at school and at the library and find places that are divised to learn, rather than vent. (Just my thoughts).

But if you choose to stay here, I will be delighted to read your thoughts and I applaud your desire to know all there is to know. :)

Rooster,

I do not know what prompts your pity, but prior to offering it, please explain it. Otherwise it is a rhetorical pigeon-holing device and you know what you can do with that, I'm comfortable assuming.

Dear Bob,

I did explain why it is indoctrination. Feel free to continue to disagree.

Sobi, I guess were good then because your problems run deeper than I could ever help...so all I can do is feel sorry for you.

On this idea, I do want to add.

Symbolism is extremely important, and it is very powerful. That is why children should not be compelled to pledge allegiance to it prior to the ability to understand what they are giving their innocent little loyalties to.

Rituals, like common utterances from the parent, sink so deep into the child's psyche, that they parrot their parents for many of their adult years without ever having considered the meaning of what they say.

That is the definition of indoctrination. Indoctrinate your own children at will. But leave the others alone.

Sobi -

You said, "Remaining silent in the midst of 29 other children affirming an imaginary sky buddy is indoctrination."

You make this statement but you don't support it with any evidence. That's a specious argument, and thus invalid.

You're so hung up the phrase "Under God", so let's say it was eliminated from the "Pledge". Now what harm is it causing to free-thinking children? If they are truly free-thinkers, capable of reasoning for themselves, don't you think that they can intellectually dissect this pledge? What do you think they would come up with, if they did?

Calling an argument specious does not make it so. The evidence is out there. I need not provide it to you. Go get it if you want it.

I do not think young children are free-thinking. That is why I do not want wanks like you putting words into their mouths and compelling them to stand like little robots paying homage to your god.

They are impressionable, open, undefended little innocents. Leave them alone.

Csrbev, thank you for that comment.

Sobi -

The symbolism of the "Pledge" is self-evident, if you read it through. You are pledging your loyalty to the American nation, a Republic which is unified in its vision of freedom and equality for all its citizens. This is the ideal toward which we continually strive. If you don't want your children affirming this, then why would you want to live in American.

This provides a foundation for civic values. "E Pluribus Unum", BTW, which appears on our currency, is Latin meaning, "From Many, One": from many individuals, one nation.

It embodies in it the implicit concept of sacrifice for the greater good--a precept that appears to, unfortunately, completely escape you.

As I see it, heres the Problem: When our folks( I am 60 yrs young) came back from WW11, they wanted the best for their kids, and worked their butt off to give it too us, We, kids my age went off to Vietnam and came back wanting to give our kids better then what we had. This is about the time of the Credit Card, Free Love, Pot etc. Some how during this time we were sleeping an allow the Pledge to be taken out of School, as was the daily prayer. Folks started working harder, and wanting more, so Mom started working and then we had kids growing up without Mom and Dad. But Mom and Dad were giving the kids all they wanted.

Tell you all, My kids and my Grandkids have turned out ok, had a few ups and downs, as all who have kid do. But they turned out to understand this is a Republic, this is the Greatest Country in the World (and they have live in Europe and Asia while I was stationed there) There is Nothing Wrong with Saying So Help Me God, or Under God.

Since we have taken that from the schools and the flat board for their behinds from the school, well thats when it started going to pots, God Help America as we are now heading Left

Frankly, if you didn't think it was an indoctrination, you wouldn't care either. Your entire argument is dishonest on that basis.

You want them to say your daily pledge so they experience cognitive dissonance when they begin to question the existence of your deity.

Also, the implicit concept of sacrifice for the greater good is the opposite of the foundation for the U.S.A. It was founded on property rights and individual rights.

Sobi - .

You said, "Calling an argument specious does not make it so." Nor does the act of strongly affirming a statement make it factual.

You also said, "The evidence is out there." And continued on to state this it was my responsibility to find it, not yours to provide it. Actually, if you want your position to have ANY credibility, you DO need to provide evidence to support your point.

A hostile tone and "ad hominem" attacks don't help your case, either. They don't prove your point, and they don't make you right.

William, I'm 54. So what?

The reason women entered the workforce was they were needed during WWII. The reason they stayed after the war ended was because they liked the independence.

Granted, capitalists took immediate advantage and lowered salaries, but that is capitalism.

Neither the Pledge nor the daily prayer belong in public schools. That might have something to do with why they were prohibited.

My kids also turned out okay. So what?

Bob,

You started the ad hominem. Suck it up.

No, I am not obliged to provide evidence. Look it up.

Your argument also wants for evidence. Give it up.

Sobi -

You said, "You want them to say your daily pledge so they experience cognitive dissonance when they begin to question the existence of your deity."

You also said, "That is why children should not be compelled to pledge allegiance to it prior to the ability to understand what they are giving their innocent little loyalties to."

And you said, "Rituals, like common utterances from the parent, sink so deep into the child's psyche, that they parrot their parents for many of their adult years without ever having considered the meaning of what they say."

So which is it - are they being brainwashed, or are they questioning? It can't be both. By the way, who said that a little "cognitive dissonance" is a bad thing? I don't think I've ever heard of anyone dying from confusion. So now you admit that children do think. You as a parent, can raise them to blindly accept, or to dissect? You've never heard of little children asking "Why" all the time?

The indoctrination that actually occurs, is when they're coerced to stop asking that question, and accept things on faith. That's parental conditioning, not school education.

Also, I have been completely honest in my position. I'm trying to grasp how you've arrived at the conclusion that the "Pledge" is an indoctrination. Saying something doesn't automatically make it so, unless you believe in magic, or Scientology.

Sobi -

Actually, I attacked your position - you were the one who felt the need to resort to epithets--really -- "wanks like you"?

"Suck it up"

"Look it up"

"Give it up"

And how is ANY of this relevant to this discussion?

Sobi -

You said "U.S.A....was founded on property rights and individual rights."

Not exclusively. What about 'provide for the common defense'?

It can and is both.

Cognitive dissonance is not something properly compelled on little children.

Of course children can think. And before you indoctrinate them, give them a chance to do so. They are not fully armed against indoctrination at that age. Compel them when they are 18 if you can. Leave the little ones alone.

The coercion is the pledge. The indoctrination is the result.

Scientology is crap. Just like your God and your argument.

I don't like uber christians trying to cram their belief systems into other people's children. That, in itself, is a hostile move. You should expect retaliation if you attempt to instigate such practices again.

It is hostile to demand my children remain respectfully silent while your children pay homage to an imaginary sky buddy.

It is ad hominem to say that people who disagree with you haven't studied the issue or fail to understand it. It is also revolting.

The second one is alliteration. It is a rhetorical tool. You either get it, or you don't.

Sigh. What about it?

My God how America has changed. Thank God I only have a few yrs on this earth. To think I spent my life servicing this Country in every war since Vietnam to hear Americans talk like this...and all who came before me, they would just roll over in their graves. To Hear some my own age or close to it talk as they do,,,Well guess this land does want a World Government or a true Social State.

Let it be know wether we agree or not the we are Americans and as Americans we are intitle to are opinions.

To everybody that posted a comment:

I may not agree with what you have to say but i will til my death, defend your right to say it.

William, most Americans do NOT want a One World Government nor a Socialist government. The fact that Californians voted down the tax increases and Terry McCullogh (well-known Democrat) lost to Deeds (hardly known Republican) shows that the country is NOT going to stand for what's going on.

I believe many Obama voters are beginning to realize what they voted in, and it was NOT what they expected.

"I don't like uber christians trying to cram their belief systems into other people's children. That, in itself, is a hostile move. You should expect retaliation if you attempt to instigate such practices again."

You will love Obamas Muslim/Islamic faith then.

James-

A bit of advice from an adult with a long, long history of activism.

First: Not only is your idea a good one, it's a necessary one. Future voters need to understand what government participation means, and get used to actually doing it. I don't know about representation since it is restricted to those of voting age, but the idea is an excellent starting point for discussion. Youth do need a place in government, if for no other reason than to understand why involvement is important. Voter apathy is what gave us the past eight years and created a lot of the messes we're dealing with now.

And second: take all the idiotic, off-topic and/or insulting comments that have been posted in response to your idea, and forget you ever read them. You are going to get idiots no matter what age you are or what your cause is, that don't understand the issue or don't bother to find out. Learn to ignore it now. It will help you a lot in future.

I would just as promptly battle an uber islamic coercion plan.

James,

People are passionate about politics. The way to learn about your government is to start and keep going.

I resorted to name calling in this instance because I wanted to. That does not, all due respects to ladyhawk, make me an idiot.

First, I was likened to a conspiracy theorist by Bob. That's a degrading description in public speak.

Then Rooster attempted to portray me as somewhat bitter and in need of pity, again, a rhetoric device meant to weaken someone's argument by pointing to a person and saying nothing good could come from that person. That's called argumentum ad hominem.

Then Bob tells me my rationale borders on the absurd. That sound like proper argument to you?

Then Rooster tells me my problems run deep. Tee hee. That's again ad hominem in nature. It implies that my arguments fail because I'm some kind of a nut job.

Come to think about it, I think this argument is excellent for you to watch. The attacks are not aimed at you, and you can comfortably watch how they operate and become inoculated.

Then Bob decides I'm "hung up" on the phrase "under god". Amateur analysis is a common device but it falls under ad hominem.

Somewhere in there, he called my argument specious. Meaningless, out there, properly ignored in public speak. He demands I put forth evidence if I challenge his position.

This is an assumption of a position to be answered to, as if some inherent authority lies in his position and the burden of proof falls upon me.

It is incorrect. giggle.

Then he asserts that I do indeed have to put forth evidence and accuses me of ad hominem.

Okay, enough. Wanks like that need to be called wanks.

Anyway, this is not an improper forum for you. It is a nice safe place for you to watch.

Enjoy.

And you still don't get it...that makes our point even more valid...and you are the one that argued it for us.

Notice how you are the only one getting told these things too...that should be a wake up call...but I doubt that you will.

I don't get it? What is it?

Pronouns such as it should not stray so far from the object of a sentence that they require explanation.

What things?

Who's asleep?

lady hawk 2, "Voter apathy is what gave us the past eight years and created a lot of the messes we're dealing with now". If you are going to give advice to James...fine. But don't confuse the him with that lame opinion.

Saying such vague things like that is a good reason why kids need not worry about grown up problems and situations until they themselves grow up and mature.

Sobi, I knew you wouldn't understand.

Rooster, I'll answer the one and only part of your post worth the bother- I'm not a kid. I'm old enough to be an adult, twice.

And rooster runs out of arguments, pauses at the door, yells through tears,

"You just don't understand!"

And slams the door.

Now, can he back this up by staying in his room?

We'll see.

Sobi, I won't argue with you. I was just pointing out to you that it seems to me(and by your own statements you too)that people on here don't think to highly of you and your opinions and positions on politics, religion or life in general. So why would I feel the need to argue with you?

James: you make great points and I am impressed. Instead of asking the Federal government to create a group, which would be full of buracracy, very costly, and very likely to be abused by the government itself, I'd recommend that you lead the charge. Start your own movement. Set up a charter, seek donations, use the free social networking sites and go! That would be a very American thing to do. I wish you well!

Ladyhawk, I wasn't trying to say you are not old...I was talking about you making vague opinionated statements as advice to a 15 y.o. kid.

Rooster,

You, Bob, and William do not comprise people in the sense that the people have spoken. There are 3 of you. Not impressive.

The argument that unpopular speech is invalidated by being unpopular is just plain anti-american, dadgummit.

Besides, I don't care if you argue with me. I just wanted to outlast a conservative.

Conservatives are certainly a determined and repetitive bunch.

"Besides, I don't care if you argue with me" I missed that chapter of your book..."things that losers say".

Oh come on! LOL

I would like to thank everybody who has posted a comment on this topic.

For us to move on as Americans we must first understand each other and why the person on the opposite side of the political spectrum thinks that way.

As Americans we shouls live by this saying, "United We Stand, Divided We Fall."

Good luck in the future, James. Keep an open mind.

Sobi –

My apologies for not getting back sooner, but life and work have gotten in the way of my providing an immediate reply to your most recent statements.

I don’t support Christian Dominionism (which seems to be your implication in your usage of the term “Uber Christians”) or Islamism, and I do not advocate either of their purported agendas of replacing our government with a fundamentalist theocracy: as theocracies are ultimately run by flawed and imperfect humans professing to be the incorruptible “conduit of God’s Will”. You also make assumption that when any one prays, they’re automatically addressing the “Sky Father”: when they could in fact just as easily be directing their prayers to the “Earth Mother”, or in the case of Animists, rocks and trees, or even pantheists, who address the god dwelling within themselves. I do not comprehend why you appear to be so hostile to such practices, if you in fact believe them to be based on nothing but ignorance and superstition. You may want to take a moment to consider that taking a mocking tone toward religion simply because you profess to be irreligious does not strengthen your position. Consider that although I may have chosen strong words to make my case, I have nonetheless remained respectful in this debate.

Please note that in the “Pledge of Allegiance”, we don’t swear an oath of fealty to an individual (as Nazis did to Adolph Hitler), we pledge our loyalty to our way of government. An oath is not a prayer. The former is a promise—an acceptance of an obligation. The latter is a supplication—a request for action from the Divine. If we remove the phrase “Under God” from the “Pledge”, its meaning remains fundamentally the same, and it is no more religious than a business contract.

The President of the United States takes an oath to execute the duties of his office to the best of his ability. Military members take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. Witnesses in trials take an oath to tell the truth.

You call it indoctrination, but it appears to me that the actual issue is that you believe in absolute freedom without obligation, and you find the action of reciting an oath objectionable because it obligates an individual, by their own admission, to willfully acknowledge and accept certain responsibilities, which in the case of the “Pledge of Allegiance” are comprised of citizenship and civic duty.

Now that having been said, we have to keep in mind that children aren’t able to enter into legal obligations until they reach the age of majority (18), or are emancipated sooner. Do we not, as parents, have a responsibility to inculcate values of right, wrong and acceptable social behavior in them prior to that occurring? Does that not constitute an “indoctrination” of sorts? So you object that we are symbolically imbuing values of citizenship in young children by having them recite the “Pledge”? It is important to keep in mind that the obligation of an oath is moral, not legal. Am I to understand that you feel that it is somehow harmful for us to direct our children to accept moral obligations?

Do you then believe in absolute freedom, in which

there are no legal and moral obligations save to serve one’s own selfish interests? Allow me to point out that such views are not in accord with the essence of our Republic, but rather lead us ineluctably to anarchy.

In conclusion, allow me to also address some of your misconceptions:

(1) Regarding what constitutes an “ad hominem” attack. An “ad hominem” attack is one directed against the individual, instead of addressing the issues being discussed. I was attacking your position, not you. I find it odd that that you don’t seem to be able to make the distinction. My statement that your position had the tenor of conspiracy theories was an attempt to place the ideas you presented in a contextual framework through analogy—it did not cast aspersions on your character, although you interpreted it as such.

(2) The rules of rational discourse do demand that when attacking another’s position, it is the attacker’s responsibility to substantiate their claims, if they expect their arguments to have any credibility. It is not the responsibility of the individual who has been challenged to seek out evidence supporting his opponent’s point of view. In short, if you attack my position, I am not obligated to find or provide evidence to support your point of view. Furthermore, to say that ‘it is out there—go find it’ when challenged to provide evidence to support your position is insufficient to adequately make your point, as it does not even provide credible sources to substantiate your view: i.e., just because there is a web site with information on it, doesn’t make it true—evaluating your sources for validity is essential, particularly if you expect them to be able to stand up under critical scrutiny.

Ignorance blossoms in those minds unacquainted with reason.

The President of the United States takes an oath to execute the duties of his office to the best of his ability. Military members take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. Witnesses in trials take an oath to tell the truth.

---The president is not 5, is not compelled, he actually applied for the position, and he's not doing it by instruction under authority on a daily basis. Whole different ball game.

Where you are snarking without accountability on what I believe, and projecting meaning against what you want to argue against, I'll just say this. Your reading of my words has resulted in a faulty conclusion. I'll correct it when you own your words.

Parents indoctrinate away. I did. Everyone leave everyone else's child alone. Your unwillingness to separate the two distinct messages does not lend credibility to your argument. You are not arguing what I'm asserting. You are arguing a deliberate misinterpretation.

It is a nasty rhetorical tool when played upon someone who can't point it out. Here, it is just annoying.

Nope, you are in error on the rules of discourse.

Sobi -

Just as you indicate that I am misinterpreting your intent, so you are doing with mine. I do "own my words", and do not "argue a deliberate misintepretation". I am trying to interpret a meaning that you consistently have failed to make clear.

Let me ask you this - when you raised your child, did you instill in him or her values that went against, or were in concert with common societal mores and traditions?

Perhaps "Sobi's Rules of Discourse" require one to research the validity of and support their opponent's position, but in the real world of rationality, my point holds true, in spite of your repeated denials.

Dispense with all the posturing, and I be glad to elaborate.

I installed many values. Some in concert, some in direct conflict with the local mores. So the answer is, I did both.

How does that relate to the pledge?

It is not necessary to install loyalty to one's country. It comes. It is unavoidable. It is the nature of humanity to be loyal to one's own.

I can think of no better example than in the display of flags after 9/11.

In that example, there were many flags, and in Los Angeles and surrounding geography, there was a definite flavor of competing loyalties, if you recall.

I lived in Southern California at the time.

The presence and numbers of Mexican flags waving shows in the innate loyalty to one's birth land.

....with liberty and justice for all.

Liberty is the core of the argument.

Compelling children in an act of patriotism is contrary to liberty because it is compelled.

It is not necessary.

Way to go James!