Forum:My rights as an American

Forums: Index > Village Dump > My rights as an American

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4237 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Just a quick note before I begin and then ask my question here: I am new here to the posting bit of uncyclopedia, so I sincerely hope that what I am currently writing is a forum post, instead of an actual article. Anyways. I go to a private high school, and earlier this week I received a discipline report for two things: "not standing up during the pledge of allegiance", and then, after I was asked to stand "not reciting the pledge of allegiance". Today, the dean of students called me in and gave me a generic speech for getting in trouble; "why do you think you're here?", "what do you think you did wrong?", "what are you going to do later on to prevent this?", blah blah blah. I convinced him that I never actually was sitting during the pledge; I may have been leaning against a desk, but if my homeroom teacher asked me to stand, I did so. I did admit that I did not recite the pledge, and I never do, because I personally don't think its necessary. But apparently that dean of students thinks it is, and tells me that I have to, but instead of giving me an actual detention, I have to write a 5 page paper on why it IS necessary to recite the pledge. I don't even get to choose my viewpoint, so in my opinion this assignment is akin to someone giving me the rope that holds the guillotine [sp?] up above my head and telling me to let go. I'm probably going to stray a bit from the actual topic and ::support my own view, but that is not what I'm here to ask about. What I want to know is whether or not it is required in private schools to recite the pledge, why that is if so, whether anyone can force me to recite the pledge, and whether or not this is a violation of the 5th ammendment, or that law that may or may not have been passed a year or two ago concerning the phrase "under god" in the pledge. Any and all help/advice/answers are welcome, as I plan to release the paper I write over the internet on many sites, and want to hear some feedback as well.

This isn't the place for that. While I sympathize with you, this is for discussing things related to Uncyclopedia. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And no, it's not legal to force someone to recite the Pledge. While it may be distasteful not to, it is in your right not to. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's a private school, the constitution may not apply to them because they're not run by the government, but you should consult a lawyer anyway to see if there's another way to sue them. But this isn't very funny, so I advise you to write something satirical about your experience to make it funnier. You may also enjoy my article UnNews:"In God We Trust" removed from coins; new coins to say "Fuck God" since it is also based on a constitutional issue. --Hrodulf 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this is supposed to be Uncyclopedia, but when Con Law comes up I feel like being serious. Neither the United States nor any of the several states may force you to recite the pledge because of the "Free Excercise" Clause of the First Amendment and the substantive portions of the Fourteenth Amendment respectively. Your private school is neither of these, however, and they may impose any condition on your attendance not prohibited by statutory law. Such conditions include mandatory recitation of the pledge, attending religious services, swearing fealty to the Flying Spaggetti Monster and various other conditions that a public school could not impose.---Rev. Isra (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Under United States law, required participation in the pledge of allegiance in public schools does not violate first amendment rights. Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2004). If the Supreme Court won't extend that right to public schools, they sure as heck won't extend it to private schools, which are granted a great deal more latitude. Basically, from a legal standpoint, you've got nothing. --Sir gwax (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Gwax, that case was about whether it was constitutional for anybody to recite the pledge containing the words "under god" in school as part of a daily affirmation of loyalty, not whether an individual was required to recite the pledge against their will. Read the case again. The plaintiff was challening the entire practice of reading the pledge containing a reference to god, not whether his daughter should be required to participate. As the opinion itself notes "Consistent with our case law, the School District permits students who object on religious grounds to abstain from the recitation. See West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943)."

Sorry to correct you, but I take this stuff seriously. --Hrodulf 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I did misread the case, next time I'll take a little more time in trying to skim through a 28 page legal opinion. And, in actuality, the decision of the Supreme Court was that Mr. Newdom could not legally sue in the name of his daughter when his wife had primary custody and the Court didn't actually decide the substantive issue of the pledge of allegiance. However, the fact that private schools are allowed more latitude is still of primary concern. --Sir gwax (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I know the question was whether the guy had standing to sue, but that was an irrelevant tangent that had nothing to do with this forum, so I didn't go into it. I happened to be familiar with the case because the same plaintiff was involved in another case that I satirized in my UnNews article about "In God We Trust" on coins (I placed the link above) so I did have an unfair advantage over you in my knowledge of this particular type of litigation (not to mention the fact that I've been admitted to practice law in NY State since 2002, so yeah, that's another factor). And I know the issue is whether as a private school they can do that, since they're not part of the government.

All that being said, in retrospect, the reason I mentioned that the case didn't hold that participation in the pledge could be required is, honestly, I found your statement disturbing. The very idea that any person could be compelled against their will by the state to make any forced speech of any type is completely against the constitution, so I felt it was important to clarify that is is not the Supreme Court of the United States' position. The last thing I want people to take away from this is that the United States is some sort of oppressive hypocritical country where civil rights are just a bunch of words on paper and aren't actually something people can claim as their own.

Like I said, I take this seriously. --Hrodulf 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for offending. That said, the United States is some sort of oppressive hypocritical country where civil rights are mostly just a bunch of words on paper. Also, matters get worse and more like a police state here every day. Have you seen the patriot act? Have you heard of Guantanamo? Have you tried flying on a plane recently? --Sir gwax (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I vote Democrat, so it's not my problem. And things will have to get a lot worse than they've gotten so far before I agree with that statement. While I think a lot of what Bush did is unconstitutional or illegal and even if not, is unoubtedly disturbing, that doesn't mean that we've arrived at 1984 yet. We're just apparently on the road there, but like I said, I vote Democrat, so I'm doing my part to try to turn the car around. As for offense, none taken, since none of what you've described is my doing. --Hrodulf 17:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Democrats are not that much better than Republicans, I used to work for Democrats and I had my rights violated because I suffer from mental illnesses. I was also discriminated against for my mental illnesses and being a Christian. If you vote Democrat you will still have problems. Remember FDR when he put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, and had people arrested for treason that spoke out against the government during WWII. I mean if you hate GWB and the Neocons, you'd really hate FDR and Harry S. Truman for doing things worse than GWB and the Neocons. Truman dropped nuclear weapons on Japan and used lies to get us into the Korean war/conflict. They were Democrats and not Republicans. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I voted Nader in the 2000 election. I support a third party solution for our current lousy political choices. Until then I will always vote for the lesser of two evils, which right now is the Democrats, thanks to Bush, who is probably the worst president the US has ever had. I read an article where a number of history professors came to that conclusion and I think they have a point. He got us into an unneeded war and did horrible things like Guantanamo and eroded civil liberties in ways we don't even know about yet and perhaps never will. All that being said, if you had bad experiences with democrats then that is unfortunate, but there's bastards in any political party. Also, the democratic party of FDR and Truman is not the democratic party of today. I mean, go back far enough, and Abraham Lincoln was a republican, so by your logic, we should be for the republicans because of Lincoln.

The fact is power itself corrupts as noted by the absolute power article. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't appreciate being demonised as an implied hypocrite because I'm choosing to fight the evil we have to deal with today (Bush) in a way that might actually work, supporting the opposition. Ever hear of strategic voting? I consider the atom bombings of Japan to be mass murder and terrorism, by the way, but that doesn't mean I have to support the party that inflicted a moron as a president upon us for eight years, not to mention impeached the president before that essentially for cheating on his wife. If I have to choose between corrupt and competent, and honest and incompetent, sorry, I have to go for competence. With the republicans in power, we seem to have corruption and incompetence, worst of both worlds.

History is over, done and dead. We still have a chance to change the present if we can pull our collective heads out of our collective asses and get Bush's party out of power. They invaded a country they did not even understand for no rational reason, and we're going to be paying for their gross stupidity for decades. And so will the rest of the world. --Hrodulf 16:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Now now guys, "Nothing at uncyclopedia is serious." I'd hate to see this turn into a political (or worse, legal) discussion. What's a lawyer burried up to his neck in the sand? --Anyone 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not enough sand. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For those of you interested in investigating the matter, feel free to drop by the Supreme Courts website and hit up the case's sliplist (click the Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow link). --Sir gwax (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You people and your laws...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wait, Canda doesn't have a pledge! Oh my god! All we have is the crazy french bit in the middle of our anthem, and no bothers with that! Damn, now I have to protest to get our troops out of Afganastan and get a pledge! --Sir Zombiebaron 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Transfer to a public school if you want your rights and freedoms protected. Private schools and private corporations can force you to do something because of the contract you signed with them. I used to work for lawyers, and they were Democrats, and they bullied me into doing a lot of things against my will. A public school has government sponsorship and thus have to follow the constitution more closer than a private school. When you joined the private school either you or your parents signed a contract that gave up some of your rights and freedoms, just like an employee signs an employment contract that gives up some of their rights and freedoms. I know it sucks, but that is the way the law works. Public schools and Public corporations (controlled by the government) cannot restrict your rights and freedoms that way. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a political debate forum

Heres my opinion though. It doesn't matter that much. There's worse things that can happen to you. A teacher or whatever not listening to your point of view is natural. The best thing to do is talk nasty stuff about the teacher to your friends while she/he is in earshot of you but make it seem like she/he wasn't supposed hear it. Make sure you do it in the right place and time. I used to do that in high school cause they'd never say anything to you but you could see them dying inside. But make sure its really nasty hurtful stuff about they're teaching abilities or something. Hardeehar SeeHereForTalky AARRGGHH 17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As someone who also goes to a private high school

(Yes I really do)

I do know that you are pretty much required to go ahead and yes, stand up and pledge allegiance to the country you were born a citizen into. Everyone else does it, and everyone else says the phrase under God, even the muslim kid who sits 2 seats away from me in the second row. I wish people weren't so "my rights my rules" all the time, from a person I knew in school.

I remember there being an English kid in my class, who never recited it. He wasn't born in USA, and it didn't seem that he liked it to much. He wasn't a citizen, hated USA, bashed whatever Pres was in office (Clinton?) and acted always so...superiour to everyone else.

You NEVER disagree with the word of the dean, ever. You're a fool for doing that, because deans won't hesitate to chew your ass out for not following the rules. Even if you think you're right, what the dean says goes, and if you're in a private high school then you don't have a shot in hell with arguing against the constitution, much less the dean of students (I have 3 to deal with).

Also, I despise these conversations, because I know someone will try to pick a flaw in my personal experiences with the matter and my own knowledge of it arguments and it will spin off in a heaping mess of boring and irritating debate, something that is choking the fun in GameSpots Off-Topic forums. Unfortunately, GS allows freedom of topic creation, so these boring ass debates founded by "Can you disprove the Bible?" into 600+ replies. Since we aren't GameSpot and don't have have a boring Terms of Use to abide by (Don't be a dick) I'd like to discourage these topics from being made, in the sense we don't need them and they aren't much fun to argue with fellow members over...crap.

With that note, I shalt not respond to anything on this topic, in the hopes the damned thing leaves the VD swiftly and stupidly. This is too irritating to bother responding to, as I've said all I have to say about how much I HATE HATE HAT about this topic. So discuss this with me on my talk page, it'll not be posted in the dump & let's me ignore it quite easily.--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 00:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd that you respond to the topic to say, after a time, that you won't respond to the topic...and don't worry, this topic will get bumped to that other forum soon enough, where people in all-caps will, no doubt, complain about it being there. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Until then, I can complain about it being here without using all-caps. --Sir Zombiebaron 01:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that as a private school, they may be allowed to require him to recite the pledge. They are entitled to have rules of conduct, and if those rules are disagreeable, people are free to choose to go to another school. That could be the outcome here. I was just hesistant to say that (and I'm still not 100% sure about it, it's just a position and I don't know if that's the law) because I didn't want to be seen as giving legal advice without a proper basis for doing so (and also without being admitted to practice law in the relevant jurisdiction).

All that being said, I understand why people could become angry about this sort of issue, however, imagine if it were your rights at stake. You'd have a different attitude about it. I could certainly imagine several people who would probably be justified in being disturbed in having to pledge alliegance to the United States, such as United States citizens who had been unlawfully imprisoned during World War II on the basis of race, victims of the Tuskegee experiment into syphilis, aboriginal americans, descendants of the Bonus Army protest victims, and probably many others who have legitimate grievances against the United States. Those people should not be required to pledge alliegance to a country, and by extension, a government that has wronged them. Requiring a disingenous loyalty oath against from such people serves no purpose except to victimize them further.

Incidentally, the very pledge itself if required by the government (even putting the "under god" issue aside) appears to violate the spirit of the Fifth Amendment also, since if someone did not recite the pledge, the implication would be that their failure to speak could constitute treason. I don't personally have a problem with reciting the pledge, "under god" and all, because I'm practical about this sort of thing, but that doesn't mean people who don't want to do it should have their rights trampled upon, or are "annoying" for asserting what they feel to be their constitutional rights. --Hrodulf 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this would belong in a proper debate forum? Like the one we don't have... --KWild 04:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's it! Someone go create a "law" forum under BENSON.--<<>> 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how do I do that exactly? --Hrodulf 23:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh... erm. I don't know, actually.--<<>> 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told, I was more than half-kidding. More than half, but less that fully. You understand, right?--<<>> 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was playing along :D --Hrodulf 01:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-Americans sign here

Australian. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 08:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is entirely stupid and wrong to coerce people to go throught the motions in order to make them love their country. Hey, either you do or you don't, but saying that you do isn't going to make it so. The people that run your school sound like a bunch of Fascist morons, and to me a fascist moron is synonym to a very lame looser. If you ever feel the need to become a political refugee, contact me and I'll see what I can do for you (I live in a civilized part of the world, Europe). -- di Mario 09:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to America and its citizens, the whole pledge of allegiance/hand on your heart/worship the flag like a sacred icon thing scares me a little. That's the good thing about being English; for the most part any overly-patriotic impulses are tempered by the embarrasing memory of the whole "Empire" thing.(Yeah, um, sorry about that, all you Indians, Egyptians, Burmese, Palestinians, Singaporeans, Ghananians, Rhodesians, West Indians, etc. etc....) -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 10:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Codeine... everyone in England (with the possible exception of the BNP) is so afraid of seeming nationalist that they would never imply that they might possibly consider thinking that maybe England could perhaps be better than some other country, somewhere, although the contrast with the US this provides does mean that saying you hate America has become a bit fashionable, which is pretty sad, to be honest, especially when most people don't really know anything about it as a place. Having said that, (and having just read a Noam Chomsky book on the subject, which is never a good starting point) I do reckon American foreign policy is a bit f*cked up. --Sir Jam 10:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Was it Hegemony or Survival by any chance? -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Fun read! Really restored my faith in mankind. --Sir Jam 12:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, this is pretty much covered by your Legalese friends above, but if you're looking for a way to deal with it, your options would appear to be:

1) Just get on with it. You don't have to care about the words coming out of your mouth, (as so many FFW'd articles made plain) but it's nice that you do. Try thinking of the words to a song... just make sure it doesn't come out of your mouth instead of the Pledge. At least you'll learn multi tasking.

2) Fight the power. Me, not so much. I mean, I sympathize, and were I literally a few years younger (or apparently had I gone to school in another region) I wouldn't have been made to sing hymns in Assembly. Or have assemblies apparently. Anyway if you choose this route, be sure to do it properly. Ideally, you'd need to draw on many of the things mentioned here: is there a US citizen at your school who is not made to recite the Pledge? (someone who is obviously on grounds of accent and mannerism foreign, but who nevertheless holds all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship that you do) Are there any upcoming debates (I'll assume your school has a debating society, but if it doesn't... start one. Be nice to the Dean for that reason if nothing else.) or are you required to write any essays on citizenship or democracy? That would be an excellent forum for your argument, but remember to do more than pay lip service to the other side. If you behave reasonably and put your ideas in a clear and intelligent manner, most people get bored and just let you do your thing, but the ones who don't will either try to trick you into admitting you're wrong (if they do, just think '*****' every time you see them, but let the matter slide) or argue until they're blue in the face. This is fun, more so if you're calm and collected, as there's nothing quite so amusing as watching someone make a total ass of themself. Remember, for essays, debates or just plain calm talk (never argue in that sense) you need to be able to back up your position. Cite the case law above in your hypothetical essay, and point out that the issue was not decided, for example. Democracy is not about being more right, or better than anyone else, it's about consensus.

2a) Shamelessly whore your own links.

3) Talk to your parents/guardians outside of school. Ask them if they think it's legal. You get many of your values from them, so it's quite likely that they had a similar thought when they were at school... how they dealt with it might be useful, even if it's just finding out they didn't have much choice either. Best case scenario, they might be prepared to talk to the school about it, if only to ask the Dean to be more explicit in stating how it is his right to force you. Turning the tables, if done well, will zip him up. Won't make you two friends though.

Finally, remember (and I'm assuming this is true under US law as it is elsewhere...comments?) a contract made under duress is at best suspect, and at worst, worthless. In other words, you won't love America more if it makes you do something which is not essential for survival or wellbeing against your will. Oh and keep smiling. No-one likes it when they know you disagree with them and you're still smiling. That's one of the problems with lawyers. Berogen 11:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've already linked to my userpage on this page, but I kinda have to stand up for Canada. --Sir Zombiebaron 00:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Pledge of Unlegiance

I pledge unlegiance, to the spud, of the Disunited Chaos of Uncyclopedia, and to the Satire for which it stands, one website, under Cuthulu, inderisable, with GOTM noms and VFD postings for all. --Hrodulf 13:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't you have a mention of Sophia or maybe BENSON in there?

Or even Oscar Wilde. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 16:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Boo, down with cliches! Although you could replace Cthulu with Chron --Sir Jam 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure my medication is delivered on schedule -- di Mario 10:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I like being Australian, I wouldn't have to say that pledge either --KWild 14:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

O Uncyclopedia

For those of you who don't pay attention to Canada, this is based on the Canadian national anthem. I came up with the idea after reading Hrodulf's Pledge.

This section contains Candain content

Oh Uncyclopedia,

Our true and native wiki

True unadulterated lies, in all our leader's command.

With glowing bansticks, we see them rise.

From the truth we will break free!

From far to wide

Oh Uncyclopedia, we stand to gaurd from he

Famine will keep us glorious and free

Oh Uncyclopedia, we stand to guard from he

Oh Uncyclopedia, we stand to guard from he

--Sir Zombiebaron 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Too US-centric?

Score: +5

• Yes. - User:Guest/sig 10:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• No. It's downright unAmerican! Every patriotic American wants to be forces to recite the jingoistic Pledge o' Allegiance at the start of each and every school day. Without it, the terrorist win.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 11:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What about non-patriotic Russians, though? - User:Guest/sig 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • In Soviet Russia, pledge says you! --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Yes.--<<>> 20:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. ~ Major Sir Todd Lyons GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, it's both US-Centric AND Soviet Union centric. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ofcourse. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 00:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Yes and if I had a dime for every time some teenage kid whined about some private school giving them trouble for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance in the USA I'd be richer than Bill Gates. This debate is even older than I am, and I'm older than dirt. This rant basically said "Listen to me, I need attention, I am a teenager and I'm the center of the universe and the most important person alive. The fascist dean at my private high school tried to force me to say the pledge of allegiance or at least not slouch with bad posture while saying it. Listen to me, this is more important than the trivial shit you do on your web site, I think my rights were violated. I know Uncyclopedia does not have a debate and law section, but I'm posting about it anyway because I feel it is more important than any other issue on this planet, no, the universe. I know nobody on this web site is a real lawyer, but I am just a teenage kid and cannot afford a real lawyer anyway, so I am asking your legal advice. I know for a fact that nobody on this web site is as smart and sophisticated as I, the self-important teenager am, but I am asking for help anyway because I was rejected by other forums on the Internet that must be full of fascists who want to take away my rights and freedoms like the dick of a dean at my high school. Help me, help me, I'm being repressed by a fascist moron of a dean, whom I think is a Neocon out to take away my rights and freedoms." I apologize, obviously this teenager mistook the USA for a free country like Canada. You see, the US Constitution was made null and void since World War II broke out, and even before then it was not used that much anyway. I hear that the European Union cannot agree to write a Constitution for themselves, but feel free to use the US Constitution instead because we are not using it anyway. The USA is really a two-party dictatorship and each of the dominant parties agree to take turns monopolizing the government and abusing people's rights and freedoms. I mean did anyone ever notice that Independent candidates hardly ever get elected to Congress, and never get elected as President? Why? Because the USA is a two-party dictatorship that's why. The pledge of allegiance is really a loyalty oath created by Congress to weed out the Commies who object to the "Under God" reference (because Commies are atheists who don't believe in God) and object to pledging allegiance to the USA because they are Commies and reject the USA as a Capitalist Nation that exploits workers. So kiddo, you just told on yourself that you are a Commie. Anyway for future reference I suggest than the next whiny teenager who posts a question like this under a debate and law part of the forum that does not exist, gets a Nobody Cares reply and then have an admin lock the forum thread. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, and I thought I hated obnoxiousness... --Sir Jam 12:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well, I did redirect the guy to my article on "in god we trust" so I was trying to help him channel his feelings into some sort of humorous commentary on the situation so we could at least get an article out of this maybe, but I guess it didn't work.
  
  

I disagree with the position that this is a waste of time or doesn't belong here. It inspired my "Pledge of Unlegiance" which probably made at least one person almost laugh, and discussions like this often inspire articles or humor. For example, my story UnNews:United Nations vote: all religions are entitled to their own state in the middle east was directly inspired by a conversation/argument I had with someone about Israel on the Noam Chomsky Znet blog. Since discussions like this can inspire comedy, I think they have a place, even if they don't always lead to contributions, they easily can. If we are to create a seperate forum for that, I honestly think it would be beneficial to the project.

Also, for what it's worth, Orion, it just so hapens that I am a "real" lawyer (admitted in NY state since 2002), but I hesitated to provide legal advice since I didn't know what the law was in his jurisdiction. I only identified a couple of issues that may impact the outcome of his question and said he should seek counsel if he wanted to explore that further. That being said, legal issues often reflect a compromise between different interests, and are themselves often a source of humor because the compromises often reveal ugly truths about ourselves and our societies. Probably more parodies of legal issues would make the project funnier, if done correctly. I'd submit that my story UnNews:"In God We Trust" removed from coins; new coins to say "Fuck God" shows that constitutional law issues can be a source of comedy.

Finally, you're entitled to your opinion about this individual and their actions, but one of the nice things about freedom is that you're allowed to criticize him, and he's allowed to criticize the US. By venting against him, you are taking advantage of the same sort of freedom he is by choosing not to respect the pledge. The both of you have more in common than you'd think; people shouldn't be forced to hide their feelings, or to express ideas or feelings that aren't their own. That's bad for our communication skills, and it's also bad for democracy. I think there's a lot for both of you to think about in this regard.

Yes, not saying the pledge violates social norms, but I'd like to think that we in the US, as a country, are strong enough not to genuinely feel threatened by people who don't want to recite the pledge, for whatever reason. As for the political situation, democracy is always a work in progress. What's popular and what's right aren't always the same thing, but we all do our best to try to vote our conscience and hopefully if we try our best we can create a better society and a better, more enlightened political system. Until then, democracy is the worst system of government in the world, except for all the other ones. --Hrodulf 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That is all well and said, but I refuse to be manipulated by some teenager who seems to think he is better than anyone else on the planet and that everyone should agree with his point of view. His right to freedom of speech does not mean I have to be forced to listen to what he says as the truth or even care about it. I think that perhaps he should have talked to his parents about it, rather than some anonymous humor writers on the Internet. I mean that is just common sense which this teenager seems to lack. I used to work with Lawyers, and most of them were bullies and assholes, and only a select few weren't. My own personal lawyer is a Bo Staff (a stick made of wood for the non-Martial Arts types) which I like to use to wack people upside the head with (like a clue-stick) and hope that it knocks some common sense into them. That means I use my freedom of speech to tell people that Your reality check bounced and they do not have the funds to cover it. I am not trying to take away this spoiled rotten brat's freedom of speech, I mean I like people to speak freely so I can make fun of them. But Uncyclopedia is not really a debate and law web site, is it? How many idiot kids do we get that come post on the VD with their problems and want some comedians to give them solutions? I suspect this whole thing was really a troll by some 45 year old liberal arts major that still lives with his mother in her basement and uses a 100Mhz Pentium Packard Bell system and 14.4K BPS modem with AOL 6.0 or something and Windows ME, and likes to screw around with us because we are such easy targets. I mean seriously, since when did Uncyclopedia become Dear Abby? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you nominate this forum for VFD. I was saying the same thing in another forum thread about cruft forums (fora? confusing). I was just trying to point out here that maybe this forum wasn't as useless as you apparently believe it is, but reasonable minds can disagree. --Hrodulf 22:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why VFD? It would only cause this wiener head to claim his rights were violated by deleting his freedom of speech. Then he'll be bitching about Uncyclopedia being fascist to some other forum. I say we treat him like we did User:Anonymous Slashy and all of the other trolls. I worked with lawyers enough to know that Contracts - Collective Bargaining Agreements like Unions have can make a company violate someone's civil rights, like if they have Saturday as a holy day and the Union cannot put someone else to work that day and the guy has low seniority, he is forced to work by the employer on that holy day because the union prevents them from hiring scabs to replace him and with nobody working will cause the business to lose money ala an undue hardship. So school contracts, and employment contracts can take away people's freedoms and rights the same way. My former employers did that to me, and I was unjustly fired and discriminated against for mental illness (Americans with Disabilities Act), and being a Christian (Civil Rights Act), life is not fair, tell me about it. But I am not going to post a whiney emo forum post on VD about it asking for legal advice. I mean the dammed ACLU would not take my case because I was not some minority and not famous like a celebrity or had the media's attention. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion. You don't have to do it. Anyway, they probably didn't know any better so it will probably just happen again no matter what we do. --Hrodulf 22:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah his parents should have used Child Psychology on raising him and maybe the Maddox Method instead of the spoiled rotten brat method of letting him manipulate them. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My rights as an Uncyclopedian

None, see, User:Hrodulf#You_Have_No_Rights, lol. --Hrodulf 22:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

ROTFLOLPIMPWTFBBQ!!!!111one21212two121212eleventybillion1212121//\\//\/\/\ --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You forgot the "!!!!111one" --Hrodulf 22:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not bad. Maybe we should link the sarcasm article here. --Hrodulf 23:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We already got that covered with the American liberals and HowTo:Be a liberal articles that should really be quoting this forum and what the kid has to say as examples of American Liberalism and how to be a Liberal. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that James Madison was a liberal. Shows how little I know about history. --Hrodulf 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many have said about US Politics "I can't believe it's not Liberalism!" and now you know! --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much. --Hrodulf 03:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)