+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Bullying — Risk Factors

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by indago View Post
    There is a move in this country examining into bullying, and its effects. One of the factors is:
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Generally, children who are bullied have one or more of the following risk factors: Are perceived as different from their peers
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    article


    From Michigan Public Media 5 October 2012:
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Governor Rick Snyder has signed legislation that requires every schoolroom to display a U.S. flag, and give children the opportunity to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. ...The new law says time must be set aside for the pledge in every public school classroom every school day. But students don’t have to say the pledge if they or their parents object.
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    article


    Now, there's an invitation to bullying if ever there was. Instead of removing risk factors for bullying, the legislatures and school systems are inviting these risks.
    Since everyone else is crowing about what bad-asses they were in 3rd grade, I will actually address the topic. The OP is correct in insinuating that this rule just creates another conflict point which could result in bullying. Lets not forget the history of the pledge and if I remember correctly, in the 1940's jehovahs witnesses were targeted because they refused to recite the pledge in schools. Although back then it was not 'optional', this new ruling creates a similar situation in that those who refuse to say it can now be singled out. Not to mention, nowadays the pledge is even more controversial due to the adding of the phrase "Under God" in the 50's. Personally, I don't understand the point of the pledge. Why must we pledge our allegiance to the state? That seems awful communist like. Not to mention the governmental endorsement of religion. There are so many better ways to express patriotism then a pledge, they should pursue those and drop this requirement.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by indago View Post
    There is a move in this country examining into bullying, and its effects. One of the factors is:
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Generally, children who are bullied have one or more of the following risk factors: Are perceived as different from their peers
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    article


    From Michigan Public Media 5 October 2012:
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Governor Rick Snyder has signed legislation that requires every schoolroom to display a U.S. flag, and give children the opportunity to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. ...The new law says time must be set aside for the pledge in every public school classroom every school day. But students don’t have to say the pledge if they or their parents object.
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    article


    Now, there's an invitation to bullying if ever there was. Instead of removing risk factors for bullying, the legislatures and school systems are inviting these risks.
    Since everyone else is crowing about what bad-asses they were in 3rd grade, I will actually address the topic. The OP is correct in insinuating that this rule just creates another conflict point which could result in bullying. Lets not forget the history of the pledge and if I remember correctly, in the 1940's jehovahs witnesses were targeted because they refused to recite the pledge in schools. Although back then it was not 'optional', this new ruling creates a similar situation in that those who refuse to say it can now be singled out. Not to mention, nowadays the pledge is even more controversial due to the adding of the phrase "Under God" in the 50's. Personally, I don't understand the point of the pledge. Why must we pledge our allegiance to the state? That seems awful communist like. Not to mention the governmental endorsement of religion. There are so many better ways to express patriotism then a pledge, they should pursue those and drop this requirement.

  2. Likes indago liked this post
  3. Default

    After the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, my school went full-on ‘makeshift patriot’ and jammed flags into every classroom, and somehow convinced the one student of arab descent out of ~2,500 mostly white kids to daily lead the entire school via intercom in the pledge of allegiance, which was typically followed up by the playing of a corny song like “God Bless the USA” or “God Bless America” or on rare occasions, the National Anthem (which I do NOT find to be corny).

    So when it was time to stand and pledge to one nation under God, I remained seated. I didn’t attempt to disrupt by reciting the original, un-tampered with version, nor did I use the traditional Bellamy salute. I simply sat quietly and refused to participate.

    A handful of my teachers questioned me about this, and were understanding of my explanation that I did not want to participate in a largely empty jingoistic ritual that was being used to cheer on a headlong rush into war as well as pledge allegiance to a nation under a non-existent magical being. They either left me alone or actively supported me when the more loud-mouthed students, many of whom had enlisted in the armed services in the weeks following the attacks, attempted to make it into a controversy.

    However, most of my teachers openly harassed me over this. I was repeatedly sent to the principals’ offices, given a couple of after-school detentions (which I gave written refusal to attend), and was continually accused during class lesson time of being an atheist, a communist, an anti-patriot, and “providing aid and comfort to terrorists”. On a few occasions I walked out of class and sent *myself* to the principal’s office, explaining it was a means of escaping official harassment.

    Bringing in printouts of relevant Supreme Court decisions had an impact on some of the teachers who were willing to listen to reasoned argument, but was largely ignored by most. Contacting the ACLU and getting *them* to send a letter to the school administration about the cost of settling an open-and-shut lawsuit sure helped.
    comment

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iJoeTime View Post
    Since everyone else is crowing about what bad-asses they were in 3rd grade, I will actually address the topic. The OP is correct in insinuating that this rule just creates another conflict point which could result in bullying. Lets not forget the history of the pledge and if I remember correctly, in the 1940's jehovahs witnesses were targeted because they refused to recite the pledge in schools. Although back then it was not 'optional', this new ruling creates a similar situation in that those who refuse to say it can now be singled out. Not to mention, nowadays the pledge is even more controversial due to the adding of the phrase "Under God" in the 50's. Personally, I don't understand the point of the pledge. Why must we pledge our allegiance to the state? That seems awful communist like. Not to mention the governmental endorsement of religion. There are so many better ways to express patriotism then a pledge, they should pursue those and drop this requirement.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Since everyone else is crowing about what bad-asses they were in 3rd grade, I will actually address the topic. The OP is correct in insinuating that this rule just creates another conflict point which could result in bullying. Lets not forget the history of the pledge and if I remember correctly, in the 1940's jehovahs witnesses were targeted because they refused to recite the pledge in schools. Although back then it was not 'optional', this new ruling creates a similar situation in that those who refuse to say it can now be singled out. Not to mention, nowadays the pledge is even more controversial due to the adding of the phrase "Under God" in the 50's. Personally, I don't understand the point of the pledge. Why must we pledge our allegiance to the state? That seems awful communist like. Not to mention the governmental endorsement of religion. There are so many better ways to express patriotism then a pledge, they should pursue those and drop this requirement.
    I personally wouldn't want anybody to recite the pledge if they do not believe in their country or have a religious belief that conflicts with such a pledge, or anybody who just feels uncomfortable doing it, not a problem. Unfortunately this is the best way for a bunch of fanatics to identify nonconformists, and if this is what they are hoping for the bullying will be considered perfectly acceptable any way.
    Government is a disease masquerading as it's own cure.

    Politics is the dishonest art of misleading the gullible and manipulating the ignorant & emotionally distraught to get votes from the poor and election funds from the rich by promising to protect each from other.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Germany -- The Bully of Europe.
    By janpor in forum Western Europe
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: Feb 01 2012, 10:29 AM
  2. Officials Weigh Circumcision to Fight H.I.V. Risk
    By TheHat in forum United States
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Sep 29 2011, 02:57 AM
  3. The real risk factors for sexual child abuse
    By saintmichaeldefendthem in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Sep 16 2011, 01:24 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks