There was a time, not too long ago, when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance was standard and uncontroversial in schools. Then it became a problem, but it was an option. Now, that's not even an option at some schools in Vermont, local parents say.
Commentator Todd Stearns reports:
A number of mothers and fathers staged a protest at Shaftesbury Primary School, demanding to know why the pledge was given the shaft. In response, the school district called the police.
… “I think it's completely disrespectful as an American to not want to say the Pledge of Allegiance,” Navy veteran Victor Harwood told the Bennington Banner. “I was raised to respect the flag. Like many others, I risked my life. And they, too, risked their lives to pay the check. “And if people don't respect the flag, they don't respect us at all.”
“This seems like a decision that should have been discussed first,” parent Michael Gardner told the Vermont Digger. “In my opinion, this is no different than banning a book.”
In reality, this is very different from “banning a book.” In particular, this argument implies that no book is banned. All eligible works are on sale at each bookstore. The question is, what kind of books should be in schools?
everyone does it
Everyone is drawing the line too. For example, virtually no one would want snuff or a book promoting genocide in school. As for the left, they were very effective in eliminating works they didn't like, such as Huckleberry Finn. (And don't forget Dr. Seuss.)
So, really, this isn't about “banning books.” That's a propaganda story. It is about trying to control and shape the curriculum. But when the left does this, it's called “progressive.” When conservatives do that, they call it “book banning.” the goal?
Neutralizing the activities of traditionalists in the field of education. To clear the battlefield of opposition and enable the barbarians within the gates to march unopposed into wider territory. result?
We traded Huck Finn for Howard Zinn.
Didn't Nancy Pelosi tell her students to “be disruptors” years ago?
Back to Vermont, school officials did damage control. As vtdigger15 notes:
In recent years, individual school principals “have been given the power to decide whether to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in their individual buildings,” Southwestern Vermont Superintendents Union Superintendent James Culkeen said in a statement. ” he said.
He said the district itself did not prohibit the pledge, and in schools where it is recited, students and staff have the option of not saying it.
“At first glance, the ‘opt-out’ option seems reasonable. But as we learned, when students do so, it highlights the differences between children. It disrupts the community and excludes kids who just want to be in the classroom,” Culkeen said.
But Stearns asks: “Who on earth would have thought that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance would 'disrupt' a community?” The answer is that the same people who claim things like:
Promoting sexually decadent (“LGBTQ”) propaganda in schools. Allowing a boy to attend class “as a girl” and forcing other children to use his “pronouns”. I tell my students that America was built on slavery. It discredits the Founding Fathers in the eyes of elementary school students. Note: 4 in 10 Gen Zers currently think founders are better described as “villains” than heroes.
What's really going on here is a culture war battle. Whose sense of virtue will permeate schools and society as a whole? And, of course, claiming that the other party's prescriptions are “destructive” can be a tactic in this conflict. This is also a way to clear the battlefield.
The fatal progress of progressivism
The story of Vermont also shows the fruits of this legermanship. As I mentioned earlier, we've gone from universally reciting the pledge and allowing people to make exceptions to it and opt-out, to now banning the universal recitation of the pledge. And it's the same for many things:
Homosexual activists initially said they wanted only tolerance, an end to anti-sodomy laws and social prejudice. And they were tolerated. They then asked for acceptance and “marriage” and received both. They then began persecuting bakers, florists, and other businessmen who did not attend their events. In the 1940s and '50s, boys sometimes carried long guns on the New York City subways because their schools had rifle clubs (yes, really). Children were then allowed to bring toy guns to school, but this was no longer acceptable. Even this can now be banned, and boys have been punished for drawing pictures of firearms, pointing like guns and saying “Bang, bang!”. Activists at one point said they just wanted “equality.” They called for preferences and quotas (affirmative action). Now, similar to New York's misnamed Equal Rights Amendment, they want to make discrimination against “privileged” groups a constitutional right. Perhaps this is why, already decades ago, the late radio host Rush Limbaugh described their agenda as retributive with them.
crime of omission
The decline of this society occurred not only because of dark hearts, but also because of indifferent hearts. Therefore, as the philosopher GK Chesterton once said, we must be more than conservatives.
“All conservatism is based on the idea that if you leave things alone, they will remain as they are,” he explained. “But you're not. If you leave something alone, you leave it alone in the torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone, it quickly becomes a black post. Especially when it comes to white. If you want to, you always have to paint again, which means you always have to be revolutionizing.”
Like abandoned cars and houses, abandoned cultural frameworks tend towards disorder. Maintenance is essential. And can conservatism meet this challenge? Conservatism means conservative. But simply maintaining the status quo means preserving not only the good but also yesterday's mistakes. (Or, as some call it, a “progressive victory.”)
Instead, we must understand that truth (objective by definition) exists and become its faithful guardians. This is because the ultimate goal is to put this into practice throughout society. Oh, we may have to accept political compromises sometimes, but those compromises shouldn't affect the way we think. For the time being, light porridge is legally recognized. But if this has become a new concept of a life-sustaining balanced diet, we have been fooled by the spirit of cultural evolution.
The moral of this story? Tolerance is the last cry of those doomed to defeat.
