[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: If you wish to use the logic that the raised fist, a symbol of a violent group can be used as a passive statment. Then the symbol of another violent group can also be used as a passive statment. Then you have choosen to accept that the user has the power to change the symbol into what they wish it to be at the time they use it.

No, because the Nazi salute is a symbol of a violent group, the raised fist is a passive symbol that was used by an aggressive group, before the black panthers et al used it, so the raised fit is correctly used when done passively, as this teenager was, but the nazi salute wasn't originally a passive symbol.[/QUOTE]Very well, Talthyr. If that is the case, what about the swastika? Should it be used as a logo for passive protests?

No? Why not? The Nazi's were NOT the first to use the swastika, Native Americans were! The Nazi'a perverted a symbol of a non-violent group to such an extent that it is now a global pariah.

AFA the "raised fist" issue, I have to agree with John D.. It is irrelevant what the "raised fist" may mean in the UK, Australia, France, or Italy.

We are talking about the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States, and in THIS country, it is associated with the Black Panthers - who were a violent, reactionary group in the late '60's - a time of changing social and political norms in this country.

Forgive me, Chewbacca, I have a lot of respect for you, but to base your opinion of the Black Panthers' actions on the word of one of its' founders is simply naive'. Charles Manson doesn't see anything wrong with the gruesome murders committed by him and his "family" either. Our society, however, has a far different view of both of these "groups".

I will agree that the treatment of the student was reprehensible. Nobody should be punished for not saying the pledge. However, I honostly can't help but wonder if there was more to the teenagers actions than has been brought out.

I know that there are always exceptions, but I honostly believe that if this kid had approached the teacher in a respectful manner, then the class would've respected his wishes. Yes, some of his classmates are going to give him a hard time, but others won't. The teenage years are all about challenging authority to begin with, so I'm sure several of his classmates would've approved and RESPECTED his wishes, if they had been presented in a respectful manner.

I will agree that just raising his fist in protest does NOT constitute "disruption of the class" and, if that's ALL that he did, then the court should definitely rule in his favor.

I also understand his POV. The school shoud not FORCE students to say the pledge, no matter what. Otherwise, this isn't truly a "free country".

I also agree - as someone else did (Calaethis, maybe?)- that his "gesture" probably led to a confrontation between him and the teacher and/rest of the class - which would be disruptive.

I'm not saying the teacher or classmates are right, but I do question the "total innocence" of the boy also. It'll be interesting to follow the story and learn the full details.