William Phillips, a 10-year-old boy in Arkansas, has refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because he believes there is no "liberty and justice for all." (See full story here).
In particular, Phillips said there was no liberty and justice for gay people, who are not allowed to marry. Although people are often suspicious of parents who indoctrinate their children and put their children at the forefront of political protests, this act of defiance seems to have been initiated by Phillips alone.
Phillips told CNN that he had thought through the words of the Pledge of Allegiance for several days before coming to the decision. He asked his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, and ultimately decided not to stand or recite the pledge. "I was analyzing the meanings of it because I want to be a lawyer," Will said of his thought process.
Phillips said he had grown up knowing gay people, had gay friends, and believed that they deserved the same rights as everyone else.
Phillips first refused to stand for the pledge at the beginning of the week. He continued to do this throughout the week. A substitute teacher was filling in that week, and tried to make Phillips stand up, but Phillips would not.
Phillips continued to refuse the substitute's daily attempts to get him to stand for the pledge. "I eventually, very solemnly, with a little bit of malice in my voice, said, 'ma'am, with all due respect, you can jump off a bridge.'" Phillips was called into the principal's office at that point, and the administration called his father Jay.
Jay Phillips said his initial response was frustration at his son, for misbehavior. However, he said that after speaking with his son, he realized it was not a "typical act of juvenile delinquency."
William Phillips has since written an apology to the teacher, although he maintains that he will not recite the pledge until there is truly liberty and justice for all. He maintains that he does not think gays and lesbians have the same rights and that he's "not going to swear that they do."
After Phillips' stand against the Pledge of Allegiance, he was criticized and teased by his peers who repeatedly called him a "gaywad."
Jay said he had spoken with his son about his protest, and cautioned him that there could be potential ramifications to taking such a strong stand. He said his son's response was that he wanted to raise awareness in the community. William was very clear that "just because he is 10 years old, doesn't mean he doesn't have opinions or rights."
The passion and clarity with which William speaks is refreshing. It seems that at a young age he has learned to think for himself.
The Pledge of Allegiance does raise some interesting issues. Every child in this country has had to recite it at some point, regardless of whether they are aware of the meanings of the words. In many ways it is a blind patriotic exercise that is never explained fully to the people reciting it.
Much of the controversy with the Pledge has been in regard to the words "under god" which has created heated battles and debate over separation of church and state issues. Indeed, it is a complicated issue since the words "under god" were not present in the original pledge, but were officially incorporated into the pledge in 1954, when the nation feared the influences of communism.
Arguably, some of the words of the pledge are strange. The first line is a pledge to a flag, a piece of cloth, rather than to a nation, a people, or entity. The last line "with liberty and justice for all," is somewhat debatable. There are plenty of harmless liberties that people may not engage in. Gay marriage is one of them.
"Liberty" in the Pledge of Allegiance thus is not representative of any absolute sense of the word, but refers to some qualified liberty with an asterisk at the end, and is defined as however the government wants to define it. What it really means is "the liberty to do things we allow you to do."
Comments
The Pledge of Allegiance is not a description of how the country is. It is a prescription of how the country should be. You are making a promise to strive for a particular end. You may fall short, but you will at least try.
This is much of the reason why "one nation under God" is objectionable. With these words, the government is saying that being a nation under God is better than not being a nation under God - in the same way that being a nation with liberty and justice for all is better than not having liberty and justice for all.
Of course, for atheists such as myself, being compared in a national Pledge to sucessionists, tyrants, and perpetrators of injustice is objectionable. What right does the government have to teach young children tnhat not believing in God is as objetionable as attempting to divide the union, establish tyranny, and promoting injustice?
I disagree Alonzo. If the pledge meant "and to the Republic for which it could someday stand in the future" then the pledge would say that. But no, the words are written in the present tense, a fact which young Mr. Phillips understands perfectly well. (He probably gets "A"s in writing and grammar.) The words "under God" are objectionable because when congress inserted those words into the pledge in 1954, congress established monotheism as one of the values that describes the USA. The First Amendment bars congress from passing any law that establishes a religion, including monotheism. I mean, are the only full citizens Jews, Christians, and Muslims who all worship the same single god, whom some call "God"? Many US citizens believe in something besides monotheism. The constitution and the nation belong to us as well, and standing up for our equal rights is not a silly matter of "feeling good" as some congressfolk just pled in Wash DC district court.
This is very sad to me. Our children are no longer taught about morals; about right and wrong. Wrongfulness should not be rewarded. I would love for this child to go to a poor third world country where there is no freedom. You are killed if you don't agree with the bullies, who have the weapons, and who ended up as leaders.
I disagree that it is "sad." I find it quite promising that a member of the next generation is standing up for what he believes in. I'll take those "morals" over the crap that you probably think of as morals.
I just wanna say a heartfelt "thank you" to the kid.
I want to offer as much support and appreciation as I can for this child. I definitely would not have had the strength to do something like this when I was his age. Thank you, William Phillips.
thotbubbbls said:
"This is very sad to me. Our children are no longer taught about morals; about right and wrong. Wrongfulness should not be rewarded. I would love for this child to go to a poor third world country where there is no freedom. You are killed if you don't agree with the bullies, who have the weapons, and who ended up as leaders."
So you're saying that because he's in a country where he has every freedom and right to do what he did that he shouldn't? I can think of no greater disrespect to all those who died and are continuing to die for our freedoms than for anyone to ignore those freedoms in the name of patriotism. Patriotism isn't being egotistical about your country, it's actually standing up for what you believe in the same way as those who founded this country did. I find it very sad that the free flow of ideas and opinions in this country is cut back so often by those who think nobody should voice opinions that anyone might disagree with.
Thank you, William Phillips! You are an example to follow.
I wish this would become a tread.
Man he's got balls. When I was 10 I still believed girls had cooties. I think I still do believe that.
I would like to offer my heartfelt admiration. and for the parents too. I wish this kid can feel our support for him. I wish he won't get a hard time at school and instead inspire more kids to think about equality.
I am also an atheist. i dont like the god bit either. but still, i think the gay and lesbian group would have their right first in US. there are more Atheistphobia then gay phobic at this moment.
William Phillips, you deserve a medal for standing up for what you believe in. For years I have said "and liberty and justice for some" so I know exactly what you mean. Gay and lesbian people should be able to marry and it should be a national law. If it does not feel good to call it marriage, call it a union and give them the same rights afforded married people. It is almost 2010 and many other countries already allow same sex couples to marry. There has been no deteriation of the sanctity of marriage in those countries. I applaud you William Phillips. Keep fighting for rights for all.
Why is the perjorative "homosexual" used in this headline instead of the more commonly used "gay?" (which is used by the source article referred to at the Huffington Post). The headline for this article at the Huffington Post is "
Will Phillips, 10-Year-Old, Won't Pledge Allegiance To A Country That Discriminates Against Gays (VIDEO)" -- however, here, the headline uses a word that the Associated Press, New York Times, and Washington Post, and other papers, have specifically decided not to use because of it's perjorative connotation used by anti-gay activists and is also often used as a slur.
I WANT TO MARRY THIS KID.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!