It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


$2600 penalty for not standing up for the Pledge of Allegiance.

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 06:37 AM
hi - this tail needs more coverage :_

in summary :

dan ashta , a member of the " parks district committe " in Morton grove , Illinois does not sand and recite the pledge of allegiance which is part of the commission adjenda at all meatings .

[ the reasons for the pledge being a mart of the adjenda , nor mr ashta`s reasons for not participating are irrelevant ]

what was simply a matter of mr ashtas personal philosophy escalated when the American legion " intervened " , as historically the legion has donated £2600 / PA towards various civic events

but alledgedly as a direct result of mr ashta`s philosophy - they have withdrawn this funding

[ again - the legion has every right to do what it wants with monies it controls - its their moralising the reason I - and others object to ]

the crux of their [ assanine ] reasoning is : they will punish a community because ashta is escercising his rights - and they think he should do as they dictate

then finally there is the extortion , that if mr ashta stands and recites the pledge - funding will be resumed

WTF ????

free speech / expression has to be free - not limited to what the American legion agrees with

the source links :

locan newspaper reportage

vblog oped :

and saving the best till last :

alternate funding

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 06:53 AM
While I don't agree with their reasoning, it IS a free speech issue. They're free to donate based on any criteria they desire, and if they don't like this guy's stance and choose to pull funding, that's their right and their money.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:06 AM
If they want to stop giving because a person doesn't want to stand for the pledge then that is their right. Just as the spokesperson for the Legion said that person is exercising their right to not stand up they can exercise their right also. I can see the Legion's view on this they represent people who fought and died to protect that pledge if you don't support the pledge you can at least respect the people.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:11 AM
They did indeed fight and die for people to exercise their freedoms up to and including burning the flag they died for...

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:21 AM
As Buster noted above, the American Legion is a private organization. They can give or not give to whomever they choose and for whatever purpose they choose. They happen to be dedicated to Veterans. So, this form of protest is especially offensive to them. I'd wonder a bit if they didn't respond in the way they properly can, like this.

On the flip side, the community could, if they agree with the Parks Board Member, boycott the Legion. I'm doubting that happens, which would generally affirm the position of the Legion as reflective of the public in the area, but that isn't even important beyond general interest.

No one can be made to support or donate to something which has become objectionable. Free Speech works .....and works both directions. That support from the American Legion is also a form of protected expression. So, it's a matter for the offended and the offensive to work out, if it can be at this point.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:33 AM
I agree with the Free Speech and the right to choose in donations. I also would never accept AL donations again. They are trying to use their money to remove that freedom. I don't find it surprising but a shame the AL fails to see the big picture in this.
edit on 11/9/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:34 AM
I can understand both sides of this, as both sides are within their rights, but I dont agree with the reasoning, seems kind of like a bully tactic. But they are free to remove their funding that is indisputable.

There is much controversy surrounding the pledge, some people will choose to stand proud and recite it, others will not out of understanding of the controversies from the veiws they hold. Our veterans fought for those freedoms too. which seems a bit hypocritical on the part of the legion, for their reasoning of course, not that they dont have the right to withdraw funding.

As for the pledge itself, this sort of thing happens alot, not necessarily in this context, but perhaps being veiwed as unpatriotic for not standing and reciting the words.

Fun Fact: Before the hand over the heart, there was the Bellamy salute, which resembled the nazi salute. Named after Francis Bellamy the author of the original pledge of allegience.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:43 AM
Pledge allegiance to principles-- like the Bill of Rights--yes.

Pledge allegiance to an inanimate flag which can be controlled by morans like our current POTUS? No thanks.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:45 AM
reply to post by ignorant_ape

The American Legion representative states that they find it disrespectful to the soldiers that died to defend a citizen's right to exercise their first amendment rights by this gentleman to not stand during the Pledge.

I find it more disrespectful to those soldiers memories to attempt to extort these funds and attempt to get this board member removed from the board as they state in the newspaper article, "a park board member stands for the Pledge of Allegiance or is no longer on the board."

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 08:55 AM
You have the right to not pledge and you have the right to not give money to people. It's your choice, and that's what makes the US beautiful. Unfortunately there are people like OP that believes that free speech is only acceptable when receiving something. It's pretty hypocritical to say they have the right to not pledge, but then say that the organization is not allowed to not give them money because of that. Private entities baby, you can do what you want =D

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 09:13 AM
What is the problem here? Is this really something that should even be national news worthy?

Is the parks department refusing to allow the Foreign Legion from meeting at a park, unless they get money from them? Are they denying them a permit of one kind or another? Is the parks department so hard up for money that they require those few thousand dollars to operate or will it just have to close all of the parks?

This is just a disagreement, and a difference of opinion between 2 organizations. One is that the head of the local chapter of the Foreign Legion, believes that one should at least stand to show respect to the flag, the commissioner does not believe in such. Both are correct in their belief.

But the sad part is that the Commissioner does not understand or want to compromise with the head of the local Foreign Legion. After all if the pledge is not important, why is it on the agenda as part of the opening up of the meeting? And why does the commissioner not understand that the head of the local chapter of the foreign legion, was raised in a time when a person showed respect to the flag of the country, as it is a symbol of the country and the ideas that surround such. Where a person would at least out of respect, would stand, even if they did not say the pledge?

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 09:24 AM

Where a person would at least out of respect, would stand, even if they did not say the pledge?

They could respect his feeling of not needing to participate, if they are big on respect.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 09:29 AM
reply to post by roadgravel

Ah but that is another point, and that being the person who did not stand up is a commissioner. As a public official and one who holds an office who represents all of the public, but not standing up, fails to speak for those who find such to be distasteful.

Public officials, sometimes have to do the political thing and make compromises, and the correct compromise here would be to stand at the pledge, or be absent during the pledge or take it off of the agenda. After all is the man not the parks commissioner, is he not in charge of the parks?

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 09:36 AM
reply to post by ignorant_ape

As I read the posts and see the disagreements in favor and against and how we debate our Freedoms and freedom of speck and believe that groups that support certain things have the right to do what they do because is their rights, many have not noticed something very important that in todays politics goes as far as the white house and congress.


Money even if is funded is used as a tool to get what the groups doing the funding wants, influence policies, points of view, law and even opinions and how those that are under that funding even think and behave.

We truly have become to accept that money can buy anything even a simple member of the " parks district committee " in Illinois, I call it briberies no funding, you do what we tell you to do or you do not get the money

The irony.

Now you people see what I am coming from.

edit on 9-11-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 09:38 AM
reply to post by sdcigarpig

Why does he lose his rights because he holds office? Maybe he represents those who don't pledge while the rest represent those that do.

I do get your point though. And he should probably go along with the program or work to change it. (remove the pledge from the proceeding if others agree).

I suspect they have more important issues at hand but I could be wrong.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by roadgravel

The point being he has to represent all in his district, not just those who voted for him or who he agrees with.

Who is in charge of the parks department, is it him or someone else? From what I gather, it is him that is in charge, so would that not make him responsible for setting the agenda at the meetings? Why could he not just remove the pledge if it was no longer done or required by law, why have it on the agenda?

There are too many questions here for which there are no answers coming forth. But ultimately, there is an underling point that should also be pointed out, the destruction of traditions that have been with the country for years. More and more people are demanding the removal of one or another symbol or tradition as they don't believe or want them any more. It is sad state of affairs where people are no longer concerned about the society that they live in, and only focused on themselves these days.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by sdcigarpig

I am basically in agreement with you.


The point being he has to represent all in his district, not just those who voted for him or who he agrees with.

Remember that not every one in a district will be in 100% agreement on an issue. Normally he would go with the majority, I would think.

As for as that pledge, it could be part the process outlined for a meeting that he alone cannot change.

Thinking the news is having a slow day in that town.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 11:52 AM
TPofAligence and saying Hiel Hitler are 100% the exact same thing. Why not just say hiel hilter. Both are soluting nazi's.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 12:27 PM


No one can be made to support or donate to something which has become objectionable.

Oh good...people don't have to buy the Obamacare mandated insurance afterall!!!

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by roadgravel

I think that there has to be a way to change the procedure, and outline. After all how does such get set up, save through a vote, and the agenda set and outlined. Why not just take a vote to have it removed, letting the public weight in if they want it removed or not, and go from there?

new topics

top topics


log in