Court Decision on the Pledge of Allegiance

[JoBelle]

The issue is not at all about "political correctness". It is most definitely not about individual or communal rights to use religious language, worship, etc. That is well protected--BY THE SAME CONSTITUTION WHICH PROHITS THE CONGRESS FROM INVOLVING ITSELF IN RELIGION. The issue here is the true meaning of our Constitution and our living according to that meaning.
dig dug dog [/B]

DDD,
Applying the "true meaning of our Constitution and living according to its meaning" is the basis for what we refer to as "political correctness." The basis is founded in educational, social or political change to make up for past injustice. Check out Webster's. For every legal maneuver that someone takes against what we otherwise label as "tradition," there are words backed by the founding fathers' sentiment. Certainly, the ability to reinterpret these words is what makes the US everlasting to this point. *Take a look at the legal aspects of Islam that didnt' allow for change and where it is now.*

I'm not arguing that that religion be supported by our government. You personally know I will be the first person to stand up and say it doesn't belong, based on our own doctrine. HOWEVER, let's be honest....this is another fine example of PC in action. I'd like to see someone argue a point without falling on the Constitution. I'd like to see a hard and definitive statement that can convince me without saying, "The paper says so...so THERE!"

Now, as far as the American attitude of "if you dont' like it then leave"....It might not sound nice,but ummm...isn't that exactly what our founding fathers did when they didn't like it where THEY were?? They packed a bag, jumped a ship, and found a green and fertile land we now call home to live out the ideals that weren't making them happy where they were. *shrug* Just playing devil's advocate. 😉

Joby

 

[soleshine]

I'll attempt that Jobelle, although it sounds like it's getting a little heated in here 🙂. For some reason I feel like I'm defending "political correctness" whatever that is. I think it means different things to different people. For me, PC is just about trying to put myself in someone else's shoes in order to better understand their experience and then looking at myself to see if I am somehow being oppresive...especially since I have a lot of unearned privilege and power in this society (i.e. I'm a white, heterosexual, male). Those in power across the Atlantic when our foreparents (some more "pc" for ya) left for this land, were unable to successfully do this. Now, it seems we are faced with a related issue (just not nearly to that extent), but I think we're running out of places to escape to (Native Americans weren't too happy with THIS arrangement anyway).

So, in trying to understand where this guy is coming from, I put myself in the place of a child who is an athiest in a public school. Yes, I know that his daughter has said that she doesn't really care one way or another, but she is young and may not even recognize the impact of being a minority until she is older. I'm certain this is all terribly embarrassing for her, though, and I think that this guy has inappropriately involved her. Nevertheless, having the teacher stand up and lead the class through an acknowledgment of god, demonstrates a preference for a particular way of thinking and could very well leave an athiest child feeling leftout, unappreciated, or even devalued. I can remember being in elemtary school and I know that being included, aprreciated, and valued is everything to a child.

We have a system set up (sorry for the constitutional reference, Jobelle) that is supposed to guard against this sort of thing and I think the judges were just doing their jobs. The fact is that we are an extremely diverse nation (spiritually and otherwise) and I think that any pledge to its flag should reflect that. No one is asking people to deny that there is a god, I just want to respect that not everyone believes it.

 

[dig dug dog]

Well said, soleshine, well said.

Dear giggleygirl--

I'm not sure why you think that bringing a case to court and having Federal judges rule in your favor is "forcing your will down someone's throat". The atheist in question did not "force" anything--he is making valid use of our amazing legal and constitutional system and, in the process, is helping us clarify the meaning of being American. Many great principles of our system were brought to light through cases involving a single citizen.

And last, but certainly NOT least--Dear Jo:

"For every legal maneuver that someone takes against what we otherwise label as "tradition," there are words backed by the founding fathers' sentiment."

As I'm sure you're aware, Jo, the same could be said about slavery and women's right to vote. Was the 13th Amendment to the Constitution an act of "Political Correctness"?

When I said that this discussion is NOT about political correctness, I meant the following: PC, as it is now commonly used, refers to "an extreme, unreasonable or humorless avoidance of any word or act which could cause any person, being, or entity even the slightest degree of embarrassment or discomfort" (The Digtionary 2002).

To me this discussion is not at all about the personal discomfort or inconvenience of that particular atheist or his family. Rather, it centers around principles like the separation of religion and state. These are principles worth fighting for because (and now, Jo, you start to hear a rationale for the Constitution's words, not merely an appeal to its authority) they protect minorities like Jews, Catholics, Moslems, Hindus, and so forth. What if Congress passed a law saying the Pledge should end with “in Jesus’ name”? A large majority of Americans might welcome this change: “Why be so ‘PC’ as to worry about whether a small minority of Jews and others might not approve? Hey—if those Jews don’t like it, they can just pack up for Israel anyway! Why let the sensitivities of a few spoil the religious passion of the many? In these troubled times, we need to rally around our Lord, etc., etc.”

A second reason for prohibiting the establishment of religion by our government is how unhealthy it is in a democracy for the character of religion itself when it is State-sponsored. When government gets into the religion business, it’s bad for business. There are too many examples of this all around the world. I’ve always been surprised that more Republicans—who want to limit governmental involvement in all things—don’t realize this. At the same time, have you noticed recently how much religious fervor has been generated when people feel that it is really up to them to preserve their own beliefs. When was the last time those Senators really thought about the words “under God” when saying the Pledge? If you compare the religious situation in America to that of secular Western Europe, you will see the wisdom of separating religion and state.

Finally Jo, let me try to explain the problem with your analogy concerning the doctrine “love it or leave it”. The Declaration of Independence is a document which attempts to explain and justify the need for revolution. Its premise is that revolutions should be rare and require extreme provocation. Our Founders attempted to create a new system where revolution or fleeing would not become necessary because the rights of all would be guarded and independent sources of governmental power would check and balance one another. Instead of having to run away from America if the goverment does something unjust, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution protects our right to a "redress of grievances". Are you suggesting that the US has become tyrannical like 18th-century England? That would truly be a much graver situation than dropping “under God” from the Pledge--which was never there until 1954 anyway.

dig dug dog

 

[qjakal]

Discussion indeed...

I knew this topic was going to be hopping...it has the sort of emotional content and flavor that brings out the best in Forum activity! Lot of good points made all over the place....glad some folks stepped back when things got too heated, and it's really good to see a lively discussion of an issue that represents quite a bit of what is happening in the fabric of our society these days...we have patriotism, tradition, exclusion, religous issues and some history and legal subplots flowing nicely.

What if we go in a completely different direction for a moment? Perhaps the problem is with the actual text of the Pledge? While the "concept" of the Pledge is fresh, perhaps we need to update the text to reflect the changes of lo these many decades gone by? Is this the kind of challenge we could accept at a Tickling Forum? We have writers...we have ideas...heck, we even have Joby! Maybe we can try to do something on a national level? Anybody feel up to doing a group project? If we get it shaped up, we can send it to the NY Times, and Leonard Pitts down in Miami, and of course anywhere else we see fit...it IS a free country after all..lol. Big project though...mighty big!

 

[Frink]

lol...

If something offends someone in this country, they really should leave.

The guy offended by the pledge, should definitely leave.
Now that the court has made its decision, though, those offended by it (or by the judicial process) should also leave, too. Right?
Taxes too high for ya? Leave.
Women don't like how they're treated in the workplace? Let me show you to the door.
Minorities can't handle a little discrimiation or insensitivity (e.g., find state confederate flags offensive)? Wusses. Bye-bye.

Ahh. That's the kind of country for me: an empty one. All problems solved. 🙄

Sarcasm aside...soleshine, ddd...you both have said several things I would have only you both said them much better, but I couldn't resist posting this. 🙂

 

[JoBelle]

Oh I love a well thought out argument. 😛 Like I said at the close of my post, I am simply playing devil's advocate.

But, to share my personal views as so many of you have, and to be perfectly clear here:

I don't think "under God" belongs in a mandatory pledge of ANY type: to country, to self, to family, you name it. Calling a deity into a situation doesn't make the case stronger than it was prior to invocation!I would balk at my son having to pledge to a nation based in theology of any sort. I firmly believe in the seperation of church and state. Want another hot topic? School vouchers being used for parochial schools. Talk about chapping my bum! BUT, that's another thread! LOL

I DO however, repsect tradition. The Pledge of Allegiance is just that. It's a tradition. Until now, people weren't so upset they thought about slitting their wrists. All I'm saying is alter it, don't remove the sentiment.

Joby....thinking about the effect two words can have...just IMAGINE the power of one whole person. *shrug*

Please continue looking for someone to hang..it won't be me today 😉

 

[qjakal]

Hmm...hanging...

Joby...*upside down* ... hanging with soles facing heaven...ready to be put through hell...oops, new topic! 😉 Q

 

[JoBelle]

Re: Hmm...hanging...

Joby...*upside down* ... hanging with soles facing heaven...ready to be put through hell...oops, new topic! 😉 Q

PERK~!

Mmmm..nice way to hijack a thread!
Joby

 

[dig dug dog]

Qjakal--was wondering when you were gonna show up, old man! Welcome. Now all we need is Strelnikov.

Frink--touche!

JoBerman Pincher--Fear Not! You shan't be hanged until all your Constitutional avenues of defense have been exhausted! Oh--and watch out there about "dancing with that devil"!

dig dug dog

 

[kurchatovium]

dig dug dog

Yes indeed they are my words and I do stick by them. Is that all liberals do when you hit an argument you can't respond to logically is to try to insult people. You have called me unamerican, wrong headed, and objectioable. Now you think I'm like Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro. Gee I thought at least I could get up to a Stalin. Maybe I need to try harder. Lets see how I do.

I don't hate anybody first off. Not the person that brought the lawsuit or his lawyers or his supporters. I am merely stating that the majority of people that like the pledge of alleigance the way it is should be able to have it they way the want it. Last time I checked the majority does still rule in a democracy. OK so if you don't like the pledge this much then home school your kid or if things are that unbearable then leave. If you don't like a movie in a theater you are free to leave. You don't make them change the movie to suit your particular tastes. You just quietly go. No hate. No secret police. Unfortunately no tickle torture interrogations. Just go.

If you notice in the above reply I have not defamed or insulted anyone. Pretty good trick especially for us Saddam Hussein types, huh.

Really I would prefer Stalin to Castro just goes better with the name kurchatovium don't you think.🙂

 

[maverick83]

My opinion, quick and simple...

Okay. I'm too damn lazy to read through all the posts, so I dunno if I'm echoing anyone, but here we go:

My opinion: One should be allowed to recite the pledge, but not forced to. Not just because of the "under god" part, but because it may not be the way they feel. And if they don't mean it, what's the point in making them say it? As for tradition, not something I support. I will not do anything for the simple reason that people have done it before me, I don't care how long they've been doing it.

 

[ShiningIce]

Amen. I have the right to say my views on a subject without being told to leave. 😡

 

[BigJim]

For the purposes of this thread, I'm going to consider myself a hypothetical American.

One point I'd like to address first is the "if you don't like it, leave the country!" lobby. To borrow the words of my favourite sports entertainment star,

"What a steaming, stinking, pile of ..............." well you can guess the rest I'm sure. What that lobby is effectivley saying is,

"Don't bother trying to alter somethng you think is wrong. Just give up and leave it alone." ROTFLMFFFAO!!!!! That strikes me as kind of a shite attitude to have bexcause it insinuates "this country is all mine. I like it the way it is. I don't want it to change and anyone who does can fuck off to Cuba or China!" Hmmmm...........very good. Fidel Castro and Mao-Tse-Tung would be proud of you guys. Ever thought of moving there yourself?

One of the main reasons that I dislike *organised* religion so much, is because I had it thrown down my neck at school, till it choked me. From what I gathered from reading the KJB, the biggest racist, murderer and biggot ever to exist was God himself! Now I never held that to be logical. The God/Force/Oversoul/Godhead/Holy Spirit/Creator I know is full of love for everyone, no matter what their biological makeup. I rejected religion for those reasons and looked inward for a source of spiritual inspiration instead.

Now that I know this was a civil suit brought by some "flag burning" waster, I have another comment to make. I have no objection to using currency imprinted with the words "In God we trust"(or currency decorated with esoteric sybols like a capstone-less pyramid and the All Seeing Eye come to that) and I have no problem hearing those who wish to, swear by it. Someone who wishes to seek spiritual enlightenment via Christianity will ge nothing but encouragement from me. It doesn't matter HOW you get there after all, right?

On a different note, anyone who knows me knows that I am as far from being a lefty as you can get. Biggles of 266 once described me in the chatroom as being slightly to the right of Genghis Khan. Objecting to having organised Christianity rammed down your throat and up your arse from birth, does not constitute leftism.I don't think it required a civil lawsuit top get something like this addressed and I hope this knobber get his comeuppance when he trys to sue over the wording on the dollar bill. This could have been dealt with in a much more delicate and respect earning way, than sueing. Litigation of this nature is one of the things that the rest of the world sees as being bad about America. (And hey, the UK is fast following suit, make no mistake about it!)

 

[BigJim]

dig dug dog

Yes indeed they are my words and I do stick by them. Is that all liberals do when you hit an argument you can't respond to logically is to try to insult people. You have called me unamerican, wrong headed, and objectioable. Now you think I'm like Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro. Gee I thought at least I could get up to a Stalin. Maybe I need to try harder. Lets see how I do.

I don't hate anybody first off. Not the person that brought the lawsuit or his lawyers or his supporters. I am merely stating that the majority of people that like the pledge of alleigance the way it is should be able to have it they way the want it. Last time I checked the majority does still rule in a democracy. OK so if you don't like the pledge this much then home school your kid or if things are that unbearable then leave. If you don't like a movie in a theater you are free to leave. You don't make them change the movie to suit your particular tastes. You just quietly go. No hate. No secret police. Unfortunately no tickle torture interrogations. Just go.

If you notice in the above reply I have not defamed or insulted anyone. Pretty good trick especially for us Saddam Hussein types, huh.

Really I would prefer Stalin to Castro just goes better with the name kurchatovium don't you think.🙂

Kurch and DDD, I hope you don't mind me interjecting into this exchange. If you think I'm interfering in a private matter, please feel free to ask a mod to remove my comments.

Kurch, you seem to be making a series of utterly irrelavent comparisons to get your point across. First off the golden rule about a democracy is that the majority vote gets the biggest say, but the interests of legimate minorities are protected. Just because someone is in the majority does not give them the right to force the minorities to live and think their way.

Secondly how can you ever imagine it'd be practical to home school your kid or send them to a private school, when the vast majority of the population could never even dream of affording such a "luxury?" Having to pay such a severe financial penalty because you dared to stand up for your freedom of expression isn't acceptable, is it?

Thirdly, how is it logical to compare this situation to a cinema? If you don't like a movie sure you can walk out of it. You can even decide not to go into it in the first place, right? You can't do the same thing with your country of origin. You don't decide it, you're just dropped into it when you're born. On top of which, why should someone who disagrees with perhaps on one aspect of their country, have to leave it? That sounds suspiciously like the Taliban's philosophy to me. There are no perfections in life especially in politics, but as I mentioned earlier, the second golden rule is that legimate minorities have their interests protected.
I hav'nt addressed DDD's comments because I hav'nt seen them yet. I'm not biased towards him, but I'm tired and set for hitting the hay now. I hope you noticed Kurch that I responded to your arguments in a perfectly reasonable tone, with no name calling. I guess I am what you'd consider a "leftist" or "bleeding heart, PC liberal." I don't consider myself eitgher and in fact my pet hate is political correctness. The reason I posted so much on this topic was because religious freedom is something I feel very strongly about.

N.B. I'd like to make it clear that I'm not on the side of any litigacious (sp?) minded person, who sues simply for the benift of financial gain and hijacks this topic to do it. This is a subject I'm genuinely concerned about.

 

[kurchatovium]

BigJim

You are right that minorities are considered when they have legitimate concerns. What I would say here is these concerns are so trivial as not to warrant such concern. The constitution gives the right ot free speech and freedom of religion it does not give you the right never to be offended or to hear the word god. The same way with displaying a naitivity scene in public. Is that a violation of church and state? I would say no but others have argued over it.

Yes it would be hard to leave your country of origin which is why you would not want to do it over such a trivial issue such as this. However this person has magnified what I consider to be an utterly trivial issue to the point where I would say look if it bothers you that much then go. Obviously most people would not because the issue is not worth it. You leave your country of origin because of persecution or severe economic problems or something similar. Not because your money says "in god we trust" or your kid says the pledge and it has the words "under god" in it. Certainly there are legitamte issues in the US which need to be addressed and they should be handled by the courts. Things like the death penalty, abortion, etc. but not such minor things like this. This is what bogs down the court system and keeps legitimate cases from being heard. I am not saying that anyone that diagrees with the way things are run in the US doesn't have the right and should leave. If you have a important issue then it should be heard. This is not one of those issues and if such minute things are going to bother you then yes maybe this is not the place for you.

As for private schools I know many people that afford such a "luxury" where I work. For what my company pays us, well lets just say private schools are not as expensive as you might think. In many parts of the country home schooling is not unusual. Even "South Park" did a show on it. Not the most elegant evidence I guess but it is not all that rare. It is usually done when parents wish to give their kids something the public schools don't.

Sorry if I didn't come across too rationally at times but this debate can get heated and perhaps I did get caught up in it a little too much. Anyway you are welcome to interject at any point. Hopefully I am more rational this time but it is rather late so I make no guarantees.

 

[Cyrano]

I love Europe, very fun, very romantic, but you know, I love it right here in America as well. If I want want to say something bad about the way the president's running things, I have that right. If I want to laugh at a joke on SNL about the government, it's there and it's not against the law. We are a free people, though some might not agree, it's their right not to agree. No one's going to stop on their head for doing so.

I've said the pledge in school many a times. I haven't the slightest clue as to what my religion is. I never really think about it, I figure I'll live well and see what's next. If there's nothing, well hell, I won't care, I'm dead. Never once was I offended for having to say God in the pledge. Most people don't think about it. I think we have the right to petition to get rid of it, but seriously, it's not going to do any good. Now I'm going to say, "under aaahhhhh," everytime they pass over it out. This whole thing was planned to make us look like fools. It's an evil plot by aliens to test our habits. "Look at those pitiful creatures of habit," they'll say, right until they have a boot stomping on their head.

My foolish outlook, take care everyone, stay frosty, and keep an eye towards the skies.

 

[kurchatovium]

I think maybe I have gotten a little too involved in this debate and I don't want it to develop into a flame war. I think everyone has exaggerated my position to some weird distorted view. I never meant that if you disagree with any position in the US, or the president, or want to watch SNL, you should leave. Merely that if so many minor things offend you then maybe you just don't belong here in the US. I have a pakistani friend who doesn't like it here. She is not trying to change every little thing about this country to make it like the way she would want it to be. She has merely decided to return to a place where she is more comfrtable. Maybe I didn't state my position clearly enough or maybe I got a little too hot under the collar. I am not sure. So I think I will avoid anymore discussion on this topic for awhile. My apologies to anyone that I might have offended. I certainly did not wish to make anyone mad and I'm afraid that is all I have done.

 

[BigJim]

Interesting food for thought..............

BigJim

You are right that minorities are considered when they have legitimate concerns. What I would say here is these concerns are so trivial as not to warrant such concern. The constitution gives the right ot free speech and freedom of religion it does not give you the right never to be offended or to hear the word god. The same way with displaying a naitivity scene in public. Is that a violation of church and state? I would say no but others have argued over it.

Yes it would be hard to leave your country of origin which is why you would not want to do it over such a trivial issue such as this. However this person has magnified what I consider to be an utterly trivial issue to the point where I would say look if it bothers you that much then go. Obviously most people would not because the issue is not worth it. You leave your country of origin because of persecution or severe economic problems or something similar. Not because your money says "in god we trust" or your kid says the pledge and it has the words "under god" in it. Certainly there are legitamte issues in the US which need to be addressed and they should be handled by the courts. Things like the death penalty, abortion, etc. but not such minor things like this. This is what bogs down the court system and keeps legitimate cases from being heard. I am not saying that anyone that diagrees with the way things are run in the US doesn't have the right and should leave. If you have a important issue then it should be heard. This is not one of those issues and if such minute things are going to bother you then yes maybe this is not the place for you.

As for private schools I know many people that afford such a "luxury" where I work. For what my company pays us, well lets just say private schools are not as expensive as you might think. In many parts of the country home schooling is not unusual. Even "South Park" did a show on it. Not the most elegant evidence I guess but it is not all that rare. It is usually done when parents wish to give their kids something the public schools don't.

Sorry if I didn't come across too rationally at times but this debate can get heated and perhaps I did get caught up in it a little too much. Anyway you are welcome to interject at any point. Hopefully I am more rational this time but it is rather late so I make no guarantees.

Like you Kurch, I am rabidly against people who pick up on trivial matters and then sue the government for breach of rights. That's when the Genghis Khan in me comes out and makes me want to line them up in a field and gun the muthas down! 😀

From what has been said by you and others in this thread, I gather this bloke was suing just for hearing and seeng the word "God" in places where he couldn't hide from it? If that's what he was doing, then it sounds dangerously like HE was trying to restrict others right to freedom of expression.

Now call me telepathic, but just a few weeks ago I was thinking about hypothetically living in America, either as a child or an adult. Oddly enough I started thinking about the Pledge of Alliegance and felt distinctly uncomfortable about either being made to say it myself in school, or having a child of mine be forced (or at least socially co-erced) to say it. Now in my opinion, nothing has caused more grief, misery, persecution, racsism, sadness, bereavement, war, strife, death etc, than has organised religion. That is why I dislike it so much, and the thought of any child of mine being brainwashed into it( an intentionally strong word!) before they've developed the analitical faculties to decide for themself, makes me feel nauseous. In a way I was lucky I suppose. (Some of you may want to substitute lucky for pig-headed.) I developed a naturally questioning and analytical side to my personality as I grew up. Trying harder to convince me of something that I don't agree with just makes me even more likely to turn against it.

I appreciate that a lot of people can just recite the pledge so that no fuss is caused, but they're only mouthing the words so to speak. This sort of attitude is good, because it gets you through life with no hassle and no troubles from traditionalists. Unfortunatley I could never do that. This may seem like a petty thing for me to take up the cudgels for (or at least I would if I was an American) but I think it takes on extra significance for me because of my hatred of what religion (not God!) has done to people over the centuries.

Kurch, I'll go on record as saying that you didn't offend me, or make me angry. (TEMPERATURE RISING--------RAGE TAKING OVER-------ROOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! 😀) You certainly confused me slightly, but you then explained your views in a clear manner, that wasn't difficult to understand. In turn, I apologise to you if what I said contributed to you wanting to "leave the room." Healthy debate is always welcome and I would'nt want you to think that I had the intention of battering you into the ground over this.

Speak to you again soon my friend..................

 

[Cyrano]

Kurchatovium, I did not mean for that to be an attack against you in any way. I sincerely appologize if it came out that way. It just seemed to me people were getting very upset over this, so I figured I'd start by stating we are a great people and end it with a joke of sorts. Insults are not my thing and I'm very sorry.

 

[shark]

I'm just going to point out some things here,not trying to single out whoever made the associated statement.

As for the moment of silence promoting religion,I see it as giving the interested students an opportunity to indulge if desired.In today's schools,they are given "opportunities" to indulge in all kinds of horseshit that has no place in a school.The only difference is that saying God in public is not PC.

PC might be labeled as an attempt to right past wrongs,but if you look at the methods and structure you will see nothing more than control masquerading as actual social concern.As far as PC is concerned,if you are not PC,you are wrong and must be silenced.This happens in our courts and bureaucracies every day,and is actively promoted in our schools.

The term God does not promote the Christian god,as Allah is the Arabic term for their god.Earlier,right after 9/11, somebody posted that in their public schools,Muslim children were being allowed to pray openly while all other religions were not allowed for this fear of promotion.You explain to me how this scenario is not seen as promotion.

There is a basic misunderstanding of our rights among some.We all have the right to an opinion.However,no one else is required to accept,validate,or respect it in any way.You can tell me I'm full of it,he can tell you to leave, and I can tell someone to shove theirs.The deal here is that PC does not allow open expression of ideas that do not conform with PC ideas.It's communist thought control wrapped up in a pretty little package so that it is more easily accepted.

I did have a couple other thoughts to post,but they seem to be trivial and/or unnecessary at this point of discussion.However,you have to realize that we are talking about school-age kids.They are incapable of meaningful independent thought,do not have the sophistication to filter out adverse well-packaged tripe,and need leadership and examples of behavior.Like it or not,this country's laws,traditions,and values have a Christian-based foundation,and the large majority has no problem with that.It's the small,vocal,well-financed,and system-savvy groups that start this garbage.NOBODY said this guy's kid had to say anything,but now he sees some problem with audio waves and words he doesn't believe in and wants to deny other people their opportunities.

It's a public school,and this guy wants to deny others their opportunities because he has a problem with a religion he doesn't even believe in.Don't these people pay to support this school too?I am forced by law to pay to support a public school system,and I don't even have kids.I say he should pull his kid out of the school and stop forcing his beliefs on the others,which he is trying to do through the court system.

 

[kurchatovium]

I appreciate all the good sentiments especially from you BigJim and Cyrano and I never really got insulted. I just felt things were getting too heated and most points have been made now so there is no point in beating a dead horse. Also I didn't want things to break into a flame war like in the AMT or other unmoderated newsgroups were I have not had good experiences. I think the moderators here do an excellent job but we have to help them out a bit by turning things down if they seem to get to hot. Thats just my opinion though. Anyway I don't blame any of you guys, if anything I was the one getting a little too heated I think. Thats why I figured I get back to discussing tickling for a bit. Thanks again.

 

[BigJim]

I'm just going to point out some things here,not trying to single out whoever made the associated statement.

As for the moment of silence promoting religion,I see it as giving the interested students an opportunity to indulge if desired.In today's schools,they are given "opportunities" to indulge in all kinds of horseshit that has no place in a school.The only difference is that saying God in public is not PC.

PC might be labeled as an attempt to right past wrongs,but if you look at the methods and structure you will see nothing more than control masquerading as actual social concern.As far as PC is concerned,if you are not PC,you are wrong and must be silenced.This happens in our courts and bureaucracies every day,and is actively promoted in our schools.

The term God does not promote the Christian god,as Allah is the Arabic term for their god.Earlier,right after 9/11, somebody posted that in their public schools,Muslim children were being allowed to pray openly while all other religions were not allowed for this fear of promotion.You explain to me how this scenario is not seen as promotion.

There is a basic misunderstanding of our rights among some.We all have the right to an opinion.However,no one else is required to accept,validate,or respect it in any way.You can tell me I'm full of it,he can tell you to leave, and I can tell someone to shove theirs.The deal here is that PC does not allow open expression of ideas that do not conform with PC ideas.It's communist thought control wrapped up in a pretty little package so that it is more easily accepted.

I did have a couple other thoughts to post,but they seem to be trivial and/or unnecessary at this point of discussion.However,you have to realize that we are talking about school-age kids.They are incapable of meaningful independent thought,do not have the sophistication to filter out adverse well-packaged tripe,and need leadership and examples of behavior.Like it or not,this country's laws,traditions,and values have a Christian-based foundation,and the large majority has no problem with that.It's the small,vocal,well-financed,and system-savvy groups that start this garbage.NOBODY said this guy's kid had to say anything,but now he sees some problem with audio waves and words he doesn't believe in and wants to deny other people their opportunities.

It's a public school,and this guy wants to deny others their opportunities because he has a problem with a religion he doesn't even believe in.Don't these people pay to support this school too?I am forced by law to pay to support a public school system,and I don't even have kids.I say he should pull his kid out of the school and stop forcing his beliefs on the others,which he is trying to do through the court system.

I'd agree with just about all of that Shark. Freedom to be different, does not mean freedom to force everyone else to be as different as you. From what I've heard of this court case in the TMF, I'd guess this guy was out mostly for the publicity. I certainlt think he's onto a loser if he's tryi ng to prevent himself from seeing the word anywhere and everywhere. That just shows intolerance or stupidity on his part.

 

[Frowg]

Important part

with LIBERTY and juustice for ALL!!!

 

[BigJim]

Re: Important part

with LIBERTY and juustice for ALL!!!

Amen!

 

[Frink]

just a couple of points....

Why are so many people just blaming the one man for this ruling? Do they honestly thing he's the only one who felt that way? It is a <i> ruling </i> after all. He either had a case or he didn't. Clearly he did. Heaven only knows how many lunatic ideas the courts have filtered/dismissed without any of us even being aware of it. Seems to me, if folks have anyone to blame it's that particular court and/or the entire judicial system. They're the ones with any power. Of course the fact that it's easier to blame and intimidate an individual (or minority) could have something to do with it. Ya think? 🙄

Someone said that "nobody forced his daughter to say anything." Nothing could be further from the truth...particularly in a school environment. One particular comment I recall justifying the ruling was that the only option she really had was to either say the pledge or effectively protest it. In this post-9/11 world I challenge any one of us to NOT say the pledge--everyday--within a group of our peers who are doing so without hesitation. You will probably find yourself with a LOT of explaining to do. You may be labeled "unpatriotic;" you may even be subjected to some forms of harassment. As a kid in school the teacher may (and likely will) publicly question your reasons for not saying the pledge. Imagine a kid trying to articulate or argue her reasons why without getting into further trouble--explicitly or implicitly. There are some things you have to do simply because the majority is doing it, or risk ostracism or harassment or worse.

Need more examples? I have an Ethiopian friend with an obviously non-American sounding name. He called to have a new credit card mailed to him a few months ago and was offered the option of having an American flag imprinted on it. He's an engineer and very pragmatic and said no thanks. The guy on the phone sounds kind of angered and starts to question his patriotism. My friend was pissed off at this, but relented and gets the flag logo. I asked him why did he relent? He rightly reminded me that the guy on the phone had access to his account info, etc. and might do something malicious. Now hears the good part: My friend/colleague is a US citizen (born here), was in Navy, has a Ph.D. in Aerospace (from a prestigious US university) and presently consults for the both FAA and the military.

We should remember that it takes extreme bravery for that man to take a stand on his beliefs (he's already received death threats)...much more than it takes for the majority to hold to theirs. Still, it's the courts--a product of a system that the majority does support--who weighed the options and made their decision. If there's a gripe it should be (and will be) taken up with them.