Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'UNDER GOD'
The Boston Globe ^ | 7/4/02 | Jeff Jacoby

Posted on 07/04/2002 11:21:05 PM PDT by Kip Lange

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:56 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: cake_crumb
Well said! Straight and to the point. Here, here!

--KL
41 posted on 07/05/2002 11:14:04 AM PDT by Kip Lange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dheretic
Our government is no longer the servant of God. Do you doubt this?
42 posted on 07/05/2002 11:20:13 AM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kip Lange
Although, CG, your argument is specious...the point is that, despite Mr. Newdow's insistence to the contrary, the Constitution does contain religious references.

What part of "liberty" do you not understand?

Mr. Newdow, being a taxpaying citizen of the United States, apparently fails to understand why some portion of those taxes are spent on exposing his child, who attends a government-run school, to a philosophy/religion that he does not agree with. Since some portion of his tax money goes to the school, he seems to feel that he should have some kind of a say in how it's run. What he apparently has a difficulty with is understanding why the state should be encouraging children to recite something that goes against his own freely chosen family values. I can respect that. If Christians (and let's not pretend that the phrase "under God" refers to anything but the Christian view of God) want to teach their children to believe in God, they are more than welcome to teach that to their children in the privacy of their own homes; they shouldn't be demanding that the state somehow reinforce those religious values or teachings in a publicly-funded government school. If the words to the Pledge were changed to say "one nation under Allah", would you have a problem with that, or would you just take it in stride? I'm LDS; if a large contingent of LDS parents at your school decided they wanted to update the Pledge to conform to their religious view by changing it to say "one nation under God, lead by living prophets and apostles", would you object to having your children be forced to recite that because 51% of the of the decision makers, whoever they might be, might think it's a great idea?

Mr. Newdow, an athiest, objects to having the state interject itself into the religious viewpoint he prefers to teach his child. You and I both believe that athieism is incorrect, but to force him to not object to the interference of the state in matters of conscience within his family is also wrong.

43 posted on 07/05/2002 11:27:24 AM PDT by CubicleGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dheretic; homeschool mama; Brad's Gramma; Dakmar; ArGee; EODGUY; All
Paul says in Romans 13 that government does have a legitimate function and the Scriptures largely define this function, but it's very limited. A legitimate function that God gives to government is the punishment of evil doers and the praise of those who do right. Proverbs talks about just governments in which the weak are protected from the strong. Justice and equity are the responsibilities of governments, but that's a very limited thing. Now I didn't say justice and equality. I said justice and equity. In other words, every person should receive fairness and equity, not that everyone should have the same status, the same wealth, the same access and the same privileges, which seems to be an emphasis now. The Bible doesn't teach that everyone should be the same. Those are the functions of an individual's contribution, not the state's contribution. The state is supposed to provide an even playing field in which everyone has protection to move forward. Praise of people who do good and punishment of evil doers makes sure that justice and fairness reign. But then it's up to the individual to go from there. As Lincoln said, the state establishes the conditions that allow an individual to rise as high as his cleverness or his hard work or his enterprise can take him.

Biblically, the government has a very limited role. It is used by God to mitigate the impact of evil in society and also to ensure justice and equity. Some people think, Well, society is responsible for all of our problems. Listen, it's organized society that makes the world a nicer place to live in . It can contribute to evil and often it does, but it's much better than anarchy. When anarchy reigns there is greater evil. God gives us government to constrain evil, and that it ought to do. But God does not give government the liberty to be despotic in areas that ought to be part of human liberty and freedom. This is why I view government as having a legitimate role, but a very limited role Biblically.

It's ironic that for the last sixty years or so the tail has been wagging the dog in this situation. Government has spent much of its energy the last sixty years trying to establish equality rather than equity, and it has used immoral means, theft and despotism, which I will talk about in just a minute, to accomplish inappropriate ends of social and financial equality. So it has done this thing, but it has fallen down badly in its principle obligation to "ensure the domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense", protect life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That kind of thing is the obligation that God has given to government to fulfill, and our Founding Fathers acknowledged and established these goals, and in this sense the goals of the Founding Fathers were indeed consistent with the Biblical view of man and government.

But now the government characteristically has fallen down in that and cannot establish law and order, but is doing a very good job of redistributing wealth which is not its job at all.

What I believe is that it is Biblical to believe in limited government, very limited government, a government whose principle job is to ensure justice and equity, but not to pursue equality. There is nothing wrong with equality, that each individual person has the same as the other; but if the government is the one responsible for seeing that equality happens, if government creates equality, it must become despotic to do so. And despotic government, or despotism, is immoral. The reason it is immoral is that it robs people of God-given liberties. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You give the government power over you and it will exercise that power excessively and in an increasingly corrupt fashion such that men and women who are under that power can no longer effectively exercise self direction of that government. That's what happened 200 years ago, we established this government, and now it's out of the control of the peoples' hands even though we have elected officials. It's gone screwy.


Another thing is I believe in private property. The Bible teaches that a worker is worthy of his wages. It teaches rewards for our efforts. What happens is the government takes our wage that we earn, which God says belongs to us, and it uses it for illegitimate purpose. And not only that, they charge you for the services. In other words, they want to redistribute wealth, give it to those that don't have it, so they take what you have earned and give it to someone else. Not only do they take your money and give it to someone else, which I consider theft because it's not theirs to take and it is not their legitimate prerogative to exercise, they also charge you for the service of doing the transfer. You have to pay for big government bureaucracy that goes along with it.

There are two quick illustrations that I will give you. I think you'll see how this carries out. One is from the past and one is from the present that shows how this is goofy. The first one is social security. I think it's gone totally bad. The idea in social security was that people were growing old without money so the government said, Give us the money and we'll hold it for you, and then you can have it when you get old and you'll have security. By and large, that's what it was about. Now the system is pretty much bankrupt, and we have an inverted pyramid where the people who are receiving are increasing and those who are giving are decreasing, and they've used the money for a lot of other things because the government has held it. It would have been better for them to say, You are obliged to put money aside (now it's something like 14%) but you should put that in a self-directed fund. We'll make sure you take it out of your paycheck, but put it in a self directed fund, don't put it in our hands where we can steal.

We need health coverage for all people? Fine, you just make it a law that everyone has to buy health insurance. Period. The employer can take it out of the paycheck just like any other deductions. Except that the government doesn't get the money. It is self-directed in a health care program. Then everyone who is working will have health care and you don't have to put the money into the hands of the government, so they can't steal it from you when you are not looking. Secondly, you don't have the government bureaucracy to pay for. Instead, it all goes into private enterprise and it does it's job. What a great idea! Why is this so hard? Well, it doesn't take care of the people who are not employed. But it covers most of the people. What do we do about the unemployed? We give them free clinics which they basically have now. No hospital turns away a person who is ill. They go to the clinic and we take care of the unemployed, too. That diminishes the government's direct involvement to about 3-4% of the population instead of 100%. We don't have this burgeoning bureaucracy. We don't have all this meddling and we don't have us giving the government money that they shouldn't have in their hands anyway.

Isn't that wonderful? Weak government still doing an effective job because human beings are able to direct their own destiny with the money that they make themselves and should belong to them. That is very simple. What is the big deal? One of the big deals is government. It's big. It's despotic. It steals from you to fulfill inappropriate ends and it's got to feed itself, and as it feeds itself, it gets bigger and hungrier and it gets more expensive to feed it. Now we have an animal out of control. That is unchristian. At least in my view.

Its unChristian, It does not serve God. I do not Serve the government. Simple fact is, I no longer have to submit to the government in all things.

44 posted on 07/05/2002 11:40:12 AM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CubicleGuy
Mr. Newdow, an athiest, objects to having the state interject itself into the religious viewpoint he prefers to teach his child.

How will he do that? She is a christian and in the custody of her mother who is also a christian. Seems he blew his chance a long time ago.

45 posted on 07/05/2002 11:42:21 AM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CubicleGuy
Okay, first, the argument goes to whether or not God is mentioned in the constitution...whether you like it or not. Second...I'm not sure if you read my posts...but I'm not religious in the traditional sense, not at all.

Mr. Newdow, being a taxpaying citizen of the United States, apparently fails to understand why some portion of those taxes are spent on exposing his child, who attends a government-run school, to a philosophy/religion that he does not agree with.

Could you please post a link to demonstrate how any "tax dollars" are being used to recite the pledge? What, are we training the teachers to say it correctly? (well, I wouldn't put it past the bureacrats, but...) How does it "cost taxpayer money" to recite the Pledge?

What he apparently has a difficulty with is understanding why the state should be encouraging children to recite something that goes against his own freely chosen family values.

If he has trouble understanding why people recite the Pledge, he's denser than I thought. It goes to the honor of the country. Doesn't seem so bad to me.

But, on that same tack, could you then explain to me why it was alright to have a liberal agenda shoved down my throat throughout my entire school career? Why I was forced to view homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice"? In public schools, mind you, all public schools. Moreover, it does take taxpayer money to buy copies of _Heather has Two Mommies_ and _Kiss of the Spider Woman_. Mind you, I was never "traumatized" so much by this that I had to sue. Why was I forced to read the grammatically incorrect _Wynema_? Political correctness. A desperate search for a female Native American author to put in the literary canon.

If Christians (and let's not pretend that the phrase "under God" refers to anything but the Christian view of God) want to teach their children to believe in God, they are more than welcome to teach that to their children in the privacy of their own homes; they shouldn't be demanding that the state somehow reinforce those religious values or teachings in a publicly-funded government school

I'm not a Christian; so I'm afraid I'll have to keep "pretending" that "under God" refers to my particular view of God. Sorry. You're also telling me that *two words*, as opposed to, say, the "Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transexual" major that was offered at my public college is more acceptable? We attempt to teach morality in public schools. And it seems that a good starting point for morality is to actually have something to base those morals in, as opposed to, "Don't kill anybody...because I said so!" There were no Bibles in my public school; again, plenty of copies of _Kiss of the Spider Woman_.

If the words to the Pledge were changed to say "one nation under Allah", would you have a problem with that, or would you just take it in stride?

No, of course not, because as more than one person in this thread has pointed out, the core values of Judeo-Christianity are what the vast majority of this country holds to be true. Yes, of course I'd object to "one nation under Allah". I'd also object to "one nation under Doorknobs", or anything equally out of touch with the mainstream. The God we refer to in the Pledge may indeed sound like the Christian God to many; to me, it was God as I viewed Him...or didn't, as I grapple with my agnosticism. Under your logic, we also shouldn't teach children to read; after all, there are cultures out there that rely on purely oral tradition. It's an absurd argument you're making. You're out of touch with normal Americans.

Mr. Newdow, an athiest, objects to having the state interject itself into the religious viewpoint he prefers to teach his child. You and I both believe that athieism is incorrect, but to force him to not object to the interference of the state in matters of conscience within his family is also wrong.

First, read my posts. I do NOT believe atheism is incorrect; I don't know. Atheists are perfectly free to not engage in reciting the Pledge; no one has ever been forced to say the Pledge. What we're debating now is forcing people not to say the Pledge even if they want to. And to "force him not to object" to the interference of state in "matters of conscience" -- once again I refer you back to the Establishment Clause, the Framers, who were religous, the correct interpetation of the E. Clause -- which is not that "God is not allowed in any public place", but that there shall be no Federally-mandated religion...and mostly, I would refer you to your common sense.

This is the absurdity that liberal political correctness has taken us to. Again, I take it you will not be happy until every single minority group or individual in America is not offended by everything. Again, I submit -- that's not America, and that's not a country I want to live in.

The Pledge issue is patently absurd. It's the result of people with way, way, too much time on their hands. Boring people who will always insist that their minority opinion be enforced upon the vast majority which disagrees. I disagree with the income tax; I still pay it. I disagree with the seat-belt laws; I wear my seat-belt and will pay the fine if I get pulled over. I smoke, yet I don't light up in places where I can't smoke...because I'm not about to pull a Captain Ahab and set my own legal compass on matters. The majority has ruled that I can't smoke inside restaurants in my local neighborhood; therefore I don't smoke inside restaurants in my local neighborhood.

This is what it has come to. Liberals have lost such complete touch with what the average American wants that they are simply, at this point, actively taking hammers to the pillars of American society & culture and then turning to hide behind the very ideals which they so despise. It's ridiculous, and we should not have to stand for it anymore. Why not do the American thing and put it to a vote, since it DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CAUSE? Why? Because you'd lose whoppingly.

It's just common sense. It's what America's all about. Not about getting your 15 minutes of fame with a frivolous lawsuit because your daughter was "traumatized" by hearing other people recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I suppose I should sue the schools because I never had a bike, yet they still taught me bicycle safety laws, eh? I mean, that was awfully traumatic, not having a ten-speed when everone else did. :-)

Not to mention the further implications of this decision, which will be overturned -- reprinting all coinage, recarving arches, not being able to say or sing, "God Bless America" -- it's RIDICULOUS, man, RIDICULOUS, and no matter how much semantic maneuveuring you do, it's STILL ridiculous...I suppose eventually we'll have to change the national anthem because the National Coalition of Cowards will object to "home of the brave" -- that must be awfully traumatic for them. :-P

Come on, man. :-)

--KL

46 posted on 07/05/2002 12:19:13 PM PDT by Kip Lange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
Wow. Nice post! You could spin an entire 5,000 word piece out of just one of those paragraphs (and I don't agree with them all fully -- but that is still a very reasoned argument...I salute you!)
47 posted on 07/05/2002 12:24:39 PM PDT by Kip Lange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kip Lange
First, what an INCREDIBLE oversimplification of the Revolution.

Reductionistism is an integral part of his cult theology.

48 posted on 07/05/2002 12:32:17 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CubicleGuy
Since some portion of his tax money goes to the school, he seems to feel that he should have some kind of a say in how it's run.

It's called voting.

49 posted on 07/05/2002 12:34:31 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dheretic
If you don't want to say the pledge, don't. No one forces you to.
50 posted on 07/05/2002 12:37:51 PM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CubicleGuy
"If Christians (and let's not pretend that the phrase "under God" refers to anything but the Christian view of God"

On what do you base that assumption?

51 posted on 07/05/2002 12:54:58 PM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dheretic
Do tell me how armed insurrection against a few taxes can be Biblically justified.

A) The Founding Fathers were not rebelling against a few taxes. They were rebelling against a whole host of wrongs by a king against an entire population of his subjects. These are outlines in the Declaration of Independence.

B) The Founding Fathers were not basing their rebellion solely upon religious conviction, but also upon the philosophy of the Enlightenment.

C) By oppressing the colonists, King George and his army were no longer "servants of God".

Therefore, rebellion was biblically justified, intellectually justified, and irrelevant, because, by way of circular arguement, much good came of the Revolution, and hence, was the expression of God's will, as well as being a logical progression in the evolution of man's governance.

52 posted on 07/05/2002 2:06:22 PM PDT by Wm Bach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kip Lange
Could you please post a link to demonstrate how any "tax dollars" are being used to recite the pledge?

For the miniscule portion of the day during which the Pledge is being recited, the teacher is being paid a salary. I can recite the pledge, at what I consider a normal speed, in about 10 seconds. Approximately 20 school days per month, that's 200 seconds/month, times 9 months out of the year, comes to about 30 minutes a year spent on the Pledge. Yeah, I know: big, fat, hairy deal. (Of course, I could always multiply that out by the number of students in the class, to determine cumulative time spent for all pupils...)

But, on that same tack, could you then explain to me why it was alright to have a liberal agenda shoved down my throat throughout my entire school career?

It's not. Therefore I would expect that you would understand why it is neither right for you to shove your conservative agenda down someone else's throat. But maybe that's too much to be expected.

Under your logic, we also shouldn't teach children to read...

The skill of reading is politically and religiously neutral, as far as I can tell. Forcing an athiest's child to be exposed to the phrase "under God" as being endorsed by a patriotic pledge is not. There are patriotic athiests, you know. Why do you insist on them reciting a pledge that is not religiously neutral?

I suppose eventually we'll have to change the national anthem because the National Coalition of Cowards will object to "home of the brave" -- that must be awfully traumatic for them.

That's almost as ridiculous as expecting that the citizens of this country will understand what it means when we recite "land of the free" as well, isn't it?

53 posted on 07/05/2002 3:17:06 PM PDT by CubicleGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CubicleGuy
For the miniscule portion of the day during which the Pledge is being recited, the teacher is being paid a salary. I can recite the pledge, at what I consider a normal speed, in about 10 seconds. Approximately 20 school days per month, that's 200 seconds/month, times 9 months out of the year, comes to about 30 minutes a year spent on the Pledge. Yeah, I know: big, fat, hairy deal. (Of course, I could always multiply that out by the number of students in the class, to determine cumulative time spent for all pupils...)

Well, my GOD (oops, look, I said it again), man! We better not announce what's for lunch over the PA or the federal debt will quintuple! By the way, that's assuming that the public school teacher possesses reading skills him or herself. :p

By the way, I think you neglected a key word -- salary. Teacher aren't paid hourly. Why the HELL am I even discussing this ridiculousness? Just proves my point further...

It's not. Therefore I would expect that you would understand why it is neither right for you to shove your conservative agenda down someone else's throat. But maybe that's too much to be expected.

Right...and the Pledge of Allegiance is "shoving my conservative agenda down someone's throat". No one is REQUIRED to recite the pledge. I *was* required to read godawful liberal drivel, and provided with history books that were bland at best and completely liberal revisionist at worst. Get some perspective. Two words in a daily pledge versus an entire public school career of political correctness. Please. Spare me.

The skill of reading is politically and religiously neutral, as far as I can tell. Forcing an athiest's child to be exposed to the phrase "under God" as being endorsed by a patriotic pledge is not. There are patriotic athiests, you know. Why do you insist on them reciting a pledge that is not religiously neutral?

Need I repeat this for the umpteenth time? NO ONE IS FORCED TO RECITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. You don't get arrested; you don't get flunked out; you don't go to the principal's office; you don't get caned. You can *choose not to recite it*. I was NOT allowed the choice of picking which books were assigned to be read, and I *was* forced to read liberal claptrap blame-the-dead-white-men history books -- and spout the same PC crud on tests over and over -- or I would flunk. Besides, the point I was making is that: What if my religion, or culture, is based on an oral tradition that forbids writing? Views it as a graven image? In other words, my culture does NOT view writing as religiously or politically neutral. In fact, I just created a new religion, The Church of Kip, which forbids reading and writing. Do my kids get a free pass on all tests? Can I sue, like poor Mr. Newdow, and get my fifteen minutes of fame? :-) You become increasingly silly. Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time. :-)

And why am I sick of "neutral"? Because it's bland. You want neutral? Then go ahead, get rid of the pledge. Unpatriots shouldn't be forced to feel patriotic! Fat people shouldn't be forced to feel fat, so let's eliminate the word fat from the language! We're already banning the word "Oriental" in Washington, why not just...ban every word that any person thinks is offensive. Be a mighty slim dictionary you'd be buying. Maybe it still might have "the" in it...

Let's blandify everything until nobody is offended by anything...and nobody cares.

That's almost as ridiculous as expecting that the citizens of this country will understand what it means when we recite "land of the free" as well, isn't it?

Ah, I see, a people-hater. ;-) Don't like your fellow Americans? I can't possibly see why they wouldn't find you absolutely...scintillating...*yawn*. Yes, it's ridiculous, my friend, but you have it a bit wrong -- it's about as ridiculous as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that transexuals are a "persecuted race" and can be granted asylum in America, or that you can drive stoned in Idaho as "long as you can drive straight" (both 9th Circuit decisions which were overturned).

In fact, it's almost as ridiculous as someone having such a fragile, weak, pathetic psyche that they're "traumatized" by hearing the words "under God" once a day. :-)

Silly liberal, informed debate is for *conservatives*! ;-)

--KL

P.S. *Man* you must be boring at parties. That is, if parties don't offend you. Do they offend you? I'm sorry. Does the word sorry offend you? I hope I'm not traumatizing you...

54 posted on 07/05/2002 3:53:35 PM PDT by Kip Lange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Kip Lange
Two words in a daily pledge versus an entire public school career of political correctness. Please. Spare me.

And yet, you're hanging on to these two words like your life depends on it.

Need I repeat this for the umpteenth time? NO ONE IS FORCED TO RECITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

So, if democracy (as opposed to liberty) is so important to you, when 51% of a class ceases to voluntarily recite the Pledge in any given class, would you agree that the recitation should be dropped altogether?

You become increasingly silly.

Hey, I'm not the one inventing new churches where illiteracy is the most important value. If you want silly, go see the nearest mirror.

Let's blandify everything until nobody is offended by anything...and nobody cares.

So, you do admit there there are people who find the Pledge to be offensive when recited to include the words "under God"? Why do you insist on offending people at taxpayer expense? After all, it's just two measly little words. Let 'em go. If the teacher insisted on leading the Pledge by saying "under Buddha" instead of "under God", you'd applaud the first person to file a lawsuit against the school district, insisting that the teacher in question be fired, all because the teacher doesn't believe in what the mainstream believes in.

You are more than happy to complain about being exposed to ideas that you disagree with in a public school, but let an athiest claim that the instructional environment at his home is being undermined by the school, and all you can do is laugh and support the doctrine of "eye for an eye" instead of insisting that a parent's wishes be respected. You want respect for your beliefs? Then be prepared to give respect to others, even when you believe they're wrong.

55 posted on 07/05/2002 4:32:57 PM PDT by CubicleGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: CubicleGuy
And yet, you're hanging on to these two words like your life depends on it.

Not my life. My society and my culture. The one you'd like to see scrapped. And I will continue to hang onto it. Until my last dying breath.

So, if democracy (as opposed to liberty) is so important to you, when 51% of a class ceases to voluntarily recite the Pledge in any given class, would you agree that the recitation should be dropped altogether?

Sure, provided that they lower the voting age to 12. Har! Man, you're a stiff one. Anyway, that way, all the kids can vote themselves out of calculus, too. Silly liberal! Think before you write. ;-)

Hey, I'm not the one inventing new churches where illiteracy is the most important value. If you want silly, go see the nearest mirror.

...yet another liberal virtue -- complete lack of any sense of humor. :-P Hah! Good luck getting into The Church of Kip *now*! And we have killer cookouts, too. Nyah! Hehehe.

So, you do admit there there are people who find the Pledge to be offensive when recited to include the words "under God"? Why do you insist on offending people at taxpayer expense?

Are you still making the inane case that it costs MONEY to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Oh, man, pass me that thai stick you're smokin', that's gotta be some KILLER stuff...I'll roll down the street smoking indo, sippin' on liberals' brains...

Of course there are people offended by "under God". Some people are offended by _Huckleberry Finn_. Some people are offended by _Harry Potter_. Some people, in the words of the immortal Mr. Carlin, are REALLY *bleeping* stupid. :-)

After all, it's just two measly little words. Let 'em go.

I refuse to. As the man once said, extremism in the defense of liberty (and that's just what you're trying to do -- curtail my liberty to say "under God" -- and force a minority opinion over a majority sentiment) is no vice, and moderation in the verbal bludgeoning of liberals is no virtue.

If the teacher insisted on leading the Pledge by saying "under Buddha" instead of "under God", you'd applaud the first person to file a lawsuit against the school district, insisting that the teacher in question be fired, all because the teacher doesn't believe in what the mainstream believes in.

I wouldn't applaud frivolous litigation; I would, however, applaud the school board tossing said teacher out on his or her rump. And what universe do you live in where academia IS in touch with what the mainstream believes in? They may recite the pledge in elementary school, but by sixth grade they're shoveling liberalism down your throat...shovelful after shovelful.

However, if the teacher in question is teaching at a private school which is geared towards Dharmic considerations, I'd say, go right ahead, hail Vishnu, hail the Godhead. And let parents use school vouchers to move their kids into that school if they dislike the public school system; if they dislike mainstream American values.

And why not send your children to a school with atheist values on vouchers? If you're in the minority, you have the right to practice whatever belief you want...as long as you don't insist on stuffing it down the throat of the majority, who simply do not agree with you; the majority, who do not see an "obvious Christian God" in the pledge; the majority, whose psyches aren't so fragile that they're marred for life by hearing the Pledge of Allegiance. Besides, do you really want your cuddly atheist children to get mixed up with all those crazy religious types in the mainstream? It's your responsibility to pull them out. There is no law, no precedent, Constitutional or otherwise, to remove "under God" from the Pledge. We've been over that. It's your minority opinion. It's my minority opinion that I should be serviced twenty-four hours a day by high-class hookers at taxpayer expense. Want to help me try to get that one through the 9th Circuit? :-)

You're out of touch with the American people. It's a simple as that. And I *will not* stand idly by while you attack the pillars of American society. I reserve the right to make lots...and lots...and LOTS...of fun of you.

--KL

P.S. What do you suggest we place our hand on in Court when being sworn under oath? A beat-up copy of _Tropic of Cancer_? ;-) *sigh*. Silly liberal.

56 posted on 07/05/2002 5:08:18 PM PDT by Kip Lange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Kip Lange
You're out of touch with the American people.

If understanding what liberty is about means being out of touch with the American people, then I remain proudly so.

57 posted on 07/05/2002 10:10:30 PM PDT by CubicleGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: CubicleGuy
If understanding what liberty is about means being out of touch with the American people, then I remain proudly so.

Ooo, my favorite...when the same people who attack American ideals -- such as liberty -- turn and run behind the ideals they're attacking. :-)

Do you think the Framers, who secured these liberties for you, would agree with you? Do you think, er, maybe they meant, some guy named Bob in a shed with a hammer and a hacksaw was the "Creator" when they referred to all men being created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights? ;-)

Hold on. Wait. I'll go ask Bob out in the shed.

Oh, by the way, is your understanding of liberty from the same dictionary that Bill Clinton gets his definition of sex from? :-) Right, wait, it's the freedom to...be forced...by a minority decision...made in a court as opposed to being voted on...not to be allowed...to say "under God". Hrm, yeah, that just screams "liberty" to me. ;-)

*shrug* You're wrong. Luckily there will always be people around like me to point that out to you, or the world would be about as exciting as a tofu sandwich on white bread.

58 posted on 07/06/2002 7:46:05 PM PDT by Kip Lange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: dheretic
I pledge my allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America and to the Republic on which it is based. Upon my life and sacred honor I pledge to uphold the ideals enshrined in it and to defend it against any who would stand against them."

Don't give up your day job.

59 posted on 07/06/2002 7:50:52 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kip Lange
Thank you for the post and link to a new must read book! On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding by Michael Novak
60 posted on 07/07/2002 10:59:56 PM PDT by Kay Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson