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]
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.
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.
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
Reductionistism is an integral part of his cult theology.
It's called voting.
On what do you base that assumption?
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
Don't give up your day job.
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.