| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carol Lee Smith" |
| Date: |
02 Apr 2004 02:38:15 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Pledge's Strange History |
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, gammajoe8 wrote:
"Emma Goldwoman" <humanist1@juno.com> wrote in message
news:6325640b.0403270658.313ae422@posting.google.com...
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com> posted an interesting article:
news:<g269c.1668$NL4.203@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
The Pledge was written by a socialist and popularized by
its use in an advertising campaign to sell flags:
"The Strange Origin of the Pledge of Allegiance
By John W. Baer <snip>
http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal/local/70792.php
<snip>
That is a heartening bit of news. The message idea is good,
it is a daily reminder of what "freedom" is, an idea we seem
to have lost sight of in some respects.
OTOH, it is again divisive. Those who
choose to sit, will be thought of as unpatriotic by those who stand.
Maybe not, maybe kids are cooler in that regard than they were
when I went to school.
http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/4913718p-4848428c.html
-----excerpts-----
A Spanaway Lake High School senior has been banned from TV production
assignments for the rest of the year because he altered the Pledge of
Allegiance during a student-produced broadcast.
The student, Kenny Hess, removed the words "under God" from the pledge,
which is shown with an American flag background on classroom TV throughout
the school. Hess also declined to recite the phrase and, instead read,
"one nation ... indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
School officials said they've punished Hess for misusing school equipment
to deliver a personal message. ...
Hess apologized and now wants his broadcasting privileges restored. He's
also drawn sympathy from a California physician, who last week argued
before the U.S. Supreme Court that the words "under God" should be removed
from the pledge because it violates the constitutional separation of
church and state. ...
Every day, students at Spanaway Lake and other schools across the state
begin their day by reciting the pledge, as required by state law.
Hess, an avowed atheist since sixth grade, thinks he's forced to listen to
a religious statement when he hears the pledge. Last week, his world
current events class debated Newdow's case. ... one student said,
"Christians are forcing us to listen to this,"
-----end of excerpts-----
"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true
liberty." -- James Madison
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge's Strange History |
02 Apr 2004 05:29:15 PM |
|
|
current events class debated Newdow's case. ... one student said,
"Christians are forcing us to listen to this,"
Listen. That is all.
Freedom of Speech means that you might occasionally hear messages you may
not agree with. Your religious freedom allows you to ignore that message
should you so desire.
The problem we have to grapple with here is that you wish to stifle speech
that you do not agree with, which tends to violate the free speech rights of
others.
Freedom of Religion is not violated by mere speech. Religious freedom or
expression is violated when one is coerced into practicing religion, or
denied from practicing religion. Simply standing idly by as others express
their religion is not necessarily a violation, and those that express
religion are taking part in free speech. to deny that expression is to deny
that speech. Should you succeed in denying the speech, then you succeed in
setting the first building blocks in place to deny other speech and
religious expression.
The concern for me in this argument is that we protect free speech when sex
and violence is involved, but deny free speech when religion is involved.
The beauty of the American system is that we have freedom of speech, but the
ugliness of our system is that we sometimes hear speech that we would object
to. If we decide that any particular speech should be quelled as offensive,
then we open the door to broadening the meaning of offensive, and eventually
we have no more free speech. If we are going to quell free speech, then
shouldn't that speech be that which is patently offensive to the greatest
number of people? Wouldn't that tend to define sex and violence as speech
that should be eliminated first? The very speech that we should take from
the public spectre first is the very speech that enjoys the greatest amount
of protection, or is at least under the least amount of assault. And, the
speech that deserves protection is under the greatest assault. Doesn't this
strike you as backwards?
When government passes a law that says, you must pray or that you mustn't
pray like that or you mustn't pray at all, then I will stand shoulder to
shoulder with you against government in the protection of your rights. But,
in the Pledge, there is no call to pray in any particular manner, there is
no call to pray at all, so you should cool your jets and watch the rest of
us acknowledge faith with two tiny words. You are free to share in that
faith, or reject it. Until that changes, you are safe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge's Strange History |
03 Apr 2004 06:42:44 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|Listen. That is all.
:|
:|Freedom of Speech means that you might occasionally hear messages you may
:|not agree with. Your religious freedom allows you to ignore that message
:|should you so desire.
:|
:|The problem we have to grapple with here is that you wish to stifle speech
:|that you do not agree with, which tends to violate the free speech rights of
:|others.
************************************************
.. . . The result is a tyranny of principles (including the emotivist's
principle of deference to "objective expertise"), as well as a concomitant
response in favor of a tyranny of individuals (anarchy). These twin aspects
of emotivism are evident, for example, in the rise of efforts, under the
rubrics of free speech and free exercise, to place formal Christian prayers
sanctioned by school authority back into the public schools. The free
exercise right is asserted here in terms of anarchical, radical individual
rights: "my" individual rights, "my" absolute right to free exercise,
without regard to the disestablishment principle or to competing interests
of the community. Interestingly, where they are able, religious adherents
(also or instead) argue the authoritarian side of emotivism: They reject
any court's interpretations of the first amendment which recognize civil
liberties contrary to their beliefs because these interpretations are based
upon nothing more than the justices' personal opinions and subjective
feelings.13 Their majority status and legislative influence are the hard
facts which objectively, and thus conclusively, should decide the issue.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Regulating Religion, The Courts and the Free
Exercise Clause. Catharine Cookson, Oxford University Press, (2001) p
(Preface) IX
*********************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge's Strange History |
02 Apr 2004 09:02:32 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
current events class debated Newdow's case. ... one student said,
"Christians are forcing us to listen to this,"
Listen. That is all.
That is sufficient in the case of school prayer to make mandated
school prayer unconstitutional.
Freedom of Speech means that you might occasionally hear messages you may
not agree with. Your religious freedom allows you to ignore that message
should you so desire.
Adults can walk away from a boor exercising his free speech. Kids in
school can't walk away.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge's Strange History |
02 Apr 2004 08:29:54 PM |
|
|
In article <106rtsptm8mtd6c@corp.supernews.com>, Jeff Strickland wrote:
current events class debated Newdow's case. ... one student said,
"Christians are forcing us to listen to this,"
Listen. That is all.
Freedom of Speech means that you might occasionally hear messages you may
not agree with. Your religious freedom allows you to ignore that message
should you so desire.
The problem we have to grapple with here is that you wish to stifle speech
that you do not agree with, which tends to violate the free speech rights of
others.
In the US, people as individuals are free to recite whatever pledge
they want; people as government representatives acting in their
official capacity (e.g., state school teachers or administrators in a
classroom setting) are restricted in what they can say. For example,
a state school teacher cannot encourage students in her classroom to
recite a religious creed as a statement of belief (whether it be the
Nicene Creed or Islam's statement of faith) though depending on the
class [e.g., a comparative religions course] the students might have
to demonstrate that they knew what these creeds contain.
What would your reaction be if you heard that in the country of
Erewhon all the school children were encouraged to participate (though
they could opt to stand in the corridor or not say the words) in a
daily ritual of patriotism with the following pledge.
"I pledge allegiance to Erewhon, one nation, under no god, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all."
Would you feel that the government of Erewhon was discriminating
against Christians and other theists by requiring a practice that
clearly shows students and teachers who are the theists (at least
those not willing to say words they don't believe in) and who are not?
What would be your reaction if you were actually born and lived in
Erewhon and had children in the government school system.
For the purposes of this hypothetical we'll assume the constitution of
Erewhon is almost the same as that of the US. The one big difference
between the US and Erewhon is that monotheists are a minority in
Erewhon.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge's Strange History |
02 Apr 2004 11:30:19 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:29:15 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
current events class debated Newdow's case. ... one student said,
"Christians are forcing us to listen to this,"
Listen. That is all.
Freedom of Speech means that you might occasionally hear messages you may
not agree with. Your religious freedom allows you to ignore that message
should you so desire.
Dishonesty in your attempt at a strawman argument. The government
does not have freedom of speech. The teacher in the class is the
government.
The problem we have to grapple with here is that you wish to stifle speech
that you do not agree with, which tends to violate the free speech rights of
others.
The government does not have freedom of speech.
Freedom of Religion is not violated by mere speech. Religious freedom or
expression is violated when one is coerced into practicing religion, or
denied from practicing religion. Simply standing idly by as others express
their religion is not necessarily a violation, and those that express
religion are taking part in free speech. to deny that expression is to deny
that speech. Should you succeed in denying the speech, then you succeed in
setting the first building blocks in place to deny other speech and
religious expression.
The government is prevented by the first amendment from supporting a
religion. The government does not have free speech.
The concern for me in this argument is that we protect free speech when sex
and violence is involved, but deny free speech when religion is involved.
The government does not have free speech when sex and violence is
concerned. The teacher is not allowed to teach the children to have
sex and violence.
The beauty of the American system is that we have freedom of speech, but the
ugliness of our system is that we sometimes hear speech that we would object
to.
Hearing the government support a religion is damaging to everyone.
If we decide that any particular speech should be quelled as offensive,
then we open the door to broadening the meaning of offensive, and eventually
we have no more free speech.
The government never had free speech.
If we are going to quell free speech, then
shouldn't that speech be that which is patently offensive to the greatest
number of people? Wouldn't that tend to define sex and violence as speech
that should be eliminated first?
The government does not have the right to preach sex and violence.
The very speech that we should take from
the public spectre first is the very speech that enjoys the greatest amount
of protection, or is at least under the least amount of assault. And, the
speech that deserves protection is under the greatest assault. Doesn't this
strike you as backwards?
The government does not have free speech.
When government passes a law that says, you must pray or that you mustn't
pray like that or you mustn't pray at all, then I will stand shoulder to
shoulder with you against government in the protection of your rights.
The government has never said that. The government has only said you
cannot disturb a class with any off topic subject.
But,
in the Pledge, there is no call to pray in any particular manner, there is
no call to pray at all, so you should cool your jets and watch the rest of
us acknowledge faith with two tiny words. You are free to share in that
faith, or reject it. Until that changes, you are safe.
The government has no right to support your two tiny words, per the
first amendment.
Sorry you don't like it but that's ~our~ law.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge's Strange History |
02 Apr 2004 07:21:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:29:15 -0600, Jeff Strickland wrote
(in message <106rtsptm8mtd6c@corp.supernews.com>):
current events class debated Newdow's case. ... one student said,
"Christians are forcing us to listen to this,"
Listen. That is all.
Do you have any problem with telling people to "Listen, it's just paganism"
or "Listen, it's just Satanism" or, listen, it's just Islam?
Freedom of Speech means that you might occasionally hear messages you may
not agree with. Your religious freedom allows you to ignore that message
should you so desire.
Absolutely. But it sure better respect what Jesus said about the separation
of church and state.
The problem we have to grapple with here is that you wish to stifle speech
that you do not agree with, which tends to violate the free speech rights of
others.
No government pulpits. You're backing the wrong kind of government if you
favor the state pushing religion like a junkie pushes cocaine.
Freedom of Religion is not violated by mere speech.
"Bring me the head of John the Baptist."
Religious freedom or
expression is violated when one is coerced into practicing religion,
So, the state should not force a god, goddess or devil on me and has no
business forcing a religion on me!
or
denied from practicing religion. Simply standing idly by as others express
their religion is not necessarily a violation, and those that express
religion are taking part in free speech. to deny that expression is to deny
that speech.
Unless you're pushing religion using the government like a junkie pushes
heroin.
Should you succeed in denying the speech, then you succeed in
setting the first building blocks in place to deny other speech and
religious expression.
As long as people don't use government to push religion like codeine addict
pushes that drug.
The concern for me in this argument is that we protect free speech when sex
and violence is involved, but deny free speech when religion is involved.
Examples, please.
The beauty of the American system is that we have freedom of speech, but the
ugliness of our system is that we sometimes hear speech that we would object
to.
As long as it is not the government pushing the religion, anyone can walk
away frfom the town park or the church or the private school or Ralph's and
Anne's house.
If we decide that any particular speech should be quelled as offensive,
then we open the door to broadening the meaning of offensive, and eventually
we have no more free speech.
You mean like "*****", "white trash","broad", "piece of *****"; is that what
you mean, Bunkie?
If we are going to quell free speech, then
shouldn't that speech be that which is patently offensive to the greatest
number of people?
If you would destroy the republic and substitute you lynch mob.
Wouldn't that tend to define sex and violence as speech
that should be eliminated first?
That's what I did in the shops in which I had some control and in other
leadership positions. No profanity /unless/ a bone had pushed through the
skin or someone had stopped breathing (both - or something similar -
occasionally, happened), especially on the durn basketball court. (SIDEBAR:
How the heck does someone in realtively good shape, manage to break a bone
playing basketball when no one is even close? Murphy has to be involved
here.)
The very speech that we should take from
the public spectre first is the very speech that enjoys the greatest amount
of protection, or is at least under the least amount of assault. And, the
speech that deserves protection is under the greatest assault. Doesn't this
strike you as backwards?
"Shockley's Rule #4: No discussions of sex, politics or religion on the job."
When government passes a law that says, you must pray or that you mustn't
pray like that or you mustn't pray at all, then I will stand shoulder to
shoulder with you against government in the protection of your rights. But,
in the Pledge, there is no call to pray in any particular manner,
So a vague Prayer of Allegiance is okay? When it becomes "under Satan", are
those "two tiny words" going to bother anyone? After all, there are people
who are as wacky as you are with different gods and practices so shouldn't
there be a "god of the day" dictated by the Congress and signed into law by
the President?
"After all, it's for the children."(c)
there is
no call to pray at all, so you should cool your jets and watch the rest of
us acknowledge faith with two tiny words.
There ya go. That's it. Those "two tiny words". Now, I realize that those
"two tiny words" (Seig Heil? is this a coincidence?) can certainly mean
"under god" (Satan) or "under god" (Bill Clinton) or "under god" (G.W. Bush)
or "under god" (the true and only god Henrieta H God) so, since your "two
tiny words" are to "acknowledge faith", surely you would like the Prayer of
Allegiance to be changed to ". . . one nation, under [fill in the blank] with
liberty and justice for all"?
You are free to share in that
faith, or reject it. Until that changes, you are safe.
No, you theocraps are too well-known as perps and pervs. Your good buddies
from the church down the street seem to include Jerry Falwell, Franklin
Graham, Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts and Jim Bakker (& friend).
I would rather small children not be exposed to you or your fellow
"practitioners".
With all that talk about "sin", you're teaching the opposite of goodness and
decency.
"Resist not evil". Do you know why? Because - as the author [FHerbert] of all
that - once wrote, "Because you become like the worst in what you fight".
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
One cannot escape the consequences of his hate.
- Same Guy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge's Strange History |
02 Apr 2004 04:48:23 PM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/4913718p-4848428c.html
-----excerpts-----
A Spanaway Lake High School senior has been banned from TV production
assignments for the rest of the year because he altered the Pledge of
Allegiance during a student-produced broadcast.
The student, Kenny Hess, removed the words "under God" from the pledge,
which is shown with an American flag background on classroom TV throughout
the school. Hess also declined to recite the phrase and, instead read,
"one nation ... indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
School officials said they've punished Hess for misusing school equipment
to deliver a personal message. ...
So much for the claim that kids can simply leave the words out if they
don't believe in God. They can't, and are punished for it, in this
case by the school.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge's Strange History |
02 Apr 2004 05:30:49 PM |
|
|
So much for the claim that kids can simply leave the words out if they
don't believe in God. They can't, and are punished for it, in this
case by the school.
The punishment is not for electing not to say the words, it was for
removing them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge's Strange History |
02 Apr 2004 09:00:42 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
So much for the claim that kids can simply leave the words out if they
don't believe in God. They can't, and are punished for it, in this
case by the school.
The punishment is not for electing not to say the words, it was for
removing them.
What is the difference? How can you tell?
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge's Strange History |
02 Apr 2004 06:54:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Jeff Strickland wrote:
So much for the claim that kids can simply leave the words out if they
don't believe in God. They can't, and are punished for it, in this
case by the school.
The punishment is not for electing not to say the words, it was for
removing them.
That's what he said. What is it you don't understand about "simply leave
the words out" ??
He left out the words. He omitted the words. He removed the words.
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Pledge's Strange History |
02 Apr 2004 10:13:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/4913718p-4848428c.html
-----excerpts-----
A Spanaway Lake High School senior has been banned from TV production
assignments for the rest of the year because he altered the Pledge of
Allegiance during a student-produced broadcast.
The student, Kenny Hess, removed the words "under God" from the pledge,
which is shown with an American flag background on classroom TV throughout
the school. Hess also declined to recite the phrase and, instead read,
"one nation ... indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
School officials said they've punished Hess for misusing school equipment
to deliver a personal message. ...
So much for the claim that kids can simply leave the words out if they
don't believe in God. They can't, and are punished for it, in this
case by the school.
In reading this a couple times ... it sounds like he took the words out on
the written form of the Pledge that showed on the screen in the background
(in addition to leaving them out orally/verbally). I wouldn't swear to it.
It's not clear but I *think* that's what it says....
I wonder what the school officials would have done if he hadn't done
that but had only left the words out of the spoken version....
Or does it really make any difference?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
