Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:23:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2979 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl writes:
> > Yet you see no problem in forcing God down everyone's
> > throats, as long as they keep their mouths shut and stop "crying"
>
> Where's the "force"?
The force is a social compulsion. When I was young, I thought that the right
thing to do was to refuse to recite the pledge because I didn't agree to it.
My first grade teacher (Mrs. Henderson - Fern Drive Elementary, Fullerton,
CA) tried to convince me that I _had_ to. I didn't buy it and continued to
refuse. I had a lot of fights that year. I suspect that it got around that I
was an athiest who didn't know his place and the teachers allowed my
victimization...but maybe they were all completely clueless instead. I have
transmitted a discomfort with the PoA to my son who has opted to rise with the
other students and usually remain silent instead of drawing attention to
himself...probably a better choice, since he's more prone to social pressure
than I was.
What I ask you, John, is why should any little child have to make those kinds
of decisions about integrity, right and wrong, bucking the system, and social
capitulation? Shouldn't the schools be protecting them from such things? Why
should you and the other right-wingers be allowed to hurt my little boy?
Really? It just makes me see red when we have an historic opportunity to right
a wrong and people don't want to.
> No one is being forced to say the pledge (that was ruled upon in
> '43),
A court ruling doesn't make it so. Unless you define "force" foolishly. No
one is forcing me to pay income tax either...unless I want my doors kicked in
so federal agents can get better aim at me. What do you consider force?
> and "the de minimis tendency of the Pledge to establish a religion or to
> interfere with its free exercise is no constitutional violation at all".
You and a judge can say that, but I don't thin
> > "And so what if a person wants to become a citizen of this country
> > and is required to cite "under God". Nobody is forcing them to become a
> > citizen. " (Your words)
> > ...of course, that's persecuting atheists, now, isn't it?
>
> I don't know if anyone has ever claimed thus.
Well, Tom has. And it's pretty clear isn't it? You aren't specifically saying
that it isn't, but you kind of suggest it. So what do you think?
> And what's next on the edit list, Tom? Coins? Declaration of Independence?
> The National Anthem? The nuts here are those bound and determined to strike
> every iota of reference to God from our culture, regardless of the effect upon
> them or country.
I think that religious references should be stricken, at least, from oaths and
pledges that people are socially expected to take part in. To do less is to
specifically draw attention to those who refuse to take part.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
