posted
Actually, twinky, I'm surprised that no one has yet challenged the francophone version of our national anthem. "Il sait porter la croix" and all.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Pete didn't sing it that way the other day either. Then again, he sang it a whole different way, but I don't remember what he said.
I'm pretty sure Arlo sings it your way, which I like better, actually. But I couldn't remember how it worked so I just copied it out of the book.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I go by what Woodie Guthrie sings. Because, after all, he wrote the words (although he stole the tune.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has any one here heard of Red Skelton? If so, has anyone who has heard of Red Skelton seen his pledge of allegience video? It is truly inspiring. And extremely relavant to this debate.
Posts: 250 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Found a MIDI-- not exactly the way the Carter Family sang it, but close, and you can hear just how close the tune is to "This Land." When the Carter Family sang it, it sounded even closer.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yes I've heard (not seen) Red Skelton's take on the Pledge. As far as I can tell it's an admission that a devout Christian can tell that it violates the constitution.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hanakah, Ramadan, Roshashana and several other religious holidays are also national holidays. Most of the major religions are covered by a "get the day off work" protection shield.
Are not. At least not in the US. Where in the world did you get that idea? Perhaps those holidays are noted on your desk calendar? That doesn't make them National Holidays.
And I've never heard of the "get the day off work" protection shield.
Next month is chock full of Jewish Holidays. Big important, must-have-the-day-off-from-work days. In my school life and working life, I have never had those days "coming to me". I've had to present letters from my Rabbi, attesting that I didn't invent those holidays myself. I've had to take days off without pay. In one instance, I was told that I couldn't take off those days, no way, no how. I submitted my resignation. The boss caved. When I have gotten those days off without hassle, it was at the generosity of my boss. I am fotunate to have an understanding boss now.
posted
Correction, no, none of those are national holidays, but Christmas and others also aren't, in the way you might think they are.
Christmas is a national holiday yes, but that only applies to mail workers really. National holidays, in other words, getting the day off work automatically, at the federal level only applies to federal employeers. Some states also follow this tradition as well, but there is no law saying that you MUST automatically be given Christmas off.
I think that's something of a myth. Everything is closed on Christmas because such a large portion of the population is Christian, they all agreed to close up shop and not do anything that day, everyone else just got brought along for the ride. So, Christmas doesn't really enjoy any sort of legal protection that any other religion's holiday doesn't. And if you think that it is, then explain why my brother, my father, and I have all had to work 9 out of the 10 recognized national holidays for the last three years?
In theory, a Muslim establishment could remain open on Christmas, and make its Christian employees work, having cause to fire them if they didn't show up. And, if THAT is illegal, it's also illegal for any other religion to have the same protection. There's no ingrained protection for Christian holidays over others.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Christmas is a national holiday yes, but that only applies to mail workers really. National holidays, in other words, getting the day off work automatically, at the federal level only applies to federal employeers.
And almost every other large company, as most large companies follow as a bare minimum the federal government's lead on holidays.
quote: So, Christmas doesn't really enjoy any sort of legal protection that any other religion's holiday doesn't.
Well, no. It enjoys a form of protection that every other smaller religion's holidays don't. But I agree that floating holidays are a much better way to address this issue, anyway.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Employers can make their employees work whenever they want really, regardless of the holiday. There is no federal mandate forcing them to close down for the day.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of companies -do- give paid holiday leave on Federal holidays, and only on Federal holidays. Also, public schools give federal holidays off -- they do not, as a general rule, give Jewish or Muslim holidays off.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I meant originally was that major companies usually shut down for Christmas as well as the government offices. It wouldn't be as weird if it was only companies that did it-that's their choice- but the fact that the government shuts down for Christmas bugs me. I never get paid for any Jewish holiday(I have to use a sick day) but companies usually pay for Christmas. The government does, too.
sorry, was typing this b4 ambyr's post.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think the "floating holiday" idea was good. Give people a choice on the days they want as holidays. Maybe 3 a year? If you shut down for Christmas and people want to get paid let them do some work from home that day? Hmmmm.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
It not infrequently took me multiple trips to the principal's office, with various notes in hand, to persuade my high school that I had not, in fact, merely ducked out of class for the fun of it on High Holidays and ought, therefore, to be allowed to retake missed tests and the like. It should not be difficult for school officials to note the major holidays of America's top ten or so religions (they do print them on calendars) and rubber stamp absenses for those days as approved.
It's not much of an issue at work, even though HR won't approve any sort of leave for those days, because my immediate supervisor is willing to ignore my absenses in exchange for me taking home some work at other points in the week and putting in some weekend hours -- but it would be nice if this sort of flexibility was actually official company policy, and not something that I feel half-ways guilty for doing.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't wait til I have a career. I work just above minimum wage at a business that is open everyday and all requests for holidays off are treated as requests. I've worked Christmas, Easter, Ash Wednesday nearly every year despite requesting time off which I wish to spend with my Christian family.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, EQ, what about "God keep our land". Different countries, different environments, I guess.
It's funny that in our less religious country fewer people have problems with declarations of faith in our anthem. I guess we're too busy getting riled up over the monarchy. You can only get irked with one God-like figure at a time, after all Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I should have put a smiley when I said I would be persecuted and ridiculed for liking the national anthem. I thought it was fairly obvious that I didn't really think that -- I was merely responding to the string of people who said they didn't like the anthem.
And even if I were persecuted and ridiculed for it, so what? Everyone knows atheists are so delicate of feeling that the mere mention of a deity within their presence causes them such acute discomfort that it violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unsual punishment, but I'm not an atheist, so I don't fall to pieces whenever I hear something with which I disagree.
But maybe I'm wrong about atheists. I'm just judging them based on the way they seem to freak out at the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Whatever happened to "sticks and stone can break my bones, but words will never harm me"?
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, another phrase that makes me twitch: "Everyone knows..."
"Everyone" does not know. Don't be a condescending doofus.
And not everyone who opposes the words "under God" in the pledge is an atheist. Don't get your persecution complex in a bunch.
As for myself, I do have a problem with the implied endorsement of religion by the state. Not a huge problem, but large enough to be one of the mocked dissenters in high school.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It not infrequently took me multiple trips to the principal's office, with various notes in hand, to persuade my high school that I had not, in fact, merely ducked out of class for the fun of it on High Holidays and ought, therefore, to be allowed to retake missed tests and the like. It should not be difficult for school officials to note the major holidays of America's top ten or so religions (they do print them on calendars) and rubber stamp absenses for those days as approved.
I'm sorry. At my school growing up, we had kids who missed Jewish and Muslim holidays, and all it took was for their parent to call it in as an excused absence, either before or afterward, or bring a note to the office. One of my best friends in HS was Jewish (Conservative), and the school was very accommodating of him on every occasion that he needed accommodation for. That's the way it should always be.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the reasons I think "under god" shouldn't be in the pledge and "In god we trust" shouldn't be on the money is that I've heard people seriously use these things as examples that it's okay to decrease the separation of church and state and/or for the government to disregard other religions, saying "We're really a christian country anyway, so what does it matter?. See, it's even on the money and in the pledge of allegiance."
(Note: this is not something I've seen here on hatrack, but rather in person and on television.)
I do agree with whoever had earlier said that there are bigger and more important battles to spend your time on, though. I might feel differently if I had a child at school age. Of course, for me the pledge of allegiance was just another pointless daily ritual that school made you do, and I don't think I ever gave the words much thought when I was saying them.
posted
I can say this for my schools: None of them ever made me say the pledge of allegiance. Indeed, none of them ever had anyone say the pledge of allegiance. The only reason I knew there -was- one, growing up, was because it was a crucial bit of the plot in one of my favorite books, In the Year of the Boar and Jackie Robinson.
Given that, I'm always a bit surprised to find out how widespread the recitation is.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whatever happened to "sticks and stone can break my bones, but words will never harm me"?
For someone who was just railing about not wanting to be persecuted, that statement is more than a little ironic.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a pretty strange argument, EJS. Does anyone actually believe that words can never hurt? If you do believe that, then why not support an addition into the Pledge-"...under God or not, as the citizen believes..."?
But somehow I suspect that your response to that would be that atheists (and agnostics) should just lighten up.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry. At my school growing up, we had kids who missed Jewish and Muslim holidays, and all it took was for their parent to call it in as an excused absence, either before or afterward, or bring a note to the office. One of my best friends in HS was Jewish (Conservative), and the school was very accommodating of him on every occasion that he needed accommodation for. That's the way it should always be.
Thanks, kq . It wasn't even so much the hoops to jump through as the "you must be lying" attitude that grated, you know?
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, there would be students who tried to take advantage and claimed to be Jewish or Muslim or Christian when they really weren't to take advantage of the situation. So, I can understand the school taking some precautions like requiring written excuses.
For the record, none of the public schools around here are "closed for Christmas." They are on winter break.
And as someone married to a firefighter the idea that people deserve holidays off is laughable to me. If an employer chooses to give people certain days off that's one thing, but no holiday, not even Christmas, has some sort of magical legal protection that means an employer can't make you work or has to pay you for it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not just atheists and agnostics who want to remove "Under God" from the pledge. I'm a Christian and I don't like it.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Enigmatic--I believe the "Slippery Slope" argument is only justified, is someone is pushing you down the slope. In this case, I think there are plenty of pushers. And I've seen the circular argument--"How can you say "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional when God is mentioned in the Pledge of Alleigance. How can you say the Pledge is unconstitutional when God is seen on our money."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
David Bowles doesn't seem to come around here very much these days, but he had rather a unique point of view on the Pledge:
He thought it was definitely unconstitutional, but that contesting it at this point in our history was a terrible mistake. American atheists are already looked down upon, and fighting tooth and nail over such a trivial issue can only make us look worse and lead, in the short term, to backlash.
At the time I dismissed this as "don't rock the boat"-style thinking from someone who was admittedly an apologist for social conservatism. But I've come to see his point.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
And there is a significant faction trying to prove that the founders never intended for their to be separation of chuch and state.
I won't say it's a "good book," but one well worth reading; "The Myth of Separation" by David Barton helps outline the arguments being used against the first amendment.
I have to add that Barton has been pretty thouroughly debunked as an out and out liar. The book is full of fabricated quotes, out of context quotes, and mis-referenced quotes, all purporting to show that the founders intended the U.S. to be a "Christian country." It shows how far some people will go to push their agenda.
The funny thing is that the "slippery slope" argument is valid, precisely because they use the slippery slope argument that "secularists" are trying to remove god from government.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But maybe I'm wrong about atheists. I'm just judging them based on the way they seem to freak out at the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Hey Eric,
There's a little convention around here that you might want to adopt. When you express a generalization that you know doesn't hold of everyone in the relevant group, you say "some atheists" or "most atheists."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: At the time I dismissed this as "don't rock the boat"-style thinking from someone who was admittedly an apologist for social conservatism. But I've come to see his point.
It IS "don't rock the boat"-style thinking from someone who's an apologist for social conservatism. That it's also a valid point doesn't alter the first observation. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I've excerpted some of the good bits, but you should read it all.
From Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson in 1943 ( before "Under God" was added):
"To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights that guards the individual's right to speak his own mind left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind."
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation," Jackson continued, "it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
And by Eric Zorn:
"Me, I don't want my government trusting in God.
I want it to write laws and create protections for us individually and as a nation as if no supernatural force has us as its special pet or will intervene in cases where government fails. I want my government to trust in reason, in the Constitution (which never mentions God) and in the republican form of government."
To which I heartily agree.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's funny that in our less religious country fewer people have problems with declarations of faith in our anthem. I guess we're too busy getting riled up over the monarchy. You can only get irked with one God-like figure at a time, after all
I'm the reverse of this. I don't mind the queen, in fact I find her kind of fun, but I don't particuarly really want God in my national anthem.)
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, come on people. Have you no senses of humor?
I said:
quote:Everyone knows atheists are so delicate of feeling that the mere mention of a deity within their presence causes them such acute discomfort that it violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unsual punishment,
Obviously this sentence is untrue. I could not possibly be serious in claiming that saying "God" in front of an atheist violates the Eighth Amendment. (And, yes, Megan, I am fully aware that everyone does not know that.)
And, as I made clear, I did not seriously believe I would be "persecuted and ridiculed" for liking the national anthem, and yet some of you seemed to think I was complaining about persecution.
So, just to be clear, I am not complaining about being persecuted.
What I am complaining about is that some of you (Notice the qualifier there, Destineer) seem unable to distinguish between what can be taken as a serious argument and what cannot.
A few clues:
1. Anything that begins with "Everyone knows" followed by something that is not a truth universally acknowledged, probably should not be taken seriously.
2. Anything that asserts something that the author must know is clearly contrary to fact probably should not be taken seriously.
3. Anything that consists of obvious exaggeration probably should not be taken seriously.
Then again, maybe some of you don't know that separation of church and state issues have nothing to do with the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. I apologize for confusing any of you who are so remarkably uninformed.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
People give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were trying to have a sincere conversation, and you belittle them.
After this post, EJS, I'm sure that you'll rarely have to worry about people taking you seriously anymore.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Anyone who begins statements with "Everyone knows" followed by something that is not a truth universally acknowledged, probably should not be taken seriously.
2. Anyone who asserts something that the author must know is clearly contrary to fact probably should not be taken seriously.
3. Anyone whose arguments consist of obvious exaggeration probably should not be taken seriously.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd suggest putting it in quotes, then. People have, very seriously, expressed just those sentiments here before.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
