posted
There are certainly some places where half-serious posting like that is the norm, but in my experience, people tend not to like it on Hatrack. That's all I was saying in the first place.
Obviously I never took EJS to be asserting, in all seriousness, that every single living atheist is deathly offended by the Pledge.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hatrack is more free of the tendency than most places, but I cringe every time I hear anyone say that "Democrats just want to" and "Republicans are trying to" and "That's what atheists/religionists want."
As soon as you reduce a wide range of opinions into one easily debated (and easily mocked) face, you have stopped all constructive discussion.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Looking back at his previous post, I think it was this phrase that most irked me:
quote:but I'm not an atheist, so I don't fall to pieces whenever I hear something with which I disagree.
Since, as Chris said, people here have very seriously expressed things just like this in the recent past, I assumed that his condescension and smugness were in earnest.
Eric, if you were, in fact, joking, then I apologize for taking you seriously. Rest assured it won't happen again.
Incidentally, about the persecution thing, I think a lot of the reaction coming from some religious conservatives over things like the pledge, etc., come from the perceived "war on Christianity." This is what I was referring to when I mentioned your persecution complex. It had absolutely nothing to do with your avowed feelings on the national anthem. However, if you have no such feelings of persecution, then good for you! You're the man! Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
I think most people got it was a joke, the problem is, sadly, most people don't like being made fun of (even when the joke's untrue, which actually makes no sense when you think about it.)
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thing bothers me because it's one more person trying to use law to force the world to be the way they want it to, even if there is not a majority of people who want it like that. That's what it seems like to me. What is so wrong about a parent telling their child "If you don't believe in God, you can leave the 'under God' part out when you recite it, or stand, but not say the pledge, or whatever the heck you want." To me this whole mess is just one more small group of people who absolutely can't stand to have anything other than the exact thing that THEY want regardless of what everyone else wants. There is no attempt to find middle ground anywhere. Certainly re-writing the pledge would be fine, but I haven't seen an acceptable re-write yet. Or any re-write for that matter.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly re-writing the pledge would be fine, but I haven't seen an acceptable re-write yet. Or any re-write for that matter.
Then you haven't been closely reading this thread. Tom D provided one. I could provide another, but it would be largely what Tom D wrote with maybe somewhat different word choice. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about this for a rewrite: "I pledge allegiance...yada yada... One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thing bothers me because it's one more person trying to use law to force the world to be the way they want it to, even if there is not a majority of people who want it like that. That's what it seems like to me. What is so wrong about a parent telling their child "If you don't believe in God, you can leave the 'under God' part out when you recite it, or stand, but not say the pledge, or whatever the heck you want." To me this whole mess is just one more small group of people who absolutely can't stand to have anything other than the exact thing that THEY want regardless of what everyone else wants. There is no attempt to find middle ground anywhere.
Of course, the exact same thing could have been said in the 50's when God was shoved into government.
I look at it not as an attempt to force my opinions, but as an attempt to redress a previous injustice.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plus, there's a big difference between forcing your religion on someone and saying that we shouldn't be forcing religion on people. They are not equivilent. Removing "under God" from the pledge is about getting rid of the idea that the pledge isn't for people who aren't Christian. It is changing it to include all the people who are actually part of our nation. If you are against saying that these people are full Americans, Boris, then I can see how this would be forcing you to change. Otherwise, I don't see how it does.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read every such case, but my understanding is that the SCOTUS puts language into the court's opinion clarifying the difference between outlawing prayer, and outlawing coerced prayer. In general, the public rarely hears the distinction, and only comes to understand that prayer was restricted in some way, not that it is allowed.
In this case, the SCOTUS should rule that the 1954 law is unconstitutional, and offer suggestions as to how schools might address the issue.
My own suggestion is that the words "under God" should be removed from the pledge, but that individuals will not disrupt the flow of the pledge if they simply tack them on at the end:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all (under God)."
Teachers of course have to be reminded of the distinction. It has been pointed out that while the pledge is supposed to be voluntary, teachers are in an authoritative position, and often aren't aware that they are abusing their authority if they demand that all students participate. That needs to be rectified, also.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
> After this post, EJS, I'm sure that you'll > rarely have to worry about people taking you > seriously anymore.
Oh, good. It was keeping me up at night, thinking about the fact that some people on the Hatrack River forum would take me seriously. Now I can rest easy.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, KQ and I got off on a tangent on the lyrics to "This land is your land." But that is my preference for a new national anthem.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
