Jeff: Protest is an ingredient of the American landscape. If it were as much a part as compliance, we would never go anywhere but down the drain. That protester is just as obligated to show respect unless we are talking about The Boston Tea Party. That fist in the air cr@p has gotta go. He's making a scene not a legitimate proptest. He's no Samuel Adams. This is petty. The "wretched refuse" still have an obligation to fit in not to demand our adjustment to their wretchedness. We do a pretty good job of it, but isn't it our centeredness in and commitment to Christian tradition which makes all this possibe? We are more tolerant than most but not perfectly tolerant.
giddyup: Please bold the quotes and use normal font on your own statements. It took me an extra minute to figure out which ideas were yours in your last post. History has shown that compliance can be far more dangerous than protest. Nazi Germany comes to mind. I don't see exactly how raising one's fist in silence is either disruptive or disrespectful? It's not like the kid took a dump on the flag during the Pledge. But assuming it is disrespectful, our First Amendment allows for freedom of speech, with limits on prurient (i.e. pornographic) and dangerous (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theatre) speech. The raised fist fits into neither of those two limits. No matter how much you dislike his form of protest (I don't particularly like it when certain Christians protest something by telling the participants they're going to hell - as if they know this for sure), the student was well within his Constitutional rights. I'm not sure how anyone, wretched refuse or otherwise, is supposed to "fit in." Are they supposed to go along with what the person next to them is doing? That doesn't seem very compatible with the land of "rugged invidualism." Must they recognize the Christian God? That would go completely against the Constitution. Or is there a manual for American behavior that I don't know about? If so, I need to get one. I think the Founders minimized the Christian influence on our laws precisey because they recognized that future generations might not hold the same religious beliefs as themselves. And they wanted to avoid at all costs the religious tyrannies that forced their forefathers to leave Europe. Although including"Under God" in the Pledge doesn't instantaneously tranform our country to a theocracy, forcing someone to say (or even just complacently accept) that phrase sends a message that those who dissent will not be tolerated (or in this case, physically punished). At some point, that intolerance will be ingrained enough that someone with more sinister motives could use it to discriminate further against the non-Christians. It's the same slippery-slope argument used by gun advocates who think that gun registration will eventually lead to gun confiscation. I'm glad the court is hearing this case. I hope the school's attorneys have their asses handed to them.
Yeah, sorry about that copying, I was in a hurry. I'll go back and edit it for clairty. We all spend about 99.9 percent of our time complying, so I don't see it as the threat that you do. There comes a time to stop complying and when it is here most of us will know it. This kind of juvenile posturing by this kid is not it. The "wretched refuse" was Jeff's term; I just went along with it. This is the land of opportunity for the wretched to make something for themselves here. They can acclimate to us not us to them. This is the multi-cultural dance we're doing. How wide the variety of religious challenges we face today. I know that the founding fathers didn't fact this number nor could they imagine such a buffet of belief. Yes, they minimalized it but they didn't erase it.... and that's important. If they were really so uptight, wouldn't they have taken the ultimate step of erasure instead of tethering? I think that is a hugely important fact. If you are going to accept the gift of a public education, is it too much to ask that you follow the traditions?
This is fine if you agree with the status quo. What if the country was predominantly non-Christian and you had to fight for every inch of your belief? I think that we underestimate the need for protest when we don't have the need to protest. The result is often complacency. As a boss I used to have was fond of saying, "If you aren't moving forward, you're going backward. There is no sideways." Your view on abortion would be reflected in this. Would you be willing to give up your right to protest it if the vast majority of Americans thought it was ok? Somehow, I doubt it. But that is YOUR definition of "legitimate" and "petty." Not his. You cannot possibly make that determination for him any more than he can make that decision for you. You are basing your ideas of what is appropriate on what YOU think is appropriate, but that doesn't work for everyone. Just wondering, how did you feel about the African American athletes who held their fists up during the '68 Olympics? I think it is more about assimilation than simple adjustment one way or the other. What makes us strong and always fresh and full of energy is our ability to incorporate the traditions and ideologies of people from other countries. I think that the vast majority of immigrants bend over backwards to fit our traditions but there is no question that we also add their culture into our system. If you don't believe in the patriotism of new immigrants and think you are patriotic, try visiting someone who just became a citizen for their first foruth of July celebration. You'd be amazed. Yes, but which Christianity? Catholicism, conservative Protestant, Southern Baptist, Quaker, Puritan, Unitarian, Church of God in Christ??? Remember that the vast majority of our founding fathers were Unitarian or Quaker. Unitarians and Quakers are extremely progressive versions of Christian thinking. This ain't exactly the Southern Baptist Convention! Even I could be a Quaker. The point is that you have to be careful when you say that "Christian tradition" has made all the difference. There is no question that a ethical and moral center has given us a strong foundation in America, but religion does not hold any exclusivity on making that possible. There were plenty of great non-religious and non-Christian men and women who made tremendous advances in the way we live and plenty of Christian and religious men and women who set us back through their practices. Religion and Christianity are components of our success but not determinants.
Hey man, I <b>was</b> a Quaker!!!! I get your drift but I think you are exagerating. Is this kid "fighting for every inch of his belief?" Not from where I sit; he is just acting out from the description I read. I imagine he was just making trouble. If we are ever anywhere near that point of desparation, I'll be right there with you on this point of view. Frankly, though, I think it is wasted on episodes like this. <b>If everything is crucial, then how will we recognize what is really crucial when it assails us?</b> That's what we need to be prepared for and to act upon. Comparing this to Nazism is way overboard. He has the "right" to protest as he sees fit. I have never denied him that right. The school has the "right" to punish him as deemed appropriate. My squabble is with his defenders who lionize him and his cause not him. See I'm not denying his right to protest. I just don't respect his protest. Not all protests are equal. Protesting abortion rights involves saving future innocents. No one can argue that those fetuses if provided nourishment and time will be humans when they are born. I happen to think they are humans before they are born, but that's another argument! I think what makes us strong is remaining vitally American not incorporating "the traditions and ideologies" of other nations. I'll be the first one at The Greek Festival or to grab Mexican food at Cinco de Mayo but I remain an American and the vitality of those cultures are energized by the freedom and strength found only in America. Isn't that why they brought that culture here? I don't mean to imply that only Christian tradition is responsible for America's greatness because I know that there are other non-Christian contributors and contributions. Our governmental practices are riddled with Christian imagery, symbolism and traditons. You have to admit that it is the center rail.
Well, I agree that this isn't exactly a huge deal. I think the point is that we don't really have the option of questioning his protest based on our beliefs. I'm not one to think that a high school kid is necessarily some gand idealist, but that really isn't for me to say. But you illustrated my very argument. You think your protest is more important because of your belief. There are plenty other people who would disagree with you. Some might argue that the WTO protesters are a bunch of hippie idiots while others might call them important patriots. It really is in the eye of the beholder and it isn't really up to you or me to define the parameters of what is of value and what is not for someone else. For ourselves? Absolutely, but not for others. There were millions who disagreed with freeing the slaves, giving women rights, eliminating sweat shops, etc. It is our responsibility to question things. We have to be true to ourselves no matter what others may think. That's really a contradiction. Our traditions as white Americans were adopted from Europe. Quite a few of our major holidays originated in Europe or other parts of the world. It's why they call it "the great American melting pot." We get to enjoy the many traditions brought here by other cultures. It isn't a threat. It is a blessing. In fact, I saw a special on the origins of Christmas last year. The tree came from Germany. The treatment of "Old St. Nick" was from great Britan. Other elements of the tradition came from Asia, Africa and even Latin America. In fact, it wasn't even until the portrayal of Santa Claus by Coca Cola in the middle part of the last century that we adopted the holiday tradition as it is today. If you want to go back even further, the Christmas holiday was an adapted version of the winter solstice as a way to take the focus away from the original pagan holiday and put it on Christianity in Europe. Jesus' actual birthday was most likely in June according to historians. Hell, even fireworks for the Fourth of July (the most American of holidays) were an invented in Asia and perfected in Italy. The point is that the incorporations of these cultures are often much more subtle than we realize and they make our lives as Americans richer and infinitely more interesting. That's true. IMO, the center rail of our moral compass is very likely Judeo-Christian ideas, but the degree of their application is what is important in defining our right to choose.
Here are my thoughts on this subject. Feel free to disagree. 1) To ban the pledge just because it says "under God" is ludicrous. We are, and always have been a largely theistic country (96% at last count). Silencing the pledge due to this verbiage is really the minority imposing their views on the majority by SQUELCHING ANY expression of it. 2) If you REALLY want to talk about history, the Establishment Clause to the First Amendment was written at a time when going against the Anglican Church in England was a CRIMINAL OFFENSE. That situation is what they were trying to avoid. I don't know why more people don't understand that conceptually. 3) If you are an atheist who is diametrically opposed to anything to do with God, I will accomodate you. Please send me all of your money so you are not forced to see "In GOD we Trust." 4) If you have convictions against saying the pledge for ANY reason, please feel free to not say it. In fact, feel free to not even stand up during it. That is your right and your symbolic speech. In fact when I was in high school (many moons ago), a classmate did not stand for the pledge because he was a Jehova's Witness. Nobody batted an eye. Some people may not agree with him, but I cannot recall him catching any flack for it either. It is a simple matter of respect and civility. 5) Hitting somebody for refusing to say the pledge is flat out stupid. The individuals involved should be dealt with in an extremely harsh manner. Thank you for your consideration.
<b>Jeff</b>: I'm not really interested in questioning his beliefs. I've gotten into this because I am questioning those who would energetically defend him. As <b>refman</b> said, he could have found a way to not say the pledge that would have been less disruptive and in-your-face. Seems like that's what got him in trouble-- not just not saying the pledge. Kids have gotten away with that for years! That those fetuses will turn into humans is not my belief; it is fact. On that fact alone, I have a problem with abortion. That I believe those children in utero to be human as well I only have to articulate because some would deny that in order to make their argument-- a desperate move I say! Some people don't want me trampling upon tree seedlings because I'm destroying a future tree. Humans are way more important. I know, you think that's just my opinion. The problem with your perpetual relativism is that we can never take a stand on anything. It has to begin and stop somewhere, doesn't it? The problem is that The Great American Melting Pot used to simmer. Now it is boiling over. This becomes a cultural crisis. Nowhere is unchecked growth a good thing-- except at your account at a local financial ilnstitution known as a bank.
this is an interesting point.... i had a professor in college tell me the very idea of a melting pot was racist and nationalistic...that people should not be persuaded to become a part of a new culture, but should merely hang on to their own (no need for English only, etc.) -- oddly enough, it's typically the same people who espouse these sorts of thoughts who also support world government. my thoughts on that (as if you wanted them?): 1. it's completely unworkable...we are, in fact, a people tied by some common bonds, even if that bond is only that you're my next door neighbor and we share the same geographic community. 2. there's been a good deal of comparison with America and the fall of Rome....THIS is exactly the kind of thing that brought down Rome...in seeking to accomodate every new culture they created a fragmented society... 3. my family is irish...we are long since past seriously celebrating irish culture...go back two generations from my parents, and they did still celebrate irish culture. but they also busted their ass to "fit in" in the land of opportunity. what i'm trying to say (and not doing a very good job at it)...is that i would never ask someone to give up their religion and culture to move here...to make a new life here...but i would ask that they not scoff at every tradition this country has celebrated for 226 years.
As usual, I agree totally with Max. With every post you get even smarter Max. There have been many references in this thread to the great American melting pot. If this is a melting pot (in which we get immesurable freedom and benefits), shouldn't all of the people who come over here be expected to melt just a little bit? THAT is how this country flourished. What has become readily apparent is that the left wing view of the 1st Amendment is so warped that we can boil it down as follows. According to the left, gay pride parades are somehow good for us and are protected on the city streets, but a nativity scene at Christmas is somehow a travesty and should be impermissible. Sadly, the same goes for the pledge. Apparently kids should just have a gay pride march before class and a reading of "Heather has Two Mommies" at lunch. This, frankly, is a dumbass view of the 1st Amendment which completely ignores history and tradition, not to mention common sense.
As I stated earlier and everyone managed to ignore, most new citizens are FAR more patriotic than the majority of us who were born here. Ever been around a family who just became citizens? It's the 4th of July every day! I think you are overstating. In terms of gay pride vs. the nativity, I don't know anyone who would be against private versions of either. However, I wouldn't particularly be a fan of public displays of either sponsored by the city, state or federal government. Since gay pride parades are organized and run by private organizations who obtain legal street permits (just like any other parade or festival), I don't see the issue. Same thing goes for a public nativity scene. Actually, I think live nativities are quite comforting. It is mostly about having the right to choose something different. Another point I made that was also largely ignored is that I cannot imagine Christian parents being ok with a public school that required chants (or pledges) to Mecca five times a day or Buddhist meditation or prayers (or pledges) to Shiva. It isn't about ignoring history and tradition. It is about our public institutions gving us the freedom to choose what we want for ourselves and our children without prejudice.
it's all starting to come together now isn't it?? my little secret is slowly creeping out....first came the gay survey index that we all took here...you may remember my attention to my eyebrows...and then came today's comments about shopping and how much i enjoyed it....now this. damn...i can't hide it any longer!! actually, refman is a friend of mine from law school...while we do agree on more than a few topics, i'm betting there was a hint of joking sarcasm in that statement too. it's all good!
LOL Max! Great response -- Jeff and I were both cracking up over your pained "confession." Knowing what a devoted family man you are, I assumed you and Refman were merely good friends. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
you can never go wrong ending any post with a seinfeld reference! sure fire way to get a laugh from me!! i can just see me trying to convince some girl here i'm not gay, playing the Costanza role..."do you wanna have sex right now? come on, baby!! let's go!!!"
You people are sick. Anyway, to the issue at hand. There is Supreme Court precedent (the citation escapes me at the monent) stating that there may not be a nativity scene on public grounds. So if I were a church and wanted to put a nativity scene in the park, I can't. But if I were a gay pride group putting on a rally in the park it's perfectly ok. That is really the point I was getting at here. The left uses the First Amendment as a shield when there a speech that they like (gay pride) and a sword when they don't (nativity). All I seek is a little consistency. I don't think it's much to ask.
Refman: I know what you mean. Honestly, I think that in some instances you are correct. However, the right does the same thing with, for example, gun control (or lack of it). The second amendment is severly stretched there. Even the issue of illegal search and seizure is defended with "well, if you have nothing to hide..." I think we all make defenses based on our beliefs and our interpretation of the laws as we see them. No real surprise there. To suggest that the left is any more pervasive in that effort really isn't being totally honest. Both sides are guilty of using the Bill of Rights for their own purposes. It's you damn lawyers that are at fault anyway!!! BTW, Max, I'm still laughing over that Costanza reference!
There is legal seperation of church and state. There is no legal seperation of gay pride and state. I really don't see why you insist with this comparision. There are Christmas and Easter parades on public streets. I'll make a deal with you. You can put your nativity scene in the park if I can put a statue of 2 men kissing.
